Attention Hillary Clinton: Step Away From The Nomination Race

I feel sorry for Hillary. She's trying so hard and she cares so much. I'm not a Hillary supporter (and I've previously written about my reasons, so I won't be a boor and bring them up here), but I still feel sorry for her.

I think the author of the letter is working through her competing desires. On the one hand she is a Hillary fan. But on the other hand, she sees the possibility of Obama (and she sees some of Hillary's weaknesses). So even though she is a Hillary fan, she wants to vote for Obama and she wants to do it without having felt that she betrayed Hillary. The easiest way to do that is to for Hillary to step aside.

I don't think HIllary will step down because she has a real good shot at being president. And we've seen that Hillary will engage in dirty tactics to gain support. Hillary is in this until it's clear she can't win.

The author mentions that this time should be HIllary's. Hillary should be riding a wave of enthusiastic support, but Obama at this moment is taking that energy away.

BTW: didn't Candy Crowley on CNN used to follow the Hillary camp around and Suzanne Malveaux travel with Obama? Tonight on CNN Candy was with Obama and Suzanne was with Hillary. Or am I just imagining things? I liked it when Candy was with Hillary and Suzanne was with Obama. That was a natural fit- something seemed fitting when Candy followed Hillary, and Suzanne followed Obama.

Oh, and the woman who wrote the letter certainly goes on- even more than I do. I guess I have competition. Makes me feel better!

I couldn't agree with you more here:

"I think the author of the letter is working through her competing desires. On the one hand she is a Hillary fan. But on the other hand, she sees the possibility of Obama (and she sees some of Hillary's weaknesses). So even though she is a Hillary fan, she wants to vote for Obama and she wants to do it without having felt that she betrayed Hillary. The easiest way to do that is to for Hillary to step aside."

And I think many Democrats, maybe, possibly, particularly women, but I could be wrong, feel that way.

I'm not sure about the Candy/Suzanne switch but I am not a Suzanne fan. I like Crowley much much better.

Thanks for the very lucid comments.

Suzanne Malveaux is a Louisiana gal. Gotta luv her! She looks alot like my sister (most of my family is from Louisiana). I think Candy Crowley follows the perceived or actual front runners. That's why I see that they have switched. I like both of them.

The letter written to Senator Clinton is how many of my aunts (I have 11 of them) who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign feel. They are SO conflicted and they don't want to feel that way. That would be one heck of a news story if she did. Ultra surprising but my respect for her would swell.

I don't know about the Candy/Suzanne switch either or what the standard is (I thought the press person would cover the same candidate throughout the campaign). But if there is a switch, I think it's interesting that Candy moved over to Obama.

"I wondered how many leftish-leaning dinner parties across America were at that moment fracturing, like this one, along the lines of race and gender, not to mention the lesser ones of age and class. From the angry and affronted talk of their supporters, it would be hard to gauge that the policy differences between Obama and Clinton amount to no more than slight nuances and shades of emphasis (should we penalise people for failing to buy subsidised health insurance? Clinton says yes, Obama no – and that's about it, so far as rival ideologies are concerned). ...

... No wonder, then, that the results on Super Tuesday confirmed the theme of earlier primaries – people casting their vote not on the issues of the day but on the basis of their sex, age, income group and skin colour. ...

... Two presidencies are in competition here: one driven from the bottom up, by a former community organiser; the other from the top down, by a combat-toughened former corporate lawyer. There are fundamental structural differences between the two campaigns and the two prospective administrations, but instead of focusing on them as we should, we're still fighting over dinner tables because one of the candidates is a white female and the other a black male."



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato...

The Clinton-Obama schism is worse than any red-blue inter-tribal warfare. The real "civil war" or family feud is within the Dem voter lefty crowd.

Don't write Clinton off yet. Not just because she's the smart-money candidate (Obama is chipping away relentlessly at this) and because she's got the party establishment and the super-delegates behind her (I'll not respect any attempt by her to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates; there must be new elections in those states if their delegates are to be seated). She's still running with Obama and has ordinary vote totals and ordinary delegate totals to show. It's not over until it's...over.

Ok - let's suppose I buy this for a minute: "The Clinton-Obama schism is worse than any red-blue inter-tribal warfare. The real "civil war" or family feud is within the Dem voter lefty crowd."

Let me ask you, then, DLS: to what extent is that manufactured and/or hyped? I mean, what does it say that we're arguing at that level, between two (or more) factions that are, more or less, not very far apart? There's something about it that makes me feel like it's whiny - kind of like the stomping of "I will quit the party" if the superdelegates decide things.

I am NOT saying, so please don't ascribe this to me, that we shouldn't necessarily have such debates between factions on the same side of center. I'm just saying, are we going to lose our eyes on the prize and then the prize?

T-Steel - well, okay - I have a very wonderful sense about you, so if you are kind of saying go easy on Suzanne, I will. :) I think she did something in one of th debates in the fall that really bugged me, but that's about it. Does she ever seem like she's trying to hard? Okay - maybe I'm just being catty! lol sorry.

Also, thanks for writing what you did about other people feeling similarly torn. The woman who wrote that letter told me earlier today that she has been deluged by absolutely awful hate mail etc. as though she's betrayed Jesus (as she put it). So I'm going to forward that tidbit of your comment to her. I think there are a lot of people who feel that way but, I have to tell you, based on some of my own experience, and as still an undecided voter, some of the Obama supporters here in Ohio have been downright bullies - I have a hard time believing that Obama would be proud of the way some of his supporters chide Hillary supporters or undecideds who dare to talk about the pros and cons of each candidate.

StockBoy - I guess i'm going to have to pay more attention. I've always like Candy Crowley, and never paid too much attention to Suzanne - maybe I just don't ever have the tv on when she's on - I watch very, very little to begin with.

Jill, I've only watched Candy and Suzanne for the debate coverage so don't take me for an expert- and that's one of the reasons I brought it up, putting it out there so others can offer their input, if they had any.

This is towards your post to T-Steel... its a shame that the woman who wrote the letter is receiving so much awful hate mail. It's a very personal and difficult decision for her and no one should treat her like that. Personally I thought she was brave to take such a public stand to open up emotionally and make the plea for Hillary to step down.

You mention the downright Obama bullies in Ohio... well that's the same attitude that HIllary's supporters have, as evidenced by some of the muslim/racist e-mails that they forwarded. They got a lot of flack a couple months ago. I'm not trying to excuse either side. All I'm saying is that the campaigns can't really control private citizens.

I would expect that campaign volunteers (because their behavor does reflect on the candidate) be held to a higher standard than the general public and that the campaign managers, advisers, etc. be held to the highest standards (as put forth by the candidate they support). It's more difficult for a candidate to control their grassroots volunteers when they just may come in and do a few hours work. It happens in every campaign and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens MORE in Obama's campaign simply because these volunteers are so passionate. Not an excuse... and all candidates (and especially Obama) need to make their standards known.

Jill, on your comment to DLS about the Clinton-Obama schism: it's not HIllary's policies, nor the race or sexism or any of that which makes me intensely dislike Hillary. I don't like Hillary's approach and process. She's polarizing, she uses dirty tricks, she's secretive, etc.

As far as the dinner table debates about gender, race and all that. Well I say let those people talk. Those issues are obviously important to them and they need to work out their thoughts. I think DLS is right (though I'd consider it more of a "family feud" than a civil war. I think it's a healthy battle - or discussion- to have, even if the form may not be the most pleasant.

As far as the super delegates deciding anything... I'm all for that if there is no clear consensus on which candidate (O or C) should be the Pres. If there is a clear consensus on the candidate, but that candidate is shoved aside because of back-room deals, and the super delegates choose the other candidate as their nominee, then that's just not acceptable. If it's going to be up to the super delegates to decide on the nominee, regardless of what the voters want, then why even bother with a primary?

StockBoy - sorry I didn't respond before now!

You make a lot of points with which I agree.

About the Ohio blogs i frequent and monitor, I can only tell you that they are overwhelming either mute on Clinton as far as support, vehemently for Obama or vehemently against Clinton. So - I haven't seen much of the virulent anti-Obama stuff being slung. HOWEVER - I did recently receive an email from someone who had been commenting more or less appropriately on my own blog - where I repeat all the time that i'm undecided and treat the candidates that way as well, that indicated that this person wanted to bring up some of that kind of stuff against Obama. I more or less said, unless you can do it in a way that shows some rational connection to why it would matter as far as being our nominee, then do not post it. It's not been posted, I'm happy to say.

Don't know if you just caught this stuff about a guy in Canton claiming that Clinton hit him (that Bill hit him - the guy is an avowed Obama supporter but can't figure out if Clinton hit him or not and had gone to the rally specifically to talk to Bill Clinton about stopping the bickering - the whole episode sounds odd) but things are just getting kooky.

Anyway - as for the delegates, I see the biggest problem being that the system that was designed to try and do one thing now can be controverted and used, with those very same goals in mind, to in fact counter pledged delegates - and yet, that does seem to be what the Hunt Commission had intended. I don't really get it, to be honest - either you are stuck wtih the system you approved and will have to work to dismantle it after this election if it's so unpreferable, or you leave it as is and live with it.

I'm guessing that the system should have been left alone in the first place but I've heard a lot of good arguments in favor of the additional delegates system too. I'm not really sure if either (having them or not having them) is officially "better."