Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Prepare for More Mud Slinging


Why is Clinton
in Denial of
Obama's Nomination?



By Tom Hayden


There's a cleft, perhaps even a political schizophrenia, within Hillary Clinton that explains her refusal on election night to recognize defeat.


In the soothing scenario offered by James Carville, it will take a few days for the Clintons and her supporters to bring her campaign to a smooth landing after a long nasty ride. Another view from the CNN pundits is that she is leveraging Obama for an unknown agenda, including consideration as the vice presidential nominee.


In both scenarios, Clinton is expected to do "what's right for the party and what's right for the country", which is interpreted to mean campaigning all-out for the Democratic ticket. Maybe.



But there is still another dimension to Clinton that is unspoken, unspeakable, deniable, demonic, harbored among a few Clinton operatives [like Sidney Blumenthal] and perhaps in a hidden recess of her own persona, the destructive id she seems to share with FOX News.

Clinton still wants Obama defeated if possible, and knows there is a way, however horrifying to some. As long as she doesn't concede and endorse, she can wait for someone to produce something that renders Obama less electable. The superdelegates, in this desperate scenario, then could be forced to switch by the convention.

The latest tapes about the Chicago priest are a case in point. More is coming on the alleged statements and writings of Michelle Obama. Claims of connections to the Palestinians are in the wings. Obama's winning streak has noticably declined in the past several weeks, including losses in two of the last three primaries. If he cannot be defeated for the nomination, in this Shakespearian plot, he can be defeated in November if damaged enough during the primaries.

Insane? Perhaps. Time and events are not on her side. The Obama followers have been reserved and polite thus far, but their potential reaction is something superdelegates are deeply aware of, especially as the Denver convention looms.

Clinton astonishingly refused to acknowledge that Obama, the first African American nominee, came from behind to win a majority of primaries and caucuses, a majority of delegates, and a majority of votes, while Clinton continues to claim that the entirely bogus Florida and Michigan primaries should be treated as expressions of freedom.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow ... who is really doing the mud-slinging here? I was brought up to think that Hayden was better than laying out such scurrilous and demonizing distortions ... I'm surprised he didn't proffer such novel insight as other unabashed, supposedly neutral, polite, Obama supporters stating that Obama had better hire himself a taste tester if he seriously considers putting HC on the ticket.

Whose got the corner on paranoia here?

His post simply supports the contention the the behavior of the left is no better than the right. For many progressives, these transparent positions have done little but create a corrupt cesspool of disillusionment with the self-identified left.

Oh yeh, I need to remember that it's just those hung over lefties from the sixties - tho ones who just love to love women -until they're challenged by them.

"There's a cleft, perhaps even a political
schizophrenia," ... within the supposed left that explains their refusal on election night to recognize their own complicity in perhaps bringing about only a patina of change - not a substantive one.

Bill Baar said...

She thinks she can win and she's betting Obama will implode over the next few months.

She's a formidable vote getter and she might be right.

I'm still betting on a Gore-Obama ticket.

Anonymous said...

yHillary will continue to angle for the VP spot, which of course Obama won't give her. The ticket would lose with her on it. Her people will be angry when she gets rejected. This way she gets to have a platform from which she can still hurt our nominee. Someone take this very sick old dog to the vet; it's time.

JRW said...

Vice presidential candidates do not determine the outcome of elections. But if she was angling for the VP spot, this was not the best way to get herself on the list. she would likely have been there already.

If she hangs around as Bill Baar in his comment here suggests she might, she will surely cost Obama the election. If he "imploded" before the August 25 convention, and people decided it was ok to overturn the results of the nominating process, she would lose in November.

Her best chance at salvaging herself is to do what she will probably do in the next few days: bow out graciously and endorse Obama.

Then her supporters who say they can't get over it can think about whether or not they want McCain to appoint the next vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Do they want McCain who opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, who wants to continue the war in Iraq, who thinks creationism should be taught side by side with actual science, who opposed the 21st century GI bill, and who is beating the drums for war in Iran.

The choice is clear.

Anonymous said...

The Clintons and their campaign advisors have done a great disservice to Democrats by leading their supporters in an illogical, emotionally charged and polarizing campaign. (Ickes comment on Sat. about Fowler was unbelievable and indicative of the Clinton machinery)
I'm a white 54 yr. old Jewish woman who doesn't vote based on race, gender or religion but on the totality of a person's words and deeds.
I've heard too many "educated" women cast their ballot for Hilary because of nominating the first woman president and the veneer of progressive politics she supposedly supports.
However, when you study her bio (starting from the work she did at the Children's Defense Fund and Walmart), the way she handled her finances during this campaign, and how she had the horrible gall to mention the unmentionable about Robert Kennedy being shot in June...you see a disturbing pattern of a person who is not progressive at all and certainly doesn't follow compassion in her daily interactions.
I would like to point out that Hilary is not suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorder, as suggested by Tom but borderline personality disorder, whose main features are manipulation, triangulation (aligning herself with McCain on various occasions, against Barak), and a severe and self injurious love/hate relationship with people.
How could any feminist call themselves a feminist and vote for a woman who continues to live with a womanizer....
Their arrogance lost them the White House and is one of the reasons Hilary could not cut a substantial deal on reforming health care when Bill was in office. The Welfare reform act Bill enacted caused a million more children to enter into poverty.
Yes, times were better for the upper and middle class under Bill but at what cost (to the poor) and look how everything unraveled. That's fact and reality.
How many times do we need unscrupulous and arrogant people in the White House?
I just pray Barak doesn't choose her as VP.

Tom said...

dear anonymous, whoever you are, thanks for your comment. If you read Maureen Dowd in this morning's NY Times, she has similar opinions. I know both politics and the Clintons pretty well, and there's no doubt that these covert emotions and activies go on. i hope that Clinton will come to support the Obama campaign fully, but even in the best case there will be a reservoir of hostility and tension after all they have been through.

sidney blumenthal, former asst to H Clinton, has been promoting the rev. wright, bill ayers and other stories through a special list of media and political contacts for months. There is plenty of gossip that an attack on Michelle Obama's alleged statements is coming from somewhere. there also is stuff about professor Rashid Khalidi out there. There could be more. If Obama is damaged sufficiently, which i doubt, the superdelegates can always switch. There is no doubt that these possibilities are being evaluated alongside the better angels of her nature. let's hope for the best. tom hayden

Nomi said...

Tom:
(cont. from June 4th)The process makes me not want to vote. I thought Wright was right on target and as a Jew I wish we had Rabbi's that preached similar sermons (they are few and far between). As a Jew with strong ties to Israel I admired the wise words of Edward Said and the current words of Khalidi. The ammunition they use against Barak indicates how uniformed and right wing our society has become, encouraged by a capitalist economy run amuck.
I feel like I have already compromised my values by voting for Barak, however, I realize that we can't change hate, illiteracy or uniformed voters overnight.
Barak seems a far more ethical, intelligent and compassionate person, as indicated by his body language, words and deeds. Watching Hilary in an old C-span interview a few weeks ago, her "major" concension speech this Sat. giving her the spotlight again, seems indicative of a person who is needy and never resolved her own intense anger. Hence those are the kind of people attracted to her(e.g.Geraldine Ferraro calling Obama a sexist), and her own husband stating that the Vanity Fair article about Bill's cont. escapades is a plot by Obama.
What we need now is Gore, Edwards, Carter, Webb, Pelosi...standing up for Barak.
Yes, I know I'm dreaming.
Nomi (formerly "anonymous")

My Zimbio Add to Technorati Favorites Locations of visitors to this page EatonWeb Blog Directory