Clinton Campaign Sniping Through Media Reports Continues
The Politico has yet another story that is clearly-sourced from within the Clinton campaign complaining about how Obama treated the Clintons. This is truly something of a first - where a party is settling on a nominee who is days within giving his acceptance speech and complaints are coming from one side. Even the section about sourcing from people who have relations with the Obama and Clinton sides underscore a fact: there are people connected to the Clinton side who want to keep the seemingly non-ending and ongoing Clinton psychodrama going. And it won’t benefit their party.
It’s filled with indications that the sources are a) from the Clinton camp b) people who say they are close to the Clinton camp. And the laundry list of negative feelings and analysis about Obama in it won’t help the Democratic Party’s attempt to launch Obama, his candidacy and a unified party ready to battle a tough election against a party that will be on-message from second one during its convention.
You get the feelings that (1) the Clintons are trying to sandbag Obama’s chances by use of signals but aiming for plausible deniability OR (2) the Clintons have and their close advisers have lost their political savvy because, with polls and news stories such as this, an Obama loss will rightfully or wrongfully be blamed by a segment of the Democratic Party on the Clintons…who are leaving a Google-able trail through stories such as this…a trail that some will point to in 2012.
18 Responses to “Clinton Campaign Sniping Through Media Reports Continues”
That's a whole new definition of “clearly sourced” Joe.
I still feel as if the majority of you do not understand the bigger………and I mean really big picture here.
This election is NOT about putting democrat in the White House. EVERYONE wants that who even remotely embraces the Democratic policies and values.
What this is about is a battle within the party for control of the Democratic Party.
On the one hand you have the Clintonian wing. Representing the old guarde, lunch pail, working class, blue collar democrats who are not all that fired up about abortion, Gay rights, Seperation of Church and state, and who is going to be the next Supreme court justice.
On the other hand you have the Progressive wing of the party. A group that is much more obsessed with social issues and seem to be putting economic issues on the back burner in favor of the above mentioned.
Who wins this battle determines who runs the party for years to come.
That is why the continuing battle over this. There is much more at stake here then meets the eye and I stand amazed that those cheering for Obama do not recognize this. Or perhaps they do and just want to keep it under wraps so their ulterior motives are disguised just a bit longer till they are in power.
At least Clinton is not disguising her motives.
Neocon,
The problem with your analysis is that the Clintons – Hillary in particular – have long been associated with the social issues. Note how much of Hillary's support comes from the gay/lesbian community and from identity politics feminists. It was only in the last couple months of the campaign that th old guard/new guard divide became evident. But for the Clintons, they have always been hardcore social liberals and take things like Roe v. Wade VERY seriously.
Paul Begala told TMP yesterday that all of this is akin to the definition of inflation: “Too many reporters chasing too few stories.”
I don't doubt there're people within the Clinton camp who keep fomenting this dissension within the party, but I think it might be overstated. Of course, I'm not there, so it's just my sense. What I can't ignore, though, is that we keep hearing from sources that there are still things Obama could've done to appease either the Clintons or the people close to them who can't let go.
On that front I call bullshit.
I just don't think there's anything Obama could do to assuage any of this… at least anything that'd allow him to continue as the nominee, that is.
Newsflash: Hillary Clinton cannot control the will of 18 million people.
I mean, she's got it goin' on but not on that level! lol..
This may come as a shocking surprise to some, but many Clinton supporters supported her because they could not ever get behind the empty suit Obama.
People accuse, “”You just hate Obama. You're mean and divisive! You're just bitter!”. Which of course are all saying “You don't have a brain of your own and are an automatron extension of the WILL of HIllary Clinton!”.
Which is purely a crock of shite.
What most Hillary supporters are is SMART. We know the job we're hiring for is important and that Obama isn't qualified no matter how pretty you dress him up or try to disguise the fact that he doesn't have a clue in any of the major issues facing our nation today.
We are also ANGRY, yes, angry that an inferior applicant is being shoved down our throats because of his skin color alone (which is racism) and is usurping a vastly superior applicant for the job, an applicant who just happens also to be female. A younger inexperienced male passing up a vastly more experienced female? Now where have we seen this before?
Our ANGER stems not from petty female bitterness and emotions (yes, this has been alleged so many times that this blatant sexism gets nary a glance). Our anger stems from knowing an intelligent course has been waylaid in favor of a patently stupid one, and from having our hands tied to do a single thing about it.
And to that I say there is one final remedy: We are keeping a list of delegates and superdelegates who are part of this caper of party-suicide-in-favor-of-racism.
The ironic thing is that in the end the cause of african-americans will take a slap in the face. When Obama loses this Fall to McCain, not from Hillary's doings or not-doings but from his own weak resume', the cause of black-americans will experience a blow to its morale. If he somehow should run the guantlet of the Sinclair story and make it to the Oval Office…his predictable blunders will hamstring even further the black-american assertion that they should be in every office in the land.
I've argued elsewhere that if black americans want to further their cause, they should be pounding down the door of Colin Powell and forget the glamour boy in the empty suit. But I guess Powell isn't as “pretty” as Obama. They're going to see how far looks will get you in the shark tank that is Washington DC.
The left (“progressive”) wing of the Dems, especially the young (many of whom this year have registered as Democrats at an earlier age than they have in the past) is the original core of the Obama campaign, and even establishment libs are likely to have faith and hope (puns intended) that they may be able to take back(ward) the USA to pre-1980, even 1960s-ambitious, politics.
Sil
All 18,000,00 of you are doing all this?
Boy , you sure seem to be putting a lot of stock in the rock-solid Larry Sinclair.
Perhaps if HRC has run a better primary campaign, you wouldn't have to.
Hope all y'all ain't too bummed when McSame annoints another Alito or Thomas clone to the SCOTUS, and women have to start walking two steps behind their betters again.
This is a battle of generations. Those that live to fight the battles of the sixties (with the Clinton's having switched sides) and those who want to move on. Those who want to throw out accusations “he's unqualified, he's uppity, he's a liberal” and those who want to actually talk about the problems of the day and how we might actually solve them. The old guard is winning and that means the nation is losing.
We can't solve our problems today with Clinton's solutions from the 60's or with McCain's back to the 80's ideas, the world is different place and we need to accept that reality. Is Obama perfect? Of course not, but no one is. McCain and Clinton while good people are the ties to the past and if the country stays focused on those ties, those ties will continue to strangle us.
The only thing that 80% of this country can agree on is we are on the wrong path, yet we are going to allow our fears, our anger, our nit picking and yes our prejudices to keep us from getting off that path to our destruction.
P.S. Silhouette, I understand you are angry, but please realize, that there are plenty of people out there who didn't support Senator Clinton not because they were “taken in by an empty suit,” but rather had legitimate concerns about former President Clinton (who I voted for 1992). Sorry to say, you cannot possibly have one without the other and to accuse people who were unhappy with the distractions the man provides of mindless sexism is to put it frankly offensive.
Joe this is a media driven non-story. There are some unhappy PUMAs but they are a minority. Hillary will do all she can to get Obama elected because she knows that rightly or wrongly she will be blamed if he loses and she will be through in the Democratic party. As Chuck Todd said last night if all you do is talk to the PUMAs you can make a story where there isn't one.
Of course your anger stems from a purely emotional, irrational bitterness. Every post you ever write proves that it does even as you make the denials. And no, not everyone who voted for Clinton in the primaries is joining in on the insanity. Only a small minority are as nuts as Sil's posts reflect.
Sillyette
Agreed.
I rescind my previous agreement. They were right after all!
Actually, the Politico article was poorly sourced. That said, the emotions and feelings expressed and attributed to Clinton people I found entirely on point and relevant. The Clintons have had to put up with Republican hatred and media hatred, and confronting hatred in their own party is hard to do. I agree Obama has not been effective in healing the wounds and uniting the party, nor does he seem to care. He is the nominee and party leader and it is his obligation. Nonetheless, Bill seems to be healing no thanks to Obama, and Hillary is doing all that is asked of her and considerably more to support the ticket. The lauded and so-called Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy, did nothing to help Carter win. The vaunted and loved Ronald Reagan did nothing to help Gerald Ford win. Hillary has already done more than those so called and allegedly loved figures, and for it she gets absolutely nothing except endless parades of Obama people on blogs saying the Clintons need to “get over it” and, even here, people saying the Clintons need to get lost. Talk about being clueless on how to unite a party. Yes…some people need to get over it but its not the Clintons. For those wanting to put history to bed, you had better learn a little bit about it before you speak.
“The only thing that 80% of this country can agree on is we are on the wrong path”
The following Pew report says it's eighties per cent if we also take as a surrogate measure the view of the economy, the #1 domestic issue currently. There are some things that most agree on that are traditionally lib or Dem issues, which appear logically to be the kind of objectives the Obama administration should first strive to approach next year to build up goodwill not only for his administration but by association, for the Dems and for US liberalism. (Nineties per cent support by both Dem and GOP leaners for higher vehicle fuel efficiency standards; eighties per cent by both groups on increased research into alternative energy ["wind, solar, and hydrogen technology"]). This is a lib-Dem year unless they wreck _themselves_.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/933/a-closer-look-a…
I know, I can't resist but Sil, you think that electing McCain and giving this man a platform for the next 4 years helps women?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id…
Thankfully, there IS a generational change going on. People under 30 have no interest in continuing the Clinton saga. I would have voted in 20-whatever for Sen. Clinton 4 months ago. Now I really have only a feeling of distaste for the Clintons. Maybe they are not responsible for their supporters' bad behavior in continuing this division. However, if Sen. Obama is going to be held responsible for not retiring Clinton's debt, then Sen. Clinton can be held responsible for not genuinely trying to overcome her supporters' hostility towards Obama. She has done the bare minimum in my opinion: just enough for “plausible deniability” as they say. Any political passion on her part is reserved for her own campaign. Not uncommon, but not admirable either.
“I know, I can't resist but Sil, you think that electing McCain and giving this man a platform for the next 4 years helps women?”
*************
No. But the democrats need a backup plan. I think nominating Hillary and having her pass that nomination to Obama is a great backup plan. Her official nomination will be a Godsend when the real tidal wave of bad press hits the Obama campaign.
If democrats go out of the convention without this crucial backup plan sailing on their pie-in-the-sky dream wave of “hope”, with polls tied and Obama on a steady downslide already, they can kiss this election goodbye. The only thing that will save the democratic hope for their candidate at this point is an excellent backup plan.
About that “terrible” Clinton administration last time around…
What was it you folks object to? The hanky panky in the Oval Office? The strongest economy in US history and the strongest democratic president since Kennedy facing off with the GOP?
I know which issue matters to me and most americans. Hint: it has to do not with pants coming down, but rather losing one's shirt..
Vincent Foster.
I object to the hanky panky for following reasons:
1)It was a monumental betrayal to his wife.
2)The effort spent denying it then fighting impeachment took his attention and focus away from his job. Yes the economy boomed at the time, yet the repeal of Glass-Stengle directly resulted in the housing and financial crash we are now dealing with.
3) The worst part, the backlash and national disgust at his inability to keep it zipped gave us George Bush.
Anyway, I am pretty sure you have to be a ratf_cker Sil, but they are normally more professional.