The Fall of Hillary Clinton: Why It Wasn’t Enough To Merely Master A Man’s Game
On the 492nd day of Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the first woman president, one inevitability was rudely replaced by another.
That was the number of days that elapsed from January 20, 2007 when Clinton (photo) announced that “I’m in. And I’m in it to win,” something that few observers could seriously doubt, and Tuesday past when voters in North Carolina and Indiana delivered another message: Her defeat at the hands of Barack Obama in the political cage match of the young millennium was no longer a probability but an inevitability.
Sure signs of this seismic shift are the uproar from the hardest of Clinton’s hardcore supporters and flurry of kamikazee analogies from pundits shaking their heads over her stubborn refusal to bow to that inevitability.
These supporters declare that Obama is unelectable although more Americans may vote for him in November than any presidential candidate in history. And that Clinton should be gifted the Democratic nomination although she trails Obama in popular votes, pledged delegate votes, opinion-poll positives, contributions and endorsements, and any second in superdelegates, as well.
The hardcore ranges from big-time bloggers like Taylor Marsh, who will now have to return that lovely dress she bought months ago to wear to the inaugural balls (but at least is making noises about possibly embracing Obama) to some really pissed-off feminists (who are demonizing Marsh for seeing the light).
I’m going to focus on the Hell Hath No Fury Like a Feminist Scorned crowd, which is shaping up to be a bunch of especially poor losers.
These feminists are, of course, blaming everyone except Hillary and Bill Clinton, who in an historic series of arrogant miscalculations took what was once pretty close to a sure thing and squandered it. This took some effort because it required surrounding themselves with sycophantic staffers who determinedly ignored the mood of the electorate and engaged in a Rovian slash-and-burn campaign that alienated practically everyone except blue-collar bubbas and white women who are eligible — or soon will be eligible — for senior-citizen discounts.
The Clintons even managed to crap all over their legacy of attracting black support not because Barack was blacker than Bill but because Hill and Bill were revealed to be cynical frauds to many blacks.
No less a light than George McGovern is taking it on the chin in the wake of Hillary’s Terrible Tuesday because he violated feminist orthodoxy by calling not Hill but Bill the day after to explain that while he probably was the last person in South Dakota to do so, he was changing his support from Clinton to Obama.
In a series of blog exchanges elsewhere, I suggested that these hard hearts try understand that McGovern, who has been eligible for senior-citizen discounts for 25 years, is a kind and gentle soul who opposed the Vietnam War early on, was a model of ethical probity in the Senate and a trailblazer in removing Democratic Party politics from the smoke-filled rooms of yore.
All I got for my efforts was being labeled a “douchebag” and “jerkoff” by two self-described feminists and a “blowhard” by an anonymoose.
Name calling aside, I feel their pain.
The seeds of the election of the first woman president were planted in the halcyon days of the late 1960s and finally seemed well within the realm of possibilities after four hard decades of educating and organizing.
But Hillary Clinton and her sisters only had one rule book to use as they toiled over the years to elect woman state legislators, governors and U.S. senators and representatives. Today there are a record 13 women in the Senate and 61 women in the House of Representatives as a result of their labors.
That rule book was the one that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes and of course Bill Clinton himself used, but a funny thing happened on the way through the glass ceiling to 2008.
The old rules fell into disrepair and then disrepute and it simply was not enough for Hillary to be better at this man’s game than her own husband and the other men who came before her. Alas, she and her sisters didn’t understand that they needed to change the rules if they were to attract a restive electorate.
That is why the next president will not be the wife of a certain ex-president but a man who has changed the rules, energizing the Democratic Party as no candidate has been able to do in my lifetime. And, irony of ironies, is paving the way for the eventual election of the first woman president. Who will have to wait her turn for a few more years because Hillary Clinton blew it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
78 Responses to “The Fall of Hillary Clinton: Why It Wasn’t Enough To Merely Master A Man’s Game”
Publius, the great Obsidian Wings blogger, offers a fascinating and convincing alternative take on why Clinton lost: Iraq.
Link:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2…
my goodness, there was no hidden meaning in my talking about Clinton supporters. Let me amend that to Clinton voters. I just mean that Obama will reach out for party unity and he certainly has much to offer those who like Clinton's politics, since their positions are virtually identical on most issues.
my goodness, there was no hidden meaning in my talking about Clinton supporters. Let me amend that to Clinton voters. I just mean that Obama will reach out for party unity and he certainly has much to offer those who like Clinton's politics, since their positions are virtually identical on most issues.
Jill is the only one I know who doesn't call a “voter” a “supporter.” It appears she has no shame in saying she voted for Clinton, but she would be ashamed of supporting Clinton. Ha ha.
Jill is the only one I know who doesn't call a “voter” a “supporter.” It appears she has no shame in saying she voted for Clinton, but she would be ashamed of supporting Clinton. Ha ha.
I'd be ashamed to align with someone how laughs at other people, Hillaryhaslost. Again, I pray to God that Obama rejects that manifestation of “support” for him.
Wow.
I'd be ashamed to align with someone how laughs at other people, Hillaryhaslost. Again, I pray to God that Obama rejects that manifestation of “support” for him.
Wow.
Jill,
I will not vote for your willful naivete, nor will I support it. But I will “laugh” at it. Then, again, that depends on how you define the word laugh.
Jill,
I will not vote for your willful naivete, nor will I support it. But I will “laugh” at it. Then, again, that depends on how you define the word laugh.
Green dreams
Once again as an obvious staunch democrat you are forced to go into a long narrative to describe what it is that democrats stand for.
Americans have short attention spans. This has been the downfall of the Democratic party and the liberal notion of life in general. When once this world took on the million miles a minute life style a political philosophy needed to be trimmed down to simple terms to meet up with people's revolving door day to day life.
That does not mean a long and winded narrative of what democrats are about.
Republicans are against higher taxes. Democrats are for tax breaks for the middle classe, with exceptions to the death tax and we want to tax soo and soo and this and that and in some cases tax breaks are good but overall we would like to see a more fair and equitable……blah…blah…..blah
See my point. They are simply against something rather then defining what they are for.
Republicans its simple. Less taxes. For Democrats they cant say MORE taxes so they have to simply go into a song and dance.
Republicans. Right to bear arms. Democrats…..yeah sorta, kinda but with all kinds of laws. Lets ban assault rifles and this and that. Lets have registration and laws for when and where and how you can buy a gun and on and on.
Republicans. Smaller government. Democrats…….I think you see where we are going.
Democrats cannot define themselves in simple terms that make choices easy. One must decipher what they mean this time around.
Green dreams
Once again as an obvious staunch democrat you are forced to go into a long narrative to describe what it is that democrats stand for.
Americans have short attention spans. This has been the downfall of the Democratic party and the liberal notion of life in general. When once this world took on the million miles a minute life style a political philosophy needed to be trimmed down to simple terms to meet up with people's revolving door day to day life.
That does not mean a long and winded narrative of what democrats are about.
Republicans are against higher taxes. Democrats are for tax breaks for the middle classe, with exceptions to the death tax and we want to tax soo and soo and this and that and in some cases tax breaks are good but overall we would like to see a more fair and equitable……blah…blah…..blah
See my point. They are simply against something rather then defining what they are for.
Republicans its simple. Less taxes. For Democrats they cant say MORE taxes so they have to simply go into a song and dance.
Republicans. Right to bear arms. Democrats…..yeah sorta, kinda but with all kinds of laws. Lets ban assault rifles and this and that. Lets have registration and laws for when and where and how you can buy a gun and on and on.
Republicans. Smaller government. Democrats…….I think you see where we are going.
Democrats cannot define themselves in simple terms that make choices easy. One must decipher what they mean this time around.
Neocon:
We know what Republicans stand for. Just look at the last seven-plus years train wreck.
I would personally like to thank you for that, and you no doubt blush with pride at the mere thought of the fiscal, social and literal carnage that your beloved GOP has wrought.
End of discussion. And don't let the door hit you and Hillaryhaslost in the ass on the way out.
Neocon:
We know what Republicans stand for. Just look at the last seven-plus years train wreck.
I would personally like to thank you for that, and you no doubt blush with pride at the mere thought of the fiscal, social and literal carnage that your beloved GOP has wrought.
End of discussion. And don't let the door hit you and Hillaryhaslost in the ass on the way out.
Hillaryhaslost: in the context you are using laugh, I think of the book “The Day God Laughed” which I remember being in my house as I was growing up. That title certainly used the word “laughed” in a way so as to convey several different meanings.
Few things have one absolute meaning. And mostly, I believe, that's a good thing. The trick is for the writer and the reader to be aware of that or acknowledge it when a meaning you didn't intend – either as an inference or an implication – is brought to your attention. That's what my first comment was intended to do. And look at this great conversation?
That's what blogs are for, imo.
Hillaryhaslost: in the context you are using laugh, I think of the book “The Day God Laughed” which I remember being in my house as I was growing up. That title certainly used the word “laughed” in a way so as to convey several different meanings.
Few things have one absolute meaning. And mostly, I believe, that's a good thing. The trick is for the writer and the reader to be aware of that or acknowledge it when a meaning you didn't intend – either as an inference or an implication – is brought to your attention. That's what my first comment was intended to do. And look at this great conversation?
That's what blogs are for, imo.
Greendreams – no I didn't write that re: the quote feature thing. My young teen child has taught me a few things but I actually learned a little html all by ma'self.
Thanks for the tip though – it is not something obvious unless you do write your own blog or read them a lot, I think.
Greendreams – no I didn't write that re: the quote feature thing. My young teen child has taught me a few things but I actually learned a little html all by ma'self.
Thanks for the tip though – it is not something obvious unless you do write your own blog or read them a lot, I think.
Shaun fyi
Im a democrat who supports Hillary Clinton but who will most likely vote for Barak Obama over McCain.
However if there was no Iraq in the picture I might find it in my heart to vote for a Moderate McCain.
Ease your pain Shaun. They have pills for that.
Shaun fyi
Im a democrat who supports Hillary Clinton but who will most likely vote for Barak Obama over McCain.
However if there was no Iraq in the picture I might find it in my heart to vote for a Moderate McCain.
Ease your pain Shaun. They have pills for that.
Shaun – I'm not one who really thought about stances on Iraq as being a deciding thing between Obama and Clinton because when I first heard Obama speak in person in Cleveland and he talked about Iraq, I thought (and wrote on my blog), “Oh no – but he wasn't similarly situated (because he wasn't in office at that time” and I wrote about how I thought it could be a very dicey thing, to attack someone for what they did when you yourself weren't operating under the same circumstances.
And I've wondered about how it is that Iraq became such a drag on Clinton.
That Obsidian Wings post does an EXCELLENT job identifying how Obama turned his angle on Iraq into a big plus and Clinton failed to neutralize it as a liability – which it was and is, agreed.
The only thing I would add to the thoughts at that post is that a bit of fairness needs to be added in in this sense: who wouldn't be stymied by what happened – by being duped and so on?
But then, playing devil's advocate against myself and not lingering too long in that thought of being stymied I also believe: as an elected political leader in the congress, a rep or senator is charged with NOT being stymied but with acting.
And that post is arguing that she failed to act, or act enough, or act in line with what was needed and so on.
That's a fair critique of how Iraq became a lethal liability for Clinton.
Thanks for pointing out the post.
Shaun – I'm not one who really thought about stances on Iraq as being a deciding thing between Obama and Clinton because when I first heard Obama speak in person in Cleveland and he talked about Iraq, I thought (and wrote on my blog), “Oh no – but he wasn't similarly situated (because he wasn't in office at that time” and I wrote about how I thought it could be a very dicey thing, to attack someone for what they did when you yourself weren't operating under the same circumstances.
And I've wondered about how it is that Iraq became such a drag on Clinton.
That Obsidian Wings post does an EXCELLENT job identifying how Obama turned his angle on Iraq into a big plus and Clinton failed to neutralize it as a liability – which it was and is, agreed.
The only thing I would add to the thoughts at that post is that a bit of fairness needs to be added in in this sense: who wouldn't be stymied by what happened – by being duped and so on?
But then, playing devil's advocate against myself and not lingering too long in that thought of being stymied I also believe: as an elected political leader in the congress, a rep or senator is charged with NOT being stymied but with acting.
And that post is arguing that she failed to act, or act enough, or act in line with what was needed and so on.
That's a fair critique of how Iraq became a lethal liability for Clinton.
Thanks for pointing out the post.
Jill,
Jill,
You are not a writer. You are an apologist. And you do an excellent job of one thing: obfuscating truth. Instead of admitting that you supported Clinton at one time, you attempt to change the definition of support.
As long as ignorance exists, there will always be fodder for your written works. An audience with discernment makes your material irrelevant.
Jill,
Jill,
You are not a writer. You are an apologist. And you do an excellent job of one thing: obfuscating truth. Instead of admitting that you supported Clinton at one time, you attempt to change the definition of support.
As long as ignorance exists, there will always be fodder for your written works. An audience with discernment makes your material irrelevant.
hillaryhaslost, the above comment is nothing but an ad hominem attack. It adds nothing to a rational dialogue and says more about you than it does about Jill. Oh, by the way, where's the body of YOUR writing?
Neocon, I am indeed a staunch Democrat now, but was once a Republican, when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, states rights, individual rights including the right to privacy, and the rule of law.
And, I am not “forced to go into a long narrative” but rather, to paraphrase Pascal, I didn't have time to write a shorter one. However, I did give you the soundbite version: “Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”
Now ordinarily, I would determine not to engage with someone, and there are a few here, who just spout Republican talking points at me. But your surprise admission that you may be voting for Obama gives me hope that dialoguing with you may be worthwhile.
Your assertion that Republicans “are against higher taxes” may be true on a philosophical basis, but the effect of Republican rule is the opposite. For everyone in our country the portion of our taxes dedicated to paying interest on the Reagan/Bush contributions to the national debt is over $250 per month (relying on memory, I exaggerated this figure above, but you'll find the citation HERE). And that's for the entire population, not just for taxpayers, so for a family of four the two income earning parents pay twice that each or $1,000 a month for the family. That's the interest on the credit card Republicans' debt. What that means in terms of everyday financial outlay is the first several months of every year, all of our payroll taxes go toward paying interest for money borrowed primarily for the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war.
So yes, I see your point that the simplistic mantra of “less taxes” works for many Americans, obviously. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and that has become obvious to most as the earning power and spending power of the middle class and lower has declined, while that of millionaires has skyrocketed. I don't get your point on guns, as the Democratic Party position is supported by the mayors of every major city in America and of every major law enforcement agency in America. Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No way. Handguns? OK, with registration, a background check to see that we're not putting handguns in the hands of felons, and a cooling off period to prevent crimes of passion.
So, for the voters to whom you refer, here's the simple difference:
Republicans, more war in Iraq and probably Iran.
Democrats, no more war in Iraq nor Iran.
Republicans, more right wing judges who believe in an imperial presidency, the denial of a woman's right to choose, torture, extraordinary rendition, no right to face your accuser, see the evidence or know with what you are charged, etc. I think you see where this is going.
Democrats, none of that.
Republicans, smaller government. Hahahahaha, yeah right!
Republicans, total fiscal irresponsibility, massive debt, huge deficits, miserable trade balance, falling dollar. Any questions?
hillaryhaslost, the above comment is nothing but an ad hominem attack. It adds nothing to a rational dialogue and says more about you than it does about Jill. Oh, by the way, where's the body of YOUR writing?
Neocon, I am indeed a staunch Democrat now, but was once a Republican, when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, states rights, individual rights including the right to privacy, and the rule of law.
And, I am not “forced to go into a long narrative” but rather, to paraphrase Pascal, I didn't have time to write a shorter one. However, I did give you the soundbite version: “Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”
Now ordinarily, I would determine not to engage with someone, and there are a few here, who just spout Republican talking points at me. But your surprise admission that you may be voting for Obama gives me hope that dialoguing with you may be worthwhile.
Your assertion that Republicans “are against higher taxes” may be true on a philosophical basis, but the effect of Republican rule is the opposite. For everyone in our country the portion of our taxes dedicated to paying interest on the Reagan/Bush contributions to the national debt is over $250 per month (relying on memory, I exaggerated this figure above, but you'll find the citation HERE). And that's for the entire population, not just for taxpayers, so for a family of four the two income earning parents pay twice that each or $1,000 a month for the family. That's the interest on the credit card Republicans' debt. What that means in terms of everyday financial outlay is the first several months of every year, all of our payroll taxes go toward paying interest for money borrowed primarily for the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war.
So yes, I see your point that the simplistic mantra of “less taxes” works for many Americans, obviously. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and that has become obvious to most as the earning power and spending power of the middle class and lower has declined, while that of millionaires has skyrocketed. I don't get your point on guns, as the Democratic Party position is supported by the mayors of every major city in America and of every major law enforcement agency in America. Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No way. Handguns? OK, with registration, a background check to see that we're not putting handguns in the hands of felons, and a cooling off period to prevent crimes of passion.
So, for the voters to whom you refer, here's the simple difference:
Republicans, more war in Iraq and probably Iran.
Democrats, no more war in Iraq nor Iran.
Republicans, more right wing judges who believe in an imperial presidency, the denial of a woman's right to choose, torture, extraordinary rendition, no right to face your accuser, see the evidence or know with what you are charged, etc. I think you see where this is going.
Democrats, none of that.
Republicans, smaller government. Hahahahaha, yeah right!
Republicans, total fiscal irresponsibility, massive debt, huge deficits, miserable trade balance, falling dollar. Any questions?
[...] Fall of Hillary Clinton: Why It Wasn’t Enough To Merely Master … admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThat rule book was the one that [...]
I was simply trying to point out that the GOP is a simple party with few planks in their platform but what planks they have are short and simple. No new taxes. Smaller government. Less regulation. etc. Simple, straight forward and too the point.
Democrats on the other hand have a hard time stating their positions because they are complex. This makes it hard for casual voters to grasp democrats positions as opposed to republicans position. Thus to define themselves they end up being for what the republicans are not or so it is packaged and perceived by the general public. Even John Kerry presented himself with “Im not Bush.”
In a fast paced world in which about 90 percent of America could give a hoot about politics except during their time to vote this makes it harder for the democrats to get their message across.
Even your short version has me scratching my head wondering just which one of a million interpretations you can put on this:
“Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”
Define public good. Whose good? Abortion is for the public good. According to the GOP. Abortion is not good for the public good according to the democrats. Hand guns? Public good? GWB thought that going to war in Iraq was for the public good.
I don't mean to rain on your parade but this is precisely what I mean by the democrats inability to simply and straight forwardly define themselves in a clear and concise manner.
No even this is an entire concept that while rolling off your tongue might sound decent it is so open to interpretations as to be the theme for a research grant by the Brookings institute.
I was simply trying to point out that the GOP is a simple party with few planks in their platform but what planks they have are short and simple. No new taxes. Smaller government. Less regulation. etc. Simple, straight forward and too the point.
Democrats on the other hand have a hard time stating their positions because they are complex. This makes it hard for casual voters to grasp democrats positions as opposed to republicans position. Thus to define themselves they end up being for what the republicans are not or so it is packaged and perceived by the general public. Even John Kerry presented himself with “Im not Bush.”
In a fast paced world in which about 90 percent of America could give a hoot about politics except during their time to vote this makes it harder for the democrats to get their message across.
Even your short version has me scratching my head wondering just which one of a million interpretations you can put on this:
“Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”
Define public good. Whose good? Abortion is for the public good. According to the GOP. Abortion is not good for the public good according to the democrats. Hand guns? Public good? GWB thought that going to war in Iraq was for the public good.
I don't mean to rain on your parade but this is precisely what I mean by the democrats inability to simply and straight forwardly define themselves in a clear and concise manner.
No even this is an entire concept that while rolling off your tongue might sound decent it is so open to interpretations as to be the theme for a research grant by the Brookings institute.