Clinton’s Project T-Shirt – Now?
I just received an email inviting me to vote on my favorite Hillary Clinton t-shirt, and wondered… what is her point, exactly? The finalists are here. Isn’t it a little late to be putting t-shirts out there?
On Newsgang Live today we went around and around yet again about whether she was the right person for the VP slot. I still believe that she is looking for a way to pull the rug out from under Barack Obama for the nomination ahead of the convention, or push it all the way to a floor fight. I do not believe that if she finally concedes defeat, she will magically do a 180 and be Barack Obama’s new best friend. I think she’s vindictive.
If I am wrong, I will be the first to post an apology right here on the blog.
Others disagree, arguing that she is the ONLY candidate for VP that makes sense.
When I see emails like the one inviting me to vote for the T-Shirt winner in this contest, I think my instincts are right. What do you think? And which shirt do you think will win?
Sphere: Related Content4-8-92: Bill Clinton is the Democratic Nominee
Not June, no. APRIL.
NattheDem also points out that Bill Clinton agrees with the April 8th date in his memoirs.
Sphere: Related ContentHillary Clinton Squanders VP Possibility – Or Not?
In March, I was appalled by this remark:
TIME: Can you envision a point at which–if the race stays this close–Democratic Party elders would step in and say, “This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall”?
CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I think people have short memories. Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.
And then today, she said this:
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,
I don’t understand the linkage, do you? Her husband wrapped up the nomination in June, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, and exactly how does that translate to her staying in the race?
Taking her premise out to the logical conclusion doesn’t work either, because if (God FORBID) something horrible happened to Obama, would she suddenly be invisible? It isn’t like suspending her campaign would exclude her from stepping up and carrying the banner at that point, right?
Her apology was incredibly thin. She apologized to the Kennedys, but never to Obama, or Obama’s supporters. Why?
There has been a lot of buzz around the idea of Clinton becoming Obama’s running mate. If I look at her comment in that context it could be argued (even with a straight face) that what she is saying is that she is qualified to be his successor.
I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it because I don’t believe she wants to be his running mate. I believe her husband wants her to be Obama’s running mate, but I don’t think she does. I think she views that as taking a back seat, and one that isn’t even as influential as being First Lady.
That leaves me with a few sad options for why she would choose to say such a mean-spirited and ugly thing:
- She is intentionally invoking scary memories and fear in her base (older white folks and for that matter, older black folks) who remember the trauma of 1968, of losing RFK and Martin Luther King to assassination in the same year. The reason? The hope that they will vote for her out of fear, rather than substance. An extremely ugly, cynical move, but she’s been ugly and cynical before. This is no exception.
- Sleep deprivation? Maybe, maybe not.
- An intentional implosion, intended to cut off all speculation about her possibilities for the VP slot in an Obama assassination.
- All three.
I believe that all of the primaries should be held before a declaration of victory, though I assure you that Hillary Clinton would have claimed victory after Super Tuesday, had the results gone her way. She would also have claimed it after mini-Super Tuesday in March, had the results gone her way. But they didn’t, and she was forced to soldier on, which was good for everyone. It seasoned Obama, brought out voters in record numbers, and focused attention on the Democrats while leaving McCain as an afterthought.
But now we’re in the end stages. Obama’s nomination is inevitable, no matter how FL and MI is sliced and diced. The superdelegates have made up their minds. Some just haven’t stepped out and made their declaration. I’m sure they’re waiting until June 4th, when everyone has voted and the choice is clear. Their hesitance to step out is connected, I’m sure, to the idea that all voices in all states must be heard.
However, it was also incumbent upon Hillary Clinton to mind her manners and keep her campaign to the issues, which she has not done. She has claimed herself a champion of civil rights on par with abolitionists and suffragettes, suggested that she is remaining to keep the Democrats’ proxy options in place should Obama be assassinated, and reminded the country and the world that some voters in this country don’t care much for black guys.
I think this tactic backfired on her. The idea of playing people’s fears to her benefit is reprehensible — an adjective I have applied to Mrs. Clinton far too many times. When she stepped over the line with the reference to RFK’s assassination and then refused to apologize to the Obama campaign along with the Kennedys, she blew up her chances for the VP slot.
If I’m wrong, and she does end up as running mate, it should be interesting to see how she handles the inevitable replaying of every stupid smear statement she’s made. I can see the commercial now over her equivocation over whether Barack Obama is a Muslim — the “as far as I know” qualifier to her unequivocal “no, no he’s not a Muslim.”
That’ll play well in Kentucky and West Virginia. Maybe Florida, too. But here in California, it stinks like dirty fish and a dead candidacy.
Sphere: Related Content“If Appalachia was a country, Hillary Clinton could be President”
Courtesy of Ron Reagan and Balloon Juice
The divine Rachel Maddow retorts: “Yeah, but she’d lose to McCain.”
The outrage expressed over at Balloon Juice is similar to my own. How can anyone say “Count all the votes” with a straight face and then turn around and claim to be ahead in the popular vote by excluding all of the caucus states but Texas and Washington, and giving Barack Obama NO VOTES in Michigan?
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then Clinton spin.
Sphere: Related ContentWhere the Clinton campaign tears a page out of Richard Nixon’s playbook
In 1950, Richard Nixon ruined Helen Gahagan Douglas, a passionate progressive California Congresswoman who was running for the Senate. Douglas, originally an up-and-coming Hollywood star, turned to politics after spending time in Central California with the migrant farm workers flowing in from Oklahoma and elsewhere. She was well-respected in the Congress, on track to become head of the Foreign Relations Committee, and popular among Democrats in California.
Her reasons for running for the Senate seat aren’t completely clear, but they centered around young Richard Nixon (then 37), who first tried running for Congress as a Democrat before switching to the Republican party in time to vie for the open Senate seat. The primary was a difficult process, due in part to the fact that her opponent (Manchester Boddy) was a newspaper publisher with no political experience whatsoever. It was bitter, and ugly, and the Republicans were able to groom their candidate during the primary to pick up the ball where her opponent left off, effectively finishing her for the general election.
She lost the election in a year where more Democrats than ever voted. The reason she lost? Voters thought she was a communist.
Not that Nixon ever came out and said that. Not quite, anyway. In over 300 pages of interviews done in 1976, campaign aides, union supporters, and friends talk about the quiet, but effective smear of Helen Gahagan Douglas.
Here’s one excerpt that describes how the primary worked to Nixon’s benefit:
When Nixon went to attack Douglas on legitimate issues, it was always framed inside of the more subtle and frightening message that she was really a Commie in a pretty pink dress. (See Pink Sheet (PDF)) That tactic has now been employed by Clinton supporters and has proven extremely effective against Obama in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. Only this time it’s not the “commie” label that’s been applied; it’s the “Muslim” label, with the subtle subtext that voters need to fear Barack Obama because of his middle name and color of his skin.
From Good Morning America (I can’t get the video to embed, so click here to see it on video)
GMA’s KATE SNOW: Janis said she can’t support Obama.
JANIS: He’s Muslim and you know, and that that has a lot to do with it. I just, you know, I just rather have Hillary.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: Just for the record he constantly says he’s a Christian -
JANIS: I know he does. He says he is.
GMA’s KATE SNOW: You don’t believe him?
JANIS: No.
Hillary Clinton has had more than one opportunity to set this record straight, and hasn’t. There’s only one reason for her not to, and that’s to weaken Obama enough to slide herself across as the ‘electable’ one. By playing the subliminal ‘pink paper’ in interviews (“Not that I know of….”), by continuing to hammer on the Reverend Wright issue in town halls and by using surrogates, Hillary Clinton has laid the strategy bare for the Republicans.
This time it won’t be pink sheets. It’ll be flag pins, pledges, and interviewers like the one on Good Morning America who set the stage.
The racists in this country will be racists no matter what. We won’t change them. But at the same time, they shouldn’t be allowed to frame a candidate this way, and particularly not with the complicity of mainstream media outlets like ABC and Good Morning America. (Not to mention print publications like the LA Times, who ‘forgot’ to qualify an interview statement about Obama’s alleged “Muslim affiliations” by reminding the reader that he is in fact, NOT, a Muslim).
Democrats everywhere need to read about how an honorable woman was smeared and ruined by insinuation with no fact, with much assistance from the press and ‘word of mouth’, and then decide whether they want that again this time. I sure don’t. I’d like to see Hillary Clinton exposed and barred from politics forever for what she’s done.
Technorati Tags: clinton, helen gahagan douglas, nixon, campaign tactics, smear tactics, idiocy, racism, bigots
Sphere: Related Content
