From where did the perception, that Hillary Clinton thinks she "deserves" the nomination, originate?

I ask this, because wouldn't any person running for the presidency think that he or she "deserves it?" We've had Gen. Wesley Clark, with virtually no political experience, run. We've seen people who were out of Congress for a while run. Heck - in 1992, H. Ross Perot ran for president with virtually no political exposure whatsoever. And he did quite well.

So why has the "I deserve it" label been placed on Hillary Clinton, when she has been active in national politics for at least two decades and is currently serving two senate terms?

Curiously,

~Writer~

her the "inevitable" nominee right after she was re-elected to the Senate. Seems like it was being talked about for a long time. I don't really remember anyone saying that she "deserved" the nomination. I don't think anyone deserves it, do they? Seems presumptious to me.

I've certainly heard that.

Do you think that this derives from her early front runner status?

the front runner before a single vote was cast-they did the same thing with Giuliani. Why they did it, I have no idea. Name recognition, maybe?

but how do we go from her being the "frontrunner" to saying that she believes she's entitled to the nomination?

I don't know.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: "A much less compressed environment. So from my perspective, you get up every day and you get out there and you make your case and you reach as many people as possible. That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run. It's not a very long run. It'll be over by February 5th.”

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/010308Burns.shtml

and all this says is that she was confident that she was going to win on Feb. 5, and that she thought it would be over by then. How does this express her feeling "entitled" to the nomination?

prediction that she would sweep right in, was indeed, wrong.

in this thread, it's very typical of politicians to spin a victory before the vote. There's nothing unusual here.

Spin it anyway you want. Her projection that the nomination was sitting there awaiting her arrival confers entitlement or privilege.

It wasn't just "spin" -- they really had no plan for after Super Tuesday. Now that's hubris.

There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in a candidate professing belief in their ability to get to the White House.Yet,when Clinton does it,she's "acting like a queen" expecting to be "crowned".Why is that,do you suppose?

:shrug:

in any campaign.

In January?

The double standard on DU continues

We're talking about the campaigns themselves. And to talk about a WIN by saying "his time is now" is NOT the same thing. I have never seen anything presented by anyone in the Obama campaign that implies he is entitled to the presidency for ANY reason.

And I challenge you to show me where you've seen it either.

that it is an indirect way of saying "she doesn't deserve it." No other explanation really fits either the record or human nature.

that people who make the claim don't mean that per se, but instead want to convey that this person, whom they don't support, wants something that they don't wish to let her have.

That's very interesting. Thanks.

People said that after all those years standing by Bill and working as a dem, she deserved the nomination. That wasn't uncommon early on, when Hillary's main argument was "Experience" and not "White People Vote for Me."

of Bill Clinton. Is she not intelligent and has herself been an effective senator? This I don't exactly understand either.

here prior to Thanksgiving, and to be honest, she should consider herself lucky that her seat was up for re-election during the last set of midterm elections. There are already Democratic groups forming to make sure she doesn't win her seat again.

Back to your point of being effective. She has failed on her major campaign promises. She promised jobs to Buffalo, but they have had nothing but loss of jobs, then her excuse is to blame Al Gore not winning the Presidency. She voted for the IWR, but then said she didn't read the intelligence reports. Her plan for relieving the pain at the pump is to give us an 18 cent gas tax holiday for three months, but she's been a Senator for 8 years and has failed to produce a single piece of legislation to deal with a problem that was recognized almost a year after her husband left office.

If you remove the Clinton presidency from her resume then you have a candidate with far less experience than Obama.

It is Hillary that has said she was Bill's apprentice.

It is Hillary that has tried to claim the good things of Bill's administration as her own while shying away from the negatives.

To me, that in and of itself provides that sense of entitlement. By virtue of marriage she is entitled to claim to be the superior candidate and to have experience that her opponent doesn't have yet that same sense of entitlement makes her choices relative to Bill and all of the negatives of Bill's administration off limits.

It is a ridiculous position to claim let alone try to hold.

What has she done on her own, as Hillary Rodham?

the primaries began and it was never "common" for any Hillary supporter to claim that she "deserved"it, for the stupid reasons you list.

“GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) If you don't win here how do you recover?

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: I don't think it's a question of recovery. I have a campaign that is poised and ready for the long term. We are competing everywhere through February 5th. We have staff in many states. We have built organizations in many states. You know, George, you and I went through an experience in 1992 where Bill Clinton didn't win anything until Georgia. He came in second time and time again in a much less, you know, volatile and contested environment.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: (Off-camera) Much less compressed also.

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON: A much less compressed environment. So from my perspective, you get up every day and you get out there and you make your case and you reach as many people as possible. That's what I intend to do, so I'm in it for the long run. It's not a very long run. It'll be over by February 5th.”

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/010308Burns.shtml

It just expresses that she was confident that she was going to win big on Feb. 5.

Every politician does this, as do their surrogates. They appear on national television and spin the election to their favor. "I smell an upset," Dukakis said in the days preceding the 1988 election. It's just politics.

You asked a question. I offered an answer. Now you want to tell me your answer, rather than mine. So I suppose, then, that you really don't want someone to tell you what they think--you're just waiting for someone to tell you what you think.

Have fun.

What you offered was a bit of political spin preceding the Feb. 5th elections, so I don't quite buy your argument that this is an example of her expressing "entitlement."

However, if I were to place myself in your shoes - you who does not support Clinton for this nomination - I can see how you would take this quote to mean that she thinks that she was destined to win the nomination. And if this is YOUR explanation for why YOU believe this about her, then that's fine.

But I personally don't think the quote does a good job of conveying someone who feels in any way entitled to the nomination.

I think I understand your difficulty understanding why something might be perceived as arrogant or why someone might feel entitled. Thanks for clarifying that.

And hubris most certainly is accompanied by an attitude of entitlement.

while he was the frontrunner should give you a hint.

Breaking News: Hillary Clinton hints at joint ticket with Obama
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/breaking-news-h.html

She proclaimed that it would be over by February 5th. For her to have that kind of knowledge would mean that she must have been entitled to information no one else knew about, although I'm not sure what that info was that made her so darn sure of herself. :shrug:

That does convey, from the perspective of someone who backs Obama, that she feels that she should win the nomination, with Obama as her running mate.

From my perspective as a Clinton supporter, I think that was just a spin job that failed. But I digress.

Anyway, thanks for this. I think this sheds more light on the situation.

Pretty damn obvious that they went for inevitable and entitled.

Mark Penn will bear most of the blame in the end. Her campaign ran on his strategy and the media faithfully followed along.

Even Taylor Marsh wanted Penn fired for running an inevitability campaign:

She certainly had acted as if it were in the bag for a long time but she's never flat out said she deserved it. The "it's her turn" and "Obama should have waited out of respect" memes had to come from somewhere and I'm guessing her top supporters started it.

Especially here on DU last Spring, when anyone not into Hillary was met by a small, vocal group of posters who were as arrogant and snotty about it as could be, and put down anyone who thought she might not actually win.

I'd love to name names. :)

:spank:

Want to compare?

:hide:

And some are still here acting the same way. :)

In particular, one poster who never missed an opportunity for poll-based bullying announced that he was leaving the Democratic party when his queen lost her shot at the throne.

Gotta give him props, though. At least he was bright enough to figure it out back in March, unlike the delusional dead-enders we're dealing with now.

Those posters were just truly bullying and arrogant to anyone who didn't like Hillary. They mocked the other candidates and claimed none of them stood a chance. This was before Obama was even a factor. They mocked everyone, posted every poll that showed her ahead (which at the time was a lot of them) as proof that the other candidates were just wasting her time by even running, and they acted like she had the election sewn up a year ago. Two of the worst offenders are still members but have kept a low profile. A couple more, one in particular, are still here, still acting just like they did last Spring.

It's funny how group dynamics works online.

I remember how the Dean/Clark battles continued, especially when some started to move from Dean to Clark. When people lose numbers, it can be a real threat to die-hard supporters of a candidate. That's when people can get particularly nasty.

'04 was a corker here too. :)

here http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

It is a forgotten period. Most of what happened spring, summer, early fall 2007 is outright forgotten. The assault politics only started when Obama started winning very late last year. Or so we are to pretend.

Naming names would be bad :)

is a "deserves it" kind of thing to do. (Carville is the one who said it, but apparently speaking for Clinton).

==================
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!

In particular, her desire to rewrite the rules suggests it, as does her level of dirty campaigning, coupled with the amount of shock she and her surrogates profess when anybody fights back.

At this point, she's standing on the deck of the Titanic, the ship's taken on a rather odd angle, and she's not only insisting that the ship isn't sinking, but that they'll be in port shortly. Honestly, that she seems to think herself entitled is the most flattering description I can think of for her campaign trail behavior, as the others would lead me to question her good will or her grip on reality.

At least, that's my perspective as somebody who isn't by any stretch a fan of either of the remaining combatants in the primary cage match.

n/t

She was the one who allowed herself to be courted for it for 8 years... will she? won't she? when?

somewhere along with early warning from Fox News that she would stab or poison her competitors (we are talking back in early 2007). Everything everyone thinks they know about Clinton they heard from the press over and over and over again.

Hell, Tweety is responsible for most of it. His Irish mother obviously did not raise him right.

you ask some of the most hard hitting, best questions. I don't have the answer. I'd like to know it myself.

but then I have not read as extensively as others.

The inevitability meme worked a wonder with big donors and, so the story went, with nailing down the best operatives. The latter turned out to be not so true, but those were the Clinton Camp talking points before the contest ever got underway. Those same talking points didn't have such a good effect on voters who were not convinced she was the best choice and wanted a contest. We were being told that we weren't going get the chance to make a choice, really. The pundits thought so. I was certainly told that by local party operatives who were solidly in her camp - which was all of them, since I live in NY. I didn't mind being told why I should vote for her. I did mind being told that the primaries were going to be basically a beauty contest. So, that came off as a little hubris and a lot high handed to some people out here.

Later on, when it became clear that Obama was going to pose a creditable challenge, the reaction from the Clinton Camp came across as outrage that such a thing could happen. I didn't take Bill Clinton's "fantasy" remarks in NH as racist, although I certainly did take some of his later statements as using race in a bad way. They did come across badly, though. For me, that's when the sense of entitlement seemed to arise. Even now that Hillary Clinton has softened her tone blogs that support her, and whose support she has acknowledged and accepted, do seem to take the position that Obama is some kind of usurper rather than just a candidate who has done better than she has. I have never seen this much resentment toward the winning candidate in a primary season and the fact that so many Clinton supporters on the web say the exact same things on the same day give one a feeling that these are talking points being released to them, and they sound like entitlement to me.

They have the ability to make something up about the Clintons, then turn around and believe it. Rather like eating one's own turds.

which gave us undeniable proof that you don't have to be a republican to succumb to lowbrow rhetoric of the msm. This is further evidenced by the zeal Clinton haters have propogated this lie. It's an age old flaw in the human race. Hearing and interpreting things the way they want to see them, not the way things really are. Sad for the human race, more sad for the Democratic Party, knowing that many are susceptible to the same machinations by the msm, that repugs are. Looks like Obama will be the nominee, but I would have like to see him win it on his record, and stance on important issues, and not for reasons of a flawed, and naive idealism based upon using guilt, and fear of being labeled racist. This is not how MLK, and others of his ilk envisioned the goal of equality among all people. Seems many have decided that, contrary to the ideals of the Democratic Party, and common decency, the end does justify the means. Thanks.
quickesst

of the way it was going to be. No ifs, ands or buts. She seemed to take the primary season as a mere formality and that was born out by her lack of planning for post-Super Tuesday. That's the point where I was completely turned off to Hillary. As a woman, I expected to vote for her, but since Shrub turned into King George I was in no mood for a coronation and that seemed to be what Hillary was looking for.

with her war chest, the design of the primary elections where she was to deliver an early knock out blow, the officials lined up in super delegate status behind her at the beginning, and the win at any cost strategy along with the co-ordinated attack plan on Dean. Our did we dream it all?

Entitled is more accurate.

And I think that I started believing that when she teared up before the NH primary. I believed the tears were REAL but not for the reason that others have given. I think that she was incredulous that this new Black politician was able to tap that ass without seeming to try (although we all know that he campaign was working 24/7 for that result) "and it was hersssssssssssss" **sniffle, sniffle**

When a person cannot attribute anything that happens to them to a failing on their own part it shows a sense of entitlement. Hillary has blamed everyone except for herself in every instance of her loss. She continues to de-legitimized the process so to speak instead of realizing her role in her loss.

Things like:

Caucasus are cheating instead of her not running a smart campaign or simply the other candidate is more liked in those areas.

The media is picking on me instead of whoops probably should not have said I would nuke an entire nation or I was ducking sniper fire.

There are more but I think these two good examples of what I am talking about.

Add to that the continuation of a failed campaign at the detriment of the candidate America has re soundly voted for and you got what I think is your answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6016062

I've seen this over and over again here, as well as having Hillary supporters who are friends of mine tell me this IRL.

It just blows me away that people think like this. Hubris, indeed.

not Clinton herself. Should we believe that Obama believes and behaves much like his supporters here?

I disagree. You don't get to be a four star general and head of Nato forces without knowing the political process (domestic and foreign) inside and out. And I'm quite sure Perot was well intertwined with politics. Of course neither had run for elected office, but that doesn't make them unfamiliar with politics. Besides, both had hired experienced campaign managers to handle the nuts and bolts of a campaign.

:shrug:

Women are not supposed to want anything for themselves. Don't you know, it's Obama's turn because his fan base says so? ;)

Perhaps "deserve" is better said as "entitled" - her campaign strategy was to run an incumbent's race, which is what she did throughout 2007 and into January. She was entitled to the nomination by virtue of being who she was and having set up in advance the machinery of power. By February, it was clear that strategy had failed. Still, while another candidate would most certainly have dropped out after losing 11 contests and going broke, Clinton was entitled to continue based on her party standing and claims on the two most recent Democratic administrations and currently entitled by her claims on the women's vote and white vote (which I believe are exaggerated). That said, any candidate is entitled to run to the end of the race without being entitled to the nomination. But there are very, very few politicians who bother doing it, in a state of bankruptcy, at that, in the hopes the opposing and winning campaign will explode and s/he will be the last one standing to save the party. This all takes, imo, a definite sense of entitlement.

I'm sure they will point you to the strategist that came up with the idea - provided that person hasn't been fired and isn't, in fact, the would-be candidate herself.

All the media started talking about Clinton before her re-election to the Senate. Mostly in that love-hate that the media have, but heavy on the hate with Clinton. The "she'll say and do anything" version was heavy on Fox. Matthews, who has a problem with women in any position of authority, repeatedly sniped at her.

They worked on promoting the idea that Clinton lied about everything, even who she was named after. That one is particularly interesting; an online search finds not indication that Edmund Hillary was known at all in the US press in 1947; a search in a good library finds various articles that would make her mother's story at least plausible. (Remember Hillary was climbing the tallest mountains before Everest; he was usually identified as Ed or E.P., not Edmund.) It just shows that something not being found by Google does not mean it doesn't exist.

The Edwards meme was "living in Iowa", his big houses (WaPo big stories on who _bought_ his house in DC, as if that mattered), questioning motives on Poverty Center and everything else. He actually spent less time in Iowa than many of our candidates -- sort of middle of the pack.

Every little thing negative, even just a rumor, about Edwards was immediately picked up by AP and every media outlet repeated it. Compare that with the coverage of the "Robert Blackwell" Obama story in the LA Times on a very cozy relationship with Blackwell providing Obama's only non-state income for over a year. It received a couple of tiny mentions at places like TPM, but was not picked up by AP or anyone similar. The blogs have gone wild and the RW has been digging at the story.

Its OK to believe herself to be deserving.

But I think her problem was here.http://youtube.com/watch?v=V47-HRJUxmM&feature=related

she refused to discount the possibility of it happening.