Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek: Clinton Agonistes

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

antigop

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:11 PM
Original message

Eleanor Clift, Newsweek: Clinton Agonistes

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136214

The Clintons know it's over. The bad news was written all over the Big Dog's face as he stood behind his wife, slack-jawed and weary, as she vowed to continue her fight for the White House. Her narrow win in Indiana coupled with a crushing defeat in North Carolina has made Barack Obama the presumptive nominee—and transformed Hillary into the Democrats' version of Mike Huckabee, the GOP candidate who overstayed his welcome on the campaign trail. The difference is Huckabee was genial throughout, never really attacking John McCain. But Clinton lingers on, only ratcheting up her attacks on Obama and running the risk that she will weaken her fellow Democrat for the fall without advancing any plausible scenario of winning the nomination herself.

She has no choice. Her future in politics and her husband's legacy are entwined with what happens to Obama as he in all likelihood becomes the Democratic nominee. Bill Clinton doesn't want someone as president who doesn't indulge him, and to get elected Obama will need both members of the former First Family. They won't be much use in the fall if they're crushed and defeated. Obama needs to pump her up and empower her so that she can in turn further empower him. That means an elaborate dance on both sides as she campaigns relentlessly in the remaining primaries, all the while coaxing her voters toward the inevitability of his becoming the Democratic nominee.

The rap on the Clintons is that it's all about them. "The Clintons are always there when they need you" is the oft-quoted line that sums up the sentiment. During the Clinton administration Democrats lost control of the House and Senate and took a beating in state houses across the country—suggesting to some an insufficient attention down-ticket races and building the party for the future. Time-worn resentment toward the Clintons about the way they "triangulated" between the two political parties for their own gain is one of the things that kept many of Hillary's colleagues in the Senate from endorsing her for president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MannyGoldstein

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

1. Holy Cow. I Don't Believe This.

Unless I'm mistaken, Ms. Clift used to be among the most outspoken members of the Clinton cheerleading squad.

Wow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OzarkDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #1

29. No, she's mostly a cheerleader for Republicans

One of the worst of DC insiders who want to always be with the "in" crowd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NashVegas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message

2. Note The Inherent Sexism In This Quote

The Senate is a small, exclusive club that operates on personal relationships. Hillary spent years courting her colleagues; Obama, by contrast, barely touched down on Capitol Hill before he started running for president. "For them to decide against the senator they've known the longest and the best and decide for the new guy is a huge message in that tiny universe," says former Michigan senator Don Riegle. "Obama will forgive and forget. It's the nature of the guy. You wouldn't want to get on the elevator going from the Senate subway to the second floor to vote with Hillary if she doesn't win this. She's not going to forgive and forget." The Senate elevator is as big as a medium-size closet, a tight fit for six and infamous back in the day when octogenarian South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond exploited the close quarters for hugs and fanny pinches.

ie, guys don't take this stuff personally, women do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lucky 13

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. No I'm sorry, you misread that.

THE CLINTONS take stuff personally.

Everyone else doesn't.

It has nothing to do with sexism. The Clintons - BOTH OF THEM - have demonstrated time and again that they take EVERYTHING personally. An endorsement for Barack isn't because that person felt he was the better candidate. It is a PERSONAL AFFRONT to them and is used as evidence of disloyalty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellacott

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. How is that sexist?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NashVegas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. It's Spelled Out

Directly above.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ellacott

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. It's spelled out that you misread it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NatBurner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. ^^reaching

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Connie_Corleone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #2

6. Last time I looked, Obama was a "guy". What the hell is sexist about that?

If she wrote "It's his nature", you would find something sexist about the word "his".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

CakeGrrl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #2

13. This is what weakens the charges of sexism - misreading EVERY slight to HRC as "sexist"

Not being able to "forgive and forget" is not a female characteristic, and no one said it was. It's hyperbolic and self-defeating to women to imply that it is.

HRC is not exempt from having her bad behavior pointed out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NashVegas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #13

18. I Was Referring To

Institutional sexism, obliquely referenced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ian_rd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #2

14. Oh, I get it!

"It's the nature of the guy," translates to "It's the more sophisticated nature of men."

Wow, you have really long arms.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LaurenG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #2

16. Well what if it said this (see below)

Would this be sexist to you? If not then you have no case. I don't think you have a case at all but I also don't think you're being reasonable. The sexism meme is getting really really old.

"Clinton will forgive and forget. It's her nature. You wouldn't want to get on the elevator going from the Senate subway to the second floor to vote with Obama if he doesn't win this. He's not going to forgive and forget."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #16

20. Yeah, then they'd be saying it means women are wimpy

and only men are tough enough to slug it out in the senate. It's always something with some of these Hillary supporters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NorthernSpy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #2

19. "The guy" = Obama specifically, not all "guys"; "she" = Hillary specifically, not all "shes".

Hillarite sexism complaints may have reached the point of self-parody.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Kittycat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #2

22. What in the hell are you talking about? She holds grudges

Edited on Tue May-13-08 01:33 PM by Kittycat

that is what it's saying. Bill does as well, so how is this news to you and what makes it sexist? Grow the fuck up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LisaM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message

8. As much as I've liked Eleanor Clift, I have to enormously disagree with one of her lines

Edited on Tue May-13-08 12:47 PM by LisaM

"The Clintons were never about the Democratic party".

I strenuously disagree. Hillary has put millions in the DNC coffers. She has been everywhere people needed her to raise money. Without her backing, Maria Cantwell would not have been elected Washington Senator in 2000, and again in 2006. I'm guessing Senator Cantwell is being strongly pressured right now to backstab Hillary and support Obama based on the Washington caucus vote (a pressure I'm guessing Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy aren't being subjected to) and I hope Maria can stand firm and continue to support the woman (Hillary) who made it possible for her to be a two-term US Senator.

Hillary even raised money for Obama in his Senate run in 2004.

After Obama's big speech in 2004, he may have gone and starred at fundraisers and done a lot behind the scenes for the DNC and the Democratic money. If so, I haven't heard. I certainly never heard of his being here in Washington for any candidates (including Darcy Burner, who almost got a Congressional seat from Dave Reichart and is running again).

I personally don't see deep ties between Obama and the Democratic party. He stood at the 2004 convention and spoke of 'not a blue America, not a red America, but a purple America'.

If he is elected, he will probably deliver on his idea of a purple America. But it won't be one where the Democratic party gets its props.

I think the Obamas use their star power for the Obamas. Yes, the Clintons may be personally ambitious. To say that the Obamas don't have equal, if not more, ambition is putting on blinkers. They do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

truedelphi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #8

15. Something you are saying here resonates for me as being true

Edited on Tue May-13-08 01:10 PM by truedelphi

I dislike Hillary for reasons I spell out so much I'll avoid them here.

But I notice that women who were attempting to run for office or serve inside the DNC and who started those things in the early nineteen nineties really like Hillary.

She probably does support women Democratic candidates. She probably has helped many get elected.

But because of my inner reasons, and because of the fact that it is no longer the nineteen nineties and she hasn't realized that - I find her campaign lacking. She said she would be ready "on day one" but it soon became apparent she hadn't taken the time to figure out the Primary rules in the various states. She was behind in raising the cash that was needed, and she just got meaner as she got more defeated.

Obama had staffers who understood the new media of the internet. I remember clicking on a YouTube that said something like "By supporting Obama You hurt the better candidate's chances" and the whole thing turned out to be a parody of Hillary and how she ran her campaign. It made me laugh - as it ended with the statement that the evil lurking in the hearts of Obama Supporters would probably heighten Global Warming and end up destroying the Universe.

Meanwhile Hillary's staff had Celine Dion warbling away - I guess that approach works if you want Celine Dion fans to be your base. But there just aren't enough CD fans to get her the Presidency.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LisaM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #15

21. I don't want Celine Dion OR YouTube

I find it very frustrating when people send me YouTube videos instead of their own reasoned text. OTOH, I can't bear Celine Dion either. Put me in the middle.

However, Maria Cantwell represents the Democrats going forward. She was elected to Congress in 1992 (the so-called "Year of the Woman" - how brief that was, how long ago it seems) and lost in the Republican takeover of 1994. I do not blame Newt Gingrich or the Clintons for her loss. She thought she had her re-election in the bag, and she was wrong.

So she went and worked in industry (Real Networks) for a few years, and ran against a terrible incumbent, Slade Gorton, in 2000. Her election, like Gore's, was very close. I remember Bill Clinton out there laughing about it - he said, "they have a very interesting system in Washington (state). They actually count the votes". That remark got a lot of play here, and softened the blow to the Republicans when she was the ultimate winner.

Hillary raised a gob of money for Cantwell when she ran again in 2006. Maria Cantwell has served our state pretty well through the first decade of the new century (NOT the 1990's - her first Senate term started in 2001). I've disagreed with her on a few things, but the fact is, she owes her job, and Washington state owes some of the good legislation for this state, to Hillary's tirelessness, her fundraising, her cheerleading.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

truedelphi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #21

24. But does the fact that you help fellow Dems get elected make you Presidential material?

Edited on Tue May-13-08 02:14 PM by truedelphi

I would not have wanted to see Mayor Daley run for President (Senior that is)

Certainly don't wanna see Ed Rendell run.

The qualities of someone who helps the party members and the qualities of someone who may make a difference as President are two different sets of qualities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LisaM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #24

25. But that's not what I was talking about. I was referring to this quote:

"The Clintons were never about the Democratic party".

I simply disagree with that remark. I think Obama is not about the Democratic party per se. I'm not talking ideals, principles, whatever. I could debate that, but it wasn't what I was talking about.

I see Hillary as being DEEPLY committed to the Democratic party. She has raised millions of dollars on its behalf; she has helped many Democrats (including Obama) get elected.

I do not think Obama views the Democratic party in the same terms. Flashback to the speeches he and Al Sharpton gave in 2004. Obama was all nicey-nicey purple America. Al got up there and just sang the praises of the party as a whole. My parents were there; it was electrifying. Obama is too cool a customer for me and I don't see that he even identifies that much as a Democrat in, for instance, the Roosevelt model. He is who he is - take that as you wish, but it was Clift's statement about Democrats I was objecting to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dailykoff

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. Cantwell "has no regrets" about IWR

From a 2006 Seattle PI story:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Cantwell.html

Getting women elected doesn't mean crap if they're triangulating PNACers like Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LisaM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #26

28. I said I didn't agree with her on everything.

But if you compared her to the alternatives (Gorton, McGavick), the second of which, BTW, would have meant a Republican Senate in 2006, it's good that she won. Slade Gorton voted against the stamp that raised money for breast cancer, for God's sake, and both of them, AFAIK, were anti-abortion.

But my POINT, which everyone seems to be missing, is that I think Hillary does care about the party as a whole, and I disagree with Eleanor Clift on that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dailykoff

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #28

30. If she cared about the party she'd be campaigning for the nominee

and she would have been since Iowa. She's done nothing but seriously damage his chances of a) winning and b) governing effectively if he does win for the last four months. I totally reject your argument, sorry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LisaM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #30

31. Oh for GOD'S sake.

Obama does not care about the Democratic party. Do you get it? He calls his supporters OBAMICANS. Notice that it conflates his own name with part of the word Republican. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's his crossover vote, but he still said it. He could have said Obamacrats, which would still be offensive, but at least less so.

He is running as a Democrat (IMO) simply because it's the nearest hook he can hang his hat on. I do not see him as committed to party over persona (his).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jasmine621

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message

9. Dems lost to Repugs because of the smear camaping against

the Clintons and Bill's indescretion. It was not because they refused to campaing for folks down ticket. The folks "down ticket" didn't want to touch them with a 10-ft pole. Even after Bill survived the impeachment, Gore wouldn't use him like he should have. We lost because the energized RW came out in force with their wedge issues even though they were getting rich by the bucket fulls from a booming economy and a "proud to be American" sentifment sweeping the country. Gore lost because he distanced himself from Bill Clinton too much. The Clintons have always been there for Dems across the board. It's only the media hype that puts out this RW talking point over and over and the Clinton haters, even though they don't really believe it, like to claim it is so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BenDavid

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:47 PM
Response to Original message

10. Gee, when Ms Clift writes it, obama folks are saying, right on and

she speaks the truth:"and to get elected Obama will need both members of the former First Family." but when I posted the following, "Did you notice Obama supporters are suddenly playing nice to the Clinton voters? This is after months of ugly rhetoric and accusations of racism. I guess they now realize that if Obama secures the nomination, he will need the backing of the Clinton voters."

So, is what I posted different then what Ms. Clift wrote?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TexasObserver

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message

11. Eleanor Clift carrying water for Hillary. Again.

The gist of her column is that Obama needs to make the Clintons feel important, because he needs them for the fall.

Wrong. No one needs the Clinton for the fall. The little "success" Hillary has had has been a direct result of her running as the McCain/Republican surrogate. Without R voters, she wouldn't have won ten states.

No, Eleanor, we need the Clintons the same place we need you - retired and out of the mix.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dailykoff

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #11

17. Yes that part is a little, er, implausible.

Looks like Eleanor is doing a little triangulation herself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

truedelphi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11

23. She didn't help Kerry in his critical moments after

Andy Card declared that the 2004 election was for Bush Jr once again.

And she didn't help the Gores very much either.

I can't think of many voting rights activists that admire her - she ducks that issue (Hmm, do the hackable machines help you, Hill?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TexasObserver

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #23

27. Hillary has never helped anyone but Hillary.

Her life is a life devoted to Hillary, and no one else.

It's always all about her. She's like Bill, without all the talent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

truedelphi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #27

32. Personally I think she stayed in the marriage cuz she figured

Bill's help would get her the Presidency.

And now that she might not get the P, she has to face her staying in that relationship these long years for NADA. She can't face that so she soldiers on, and on, and on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU GrovelBot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================

This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 11:26 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC