Lead, Senator Clinton.

June 5, 2008 · Posted in Barack Obama, Election 2008 

As much as I don’t want to keep talking about Senator Clinton, I feel compelled to say something about this. There are so many things that Harriet Christian said that came straight out of the Clinton campaign that are just plain wrong…I don’t even know where to begin.

I would like to suggest to women who are supporters of Hillary Clinton that being associated with this sort of thinking does nothing to advance the cause for women to be recognized as equals in all areas of life, including politics. This woman doesn’t think the Supreme Court nominations are important. Is that because she thinks it’s only a Roe v. Wade issue? When she starts rattling off the campaign talking points, I can’t help but think that SHE’s the one who’s not thinking.

And the worst is when she says that 99.9% of the black folks voting for Obama are only doing it because he’s black, while at the same time clearly stating that her unwavering support for Clinton comes from the fact that she’s female! Of course, the contention about black voters’ motivations is patently false, just a similar assertion about women would be. It’s as racist and sexist as any other blanket statement made during this campaign.

The reason I’m posting it or even giving it the time of day is because this is an opportunity for Senator Clinton to lead, to command that respect she claimed she wanted on Tuesday night. Her campaign suspension is being very carefully orchestrated to keep a far distance from Barack Obama, despite her behind-the-scenes appearance of support via conference calls and the like. However, if she does not stand up and say out loud that the nomination was NOT stolen, that any of her supporters who choose to support John McCain are turning their backs on HER, then whatever she says and does will be empty and her scorched-earth strategy is set in motion.

She must say these things, not because she will convince Harriet Christian and those who think like Harriet Christian. She must say these things because it’s her DUTY to lead. That’s what being a President is about. LEADING. That means pushing ahead through disappointment to do the right thing because it’s the right thing.

People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons, but the main one should be policy, not identity-based. Because Obama and Clinton were so close together policy-wise, any rejections should be considered to be an identity rejection first and foremost, particularly when rejecting Obama, who has demonstrated clearly that he is ready to lead, that he has run a clean, above-board campaign where he attacked no one, and where she spent months pulling him down by labeling him an elitist, out of touch, and inexperienced.

Leadership is needed, Senator Clinton. You need to step up and tell folks that things are said in campaigns like this. You need to appear on the same stage with him, and you need to do it with sincerity in your heart. Sooner is better than later. Thank you.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

  • http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com roadkill refugee

    Right on!

  • http://joelitomama.blogspot.com/ shelnew19

    Very well said, as usual.

  • bbluesman

    Well stated. Slick Willie talks about legacy-how about Hil? Amazing at how they keep missing the big picture here.

  • http://londonamerican01.blogspot.com/ londonamerican

    i completely disagree. obama's campaign has been ruthlessly sharp-elbowed and has delighted in sexist and class-based insults while constantly whining about being a victim of racism. it has also given out the strong message that women, working class, hispanic, gay and older voters are completely expendable – in favor of a coalition of politically-correct yuppies, college students and blacks.

    now that he has “won” it's finally time for obama to show some leadership instead of rhetoric and playing the victim. he needs to start out by reaching out to hillary's voters and addressing our issues – healthcare could be a good place to _start_.

    unless he decides to _work_ to get our votes, and is very good at kissing our asses instead of insulting us as he has throughout his campaign, he isn't going to get our votes. period.

    by now, many of us view obama as a dangerous, antidemocratic threat to our country and that is the reality that his campaign must address. or lose in november as many previously loyal democrats take the obama campaign and its surrogates at their word and decide not to vote for a party and a candidate that thinks we are expendable.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    hello, londonamerican.

    I would like for you to point to one single thing that Obama said which was “sexist and class-based.”. And please do not cite the fundraising dinner because the spin on that was unbelievably clintonian.

    He has already signalled that she will be the point person for health care (go look at the transcript of his speech.

    It's laughable that you'd suggest that a biracial guy who was the son of a single welfare mom and raised by his grandparents is somehow elitist. Yet I did not once hear any accusation come out of the candidate's mouth about racism. Indeed, he addressed the issues of race inside a larger context of others' anger about their own lots in life. He has not been anti-gay or anti-working class. More spin.

    I suspect, however, that your issues would be issues even if Obama were raised out of the projects in midwest public schools, going to state colleges on a scholarship.

    Unless he were white. Or female. Or both.

  • http://londonamerican01.blogspot.com/ londonamerican

    i think stuff like playing “i got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one of them” on the night of a victory against clinton that saved his bacon is pretty sexist. and the comments in san francisco are indeed class-based insults.

    but more to the point, his surrogates like the “rev” wright, donna brazile, david axelrod have made several dismissive comments about white working class voters (wright in his sermons, brazile on cnn, and axelrod in press calls.) of course people heard and remember those things. there is no memory hole to file them into and make them go away.

    and obama's campaign deliberately played he race card, first in NH by claiming hat clintons comment on lbj was somehow a comment on mlk which made it somehow a comment on abama — qiuite apart from the fact that it is rue.

    elitism has nothing to do with where you are from (though neither obama nor michele were ever poor) – it has everything to do with how you view yourself and other people. obama just gives those vibes off every time he talks down to his audience and the press — which is to say always.

  • a male feminist (honest)

    I don't understand where all the Obama hate is coming from. Despite repeated pleas to the Clinton supporters I know, none has ever come up with an example of him or his staff demonstrating sexism. The only thing that comes close was a female staffer of his that called hillary a “monster” and was promptly fired with sincere apologies extended to Senator Clinton by Obama. A response that stands in stark contrast to Senator Clinton's treatment of loose cannon Geraldine Ferraro.

    The only reasons for the hatred I can come up would be unacknowledged racism (that would be really sad), or bitterness over him even running in the first place, thus denying Senator Clinton her “rightful” place in history. But no-one has the “right” to be president – it needs to be earned by gaining the trust of the American People.

    Senator Clinton has lost that trust primarily through her own actions (I won't bring them up yet again, but you know what they were). And now each day that goes by without leading her supporters to understand that on each of the issues (remember those?) Senator Obama has very similar views to her own, while Senator McCain is as bad or worse than Bush's views…

    …for each day that goes by without turning her attention and support to Senator Obama she does great disservice to the issues I still believe she holds dear, the chances for a Democratic victory this fall, and to her legacy as a feminist leader.

    The hatred is more properly directed at those in the media and those supporters from both camps who have said idiotic, sexist, and racist things during this election. Wouldn't it be much better to aim your hatred and demand for change at them than at the Democratic nominee who has done naught to deserve it, and will assuredly fight for the causes you belief in?

    Women will NOT have a voice in a McCain administration unless they've repudiated their beliefs in reproductive rights and a host of other key feminist issues. Let's not turn back the clock in the name of bitterness, Okay?

  • http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com roadkill refugee

    Londonamerican – It's a false urban legend that he played “I got 99 problems” — look it up — it's been debunked. The “bitter” comments were deliberately twisted by hack Mayhill Fowler (who showed her unprofessionalism again in her interview of Bill Clinton about the Vanity Fair article). Obama was saying the opposite of what many in the media said he meant, thanks to Fowler's selective quote and negative spin in her initial post. The full quote from that SF event makes that clear. Rev. Wright is not his surrogate and you know that. Nor is Donna Brazile, who remained uncommitted the entire primary season, and in any event, I don't recall her making dismissive comments. All Axelrod said was Democrats have rarely won a majority of the white working class vote — nobody has disputed that fact. He didn't “dismiss” these voters. Obama just chose his first general election campaign event in rural Southwest Virginia (on the TN border) today — how's that dismissing white working class voters? That's a clear message he's focused on winning their vote.

    You obviously are grasping for any reason to rationalize your anger. I'm sorry you are angry, but it's not based in fact. Obama is a cool guy who will make a great president, and doesn't deserve your anger because Hillary lost — he deserves respect for beating such a strong and effective opponent. I think they will be working together all summer — hopefully you'll come around.

  • cyberjoek

    londonamerican,
    The supposed “99 problems” moment in question, the supposed “entrance to a victory party” has never been traced to a real event according to Politico ( http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Oba… ). It's one of those great ghosts of the campaign trail — a rumor that turned into nothing in the light of day.

    The comments in San Fran have been covered at length so I won't waste space here with them.

    Two of the people you've mentioned are not surrogates: Rev. Wright (who has been removed from the campaign for his words and action — if there's a stronger penalty the campaign can impose on him I bet they're all ears), Donna Brazile (who hasn't endorsed either candidate). I take particular umbrage at your comment about Ms. Brazile because she said on CNN about three weeks ago words to the effect of “This problem he has in Appalachia is something we need to look at.”

    Clinton's comments on LBJ were some of the most politicly insensitive words I've heard from a candidate for high office. Perhaps in 100 years we'll look back and see that but you're talking to people who were in the civil rights movement at the time and many of them don't see LBJ as the great hero, they see him as someone who finally agreed. But that is not the argument being made, the argument is in the response.

    If you use that brush to say Obama was playing the race card then you're also going to hit Ted Kennedy and John Edwards, both of whom said the statement was wrong. Obama wasn't the first to respond, he wasn't the last either but when someone says something like that about an iconic character in US History then there will be answers. It has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with the American Story. The story that we tell to show how we are growing into a better tomorrow. It's not race that dictates the response to that is the American Story.

    The reason it got classified by many people as an attack on Obama is that her statement followed a statement by Obama on the importance of MLK. When your response to a statement about a great leader is to say that person didn't matter what assumption do you think people will make? That you're saying the person giving the speech doesn't matter either. It's psych 101.

    Now we're down to the Elitism question. The two hundred million dollar question. FIrst off, let's not kid ourselves, none of these people came from truly poor backgrounds — that's not where our politicians come from in this country.

    I'm a student at a media arts college and through our Broadcast Journalism department I've seen interactions with both campaigns. The Clintons have a very tight view of what the press is (the student covering the story was given just as much access as an unknown blogger — which is to say not much). The Obama campaign welcomed the students with open arms — giving them the same access every other local reporter had.

    I had the pleasure of meeting him my freshman year of college and he is one of the most down to earth people you'll meet. The only way he gets painted with the Elitism brush is if we let him. In my experience of meeting him and knowing some people who work for his campaign he takes the views of everyone around him into consideration. He asks experts when he doesn't know. That isn't elitism — it's good management.

    Please — I'd love to know what you consider talking down. I consider it talking down to someone when you distill what should be a fourty minute conversation into ten words just to make a sound byte. I consider it talking down to someone when you insult them by changing the victory conditions when it suits you. I consider it talking down to someone when you know what you're going to do and don't tell it to their face (see Obama V Automakers — in Detroit no less). I consider it talking down to someone when you go for the simple political score and not try for a better country. I think Obama is the candidate who has least talked town to the American people among the three who are still active at this point.

    And one more thing — this is just my opinion — I don't want a president who I want to go drinking with. I want a president who is the smartest guy in the room. As my producing teacher taught me — you need to be smart but you need to surround yourself with people who are smarter still and let them do what they need to do. That's the type of president I want and I think Sen. Obama can deliver. I am not saying this to demean Sen. Clinton. She's one of the smartest people I've seen running (this was a great field of Dems and I hope beyond hope that most of them consider running again in the future) but it was my perception in the race that she is a “go it alone” type and we need unity, not division.

    The Democratic party is the big tent variety of party — we have many disagreements and there is only one core value I found that every Dem shares. We believe in creating a better tomorrow. Most Republicans believe in getting themselves a better today.

    That's the difference and it's why we need to come together. We need a better tomorrow — not just for my generation but for everyone who comes after us. If you care about what tomorrow may bring us then take a few days, think about what you want out of our future, and then see where that stands with the Obama policies. We've fought over petty things for four months and now we need to decide if we want to stand as one party.

    The Democratic Party has been driven to the point of falling apart many times but the reason it's still a party is because in our heart of hearts we know that we must stand together to protect our tomorrows. To make sure every generation has the right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. If you think I'm overstating what this election is about then take a good, long, hard look at the Bush/McCain policies.

    Thank you for your time,
    Joe Kavanagh

  • ursulas

    OMG! Can't believe I am reading this from an allegedly educated, coherent individual! Walk to the light, londonamerican! We'll give you a big hug!

  • http://www.disarranging.com/review/ Marie Carnes

    This is a very emotional time and I don't want to make it worse by going on the attack against Harriet Christian.

    I would like to say, however, for the last 15 months, so many Americans – probably more than ever before – have felt for the first time they finally had a vested interest in the process of getting a Democratic nominee with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    With Hillary now out of the running, and not showing her acceptance and support of Barack as the nominee, it's only to be expected that some (a lot?) of her supporters would turn against Barack in favor of John McCain. I have to believe, if the reverse had happened, we could be doing the same thing. Not me, but some.

    The main thing, however, is that Barack is not the one to whom they should direct their ire. Rather, it should be to the process. Personally, I'm still reeling over that whole scene over the weekend. I realize what happened makes sense to a lot of people. But, not to me.

    Anyway, it happened, and to give your vote to John McCain as some kind of punishment because Hillary didn't get the nomination just flies in the face of what we as Democrats stand for and hope for. Like someone else here said, a better tomorrow for all of us, among other things.

    I hope this makes sense. Like I said, very emotional and still reeling.

    P.S. Karoli, your Grab our RSS Feed link has some extra characters at the beginning. I thought I'd finally subscribe since this appears to be where the action is.

  • Carl S.

    I don't know if it's ironic, karma, or just turmoil from the universe realigning itself, but for the past several months I noticed how Democrats speak to each other on blogs the way they use to address Republicans. Isn't that a bit like burning down the house right before foreclosure?

    i am a hard working, white American but call me sexist because I don't accept a candidate endorsing the other party's candidate over one of her own, referring to a heart wrenching assassination twice and alluding to it three times, deceiving the public about putting herself in peril of sniper fire, alienating African-Americans by divisive voting block tactics, publicly vilifying a former ally for endorsing her rival, and proving a poor commander-in-chief in mismanaging a “big money” campaign from day one only to lose the contest and not relinquish the stage at the expense of her opponent's good graces. And spin it all like they are the victim.

    The order is rapidly changing; please get off the new road if ya can't lend a hand!
    Hey – even Bob Dylan seems to know the hour that the ship comes in!

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Marie, thanks for the great comment and the tip on the RSS feed. Try as I might to focus on anything else, I just can't, at least not right now. This political season, more than any other, has sucked me in and brought back the best part of the old CNN days. I'm glad you subscribed. :)

    Saturday wasn't that surprising to me. You had one side (Clinton's) demanding that no votes be counted in Michigan, and the other side agreeing to what was presented by the state committee as their best stab at a compromise. In the end, it made little difference. Had Clinton gotten everything she wanted, she could have claimed some moral authority to proclaim herself the winner of the popular vote. I'm guessing that it was common knowledge that Obama had the superdelegates lined up to claim the nomination on Tuesday anyway, and giving her even that small edge would have also given some small weight to the claim she made: that the nomination was stolen from her.

    The fact is, Obama really won the nomination the day of the Indiana/North Carolina votes. By coming within 11,000 votes of her in Indiana, he foreclosed any mathematical chance of her winning, whether or not Michigan and Florida were counted.

    The only benefit to waiting through the final primaries was that it completed the vision of a 50-state strategy, leaving grassroots organizations in communities across all 50 states. That bodes well for the national election, and I appreciate Hillary Clinton's doggedness in that regard.

    However, Tuesday night's 'non-concession' speech more or less killed any respect I had for her. I'm sure she'll produce justifications for it, but they're hollow. She lost, and she was sulky and ungracious. Factor in the “I'm leading in the popular vote” lie she kept telling along with the ramped-up appeal to women to support her because she was a woman…and the fallout is toxic.

    I wrote on this blog that I would resign from the party and become an Independent if she won the nomination. I also said I'd vote for her. And I would. I resist constantly the possibility that she could become a running-mate. That would just be drama and more drama, without end.

    We'll see.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Carl, the rhetoric has definitely ramped up during this season. My sense is that there is a real seismic shift going on in the Democratic party back toward the left side from the center. To many, Hillary Clinton represented the old guard Democrats that many of us, myself included, were ready to move past.

    I have long felt that at some point we needed to move back toward a truer vision of what the Democratic party stands for at its best, but nothing good comes without some refining fire around it, which is what we are seeing.

    Still, people like Harriet Christian mystify me, because they are not really thinking through the issues, living in the emotional and yes, bitter, past.

  • http://londonamerican01.blogspot.com/ londonamerican

    hi joe thanks for your reasoned response. it's one of the first non-emotional responses i've ever received from an obama backer and i appreciate that.

    i have to say that i disagree with your very first point. “99 problems” was reported by the press and television all over the wold when it happened. even by the reliably in-the-tank huffpo (if i knew discus better i'd provide the links – heck, here the huffpo one though you'll need to copy and paste http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/at-oba… ). i don't think that one post by ben smith saying he can't confirm it proves anything in the face of that.

    second the words used by hillary re: lbj were not “insensitive” in any way. they were simple, non-controversial statements of fact. the obama campaign deliberately chose to make them an issue as their now-infamous campaign memo on the topic demonstrated. he needed to win s carolina and what better way than by playing the victim card. do you think that what she said what incorrect (it amy have hurt obama's feelings as the chosen one, but that is utterly irrelevant – i want any president to be able to withstand factual comments or else we should just prepare to kiss our remaining freedoms goodbye).

    i don't know how the campaigns treated art students. i have no doubt that the obama campaign “welcomed them with open arms” while saying that white working class (per brazile and axelrod) are undesirable and unneeded. that smacks of elitism to me. if you do not see that well then we have very different ideas about who is oppressed: i think workers have a stronger claim on my support..

    i do think obama has run a great media campaign, that he early on realised that the “creative class” is bored of real, live politics and that it likes the soundbite slogans of “change” and “hope” combined with open disdain for those who need to work for a living, as well as gays, hispanics, women and the elderly. so aligning themselves with creative class laziness was a clever move. but watching the talking heads on television (most of them 30-40is fratboy types like tweety) and their equivalents at bogs like dkos spewing their unrelenting hate doesn't make us want to back their candidate. it has the opposite effect.

    i agree that the democratic party has some huge problems right now. but the idea that it is all hillary and her backers fault for existing and not quietly going away is not going to get you where you want to be.

    what we are waiting for now is a set of clear statements from the obama campaign and the dnc that the days of character assassination and insults are over and, most importantly, that there is something in it for us to back obama. let's get some on universal healthcare, on protecting workers rights, on rolling back nafta for a start.

    we are willing to listen but we want to hear something that addresses the reasons why we backed hilary throughout this race — and continue to do so.

  • http://londonamerican01.blogspot.com/ londonamerican

    ??? why do try to belittle people you don't agree with by reducing everything to emotion? why do you try to question my education or qualifications to speak? let's try having a rational discussion instead.

  • http://londonamerican01.blogspot.com/ londonamerican

    um, actually, the clinton campaign was demanding that ALL votes be fully counted in michigan, as well as florida.

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Wow. You both said it far better than I. Thank you

  • http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/ Karoli

    Only for her.