The writing of the obituary of the Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination for president began in earnest on Wednesday morning. Her narrow win in Indiana coupled with the loss in North Carolina has all of the pundits weighing in.
I don’t think anyone can deny that the path to the nomination hasn’t narrowed. The argument that remains, and has been a consistent theme of the campaign, is electability. It is what drew me to her candidacy in the first place. Pragmatic? You bet. A win in November has always been what I wanted.
I never had any intentions of being involved in a national campaign. As time has gone on, though, something changed. Somewhere along the way, I became personally vested in this campaign. Maybe it was NH and her “finding her voice.” Maybe it was the knowledge of what it’s like to run a campaign when it seems that so many people – particularly the media – are aligned against you. Maybe it was the attacks that I have gotten for my support of Hillary, ones that have come face-to-face and via emails. Maybe it was the the email from the 76-year-old Alaskan caucus goer who felt completely disenfranchised by the process. Whatever it was, the effect was a strengthening of my support for Hillary, and an increased willingness on my part to do what I could to help her succeed.
That willingness has put me in a position that I’m sure others have experienced when working on a campaign. Probably the biggest thing is that you become privy to information that you cannot share, some of it things you’d just as soon not know. Yep, like watching sausage being made. I’ve seen sausage being made, both for real and in campaigns. It ain’t pretty.
In 2006, there was a great push to get Democrats in control of Congress. We did that and what has it gotten us? Are we still in Iraq? Have we rolled back the Bush tax cuts? Has the deficit gone down? In other words, are we better off today than you were before? Only the most biased among us would say yes.
Oh, I’ve heard all of the excuses. And that’s all they are – excuses. There is no political will in Washington to do the right thing by the people of the United States. It is business as usual, only the characters have changed.
We all want to believe that changing the president will change things in Washington. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As Hillary has been vilified in the press and on the blogs, one of the major memes has been that she represents the “old” way of doing things. Well, doesn’t saying one thing while doing another represent the old way? Isn’t having your surrogates do your dirty work the old way? Isn’t blaming your opponent for your own behavior the old way? And isn’t trying to not count votes that favor your opponent, most notably FL, the old way?
The old way can never be changed at the top until we change it at the bottom. More than 29,000 people (pdf p. 457) voted in Norfolk in February’s primary while just over 8,000 bothered to vote in last Tuesday’s council election. In a city that has more than 105,000 registered voters, that is pathetic. Given the chance to influence those politicians closest to us, the people punted. It is no wonder, then, that those in Washington, far removed from the accountability to the people, don’t give a damn.
The blame lies with us. Ours is a populace that fakes concern for what goes on in Washington, because we fail to look beyond the soundbites. Our opinions are not shaped by the facts – what exactly are the differences in the platforms of the candidates? – but by fear and innuendo. Lies and distortions spread faster than truth – no, Obama is not a Muslim – helped in no small part by the echo chamber that was once the independent media.
The choice of new versus old is a false one, because the political process is stacked against it and there is no will at any level to change it. So for me, I’d rather have someone who knows how to negotiate it (like LBJ) than someone who will be stymied by it (like Jimmy Carter). As long as she’s willing to run, I’m with Hillary.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I am not sure being called dumb by a blithering idiot is an insult. May I direct you to the local Marine Corps recruiter you coward?
Yeah, right…. in the right win bizzaro world.
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
– All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
– Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
All of you – stop the name calling. Either show some civility or I’m shutting down this post.
To you Vivian, I apologize.
Even as a retrospective exercise, Iraq was a matter of life and death for my kid and have no fuse for the right wing war apologists, much less a short one.
I admire your call for civility, Vivian. Emotions are running high. I have think the most amazing thing is how people resort to calling others stupid or dumb because we have different preferences. Comments like Brian’s made are getting more typical–ad hominem attacks that don’t enlighten anyone.
Stop by and see what you think of my picks for a Hillary Cabinet (all serious).
I’ll state upfront that I’m supporting Sen. Obama and have been for over a year (I live in Illinois).
That said, if Sen. Clinton were to garner the nomination, I will work for her this election year just as hard as I will for Sen. Obama. (Same if Sen. Edwards or Sen. Dodd or another of our candidates were to have earned the nomination.)
Overall I enjoyed your post and think your loyalty is great and serves our shared party well. But, I do have one nit to pick with your post.
You wrote, “And isn’t trying to not count votes that favor your opponent, most notably FL, the old way?”
…The state parties of Florida and Michigan both knew the DNC rules from the get-go. All of the campaigns agreed to abide by the rules and didn’t visit FL or MI to campaign out of respect for those rules. As has often been noted, members of Sen. Clinton’s campaign staff voted in favor of those rules at the DNC.
Like them or not, the rules are the rules. I have no doubt a plan will be formulated to seat the FL and MI delegations (or a prorated portion thereof, as the Republicans are doing).
But one can’t logically complain about the rules after first agreeing to them… the result would be anarchy (and would likely lead to Thanksgiving primaries and caucuses instead of early January ones).
It’s minor nit on my part, but understandably a major bone of contention among Sen. Clinton’s supporters.
I wish you the best.
Rob – FL’s Democrats had no choice in the matter. (The Republican legislature set the date and did them in.) That’s the reason why I so strenously believe that those delegates should be seated and should not be penalized. MI is another issue altogether, and I honestly wish that the two states would not be combined.
NND,
As a courtesy to Vivian, I’ll refrain from saying what I think about you and your posts. I’ll merely say that smug, preening self-righteousness from anyone is annoying and deserving of mockery.
I guess that smug, preening self-righteousness comes with being correct, I suppose. And if annoying is the least I can become to a bush apologist, I will have to work much much harder within the rules of propriety set down by VJP.
Vivian,
“On 10 June 2007, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the state’s 29 January 2008 primary.” http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/FL-D.phtml
Furthermore, rather than “having no choice in the matter,” “The Florida House voted unanimously to move it up….” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04florida.html
Is the Florida House made up entirely of Republicans?
Mouse – catch up. We already talked about this here.
Not a single protest vote, Vivian? AND the Florida Democratic Central Committee stood by the decision, also unanimously?
In fact, the effort to move up the date was sponsored by a Democrat, Jeremy Ring. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=132&topic_id=4626494
Here is a telling quote: “Florida Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller stated on the Senate floor that he was offering an amendment to move the primary to February 5 only because he was threatened by DNC Chair Howard Dean. Sen. Geller than mocked his own amendment which failed on a voice vote without any debate.”
That does not sound like a railroading to me.
Vivian,
If I may comment on your actual post instead of the rodent-based idiocy …
I think that you should stick with your candidate as long as you believe she’s the one you want. I wouldn’t ever back her … but that’s me.
I was with Mike Huckabee when he was polling at 1%. People told me I was crazy and was wasting my vote. I stick by what I did as right.
I am now backing Joe Schriner as am independent, because I believe that he’s the right person for me to back — I won’t go with McCain, Obama, or Clinton.
In all cases, at every moment, every voter should back a candidate that he or she really wants to see win, who shares his or her values, and is the right person for the job. No one should ever just back someone because other people say so.
The Democratic side is very interesting right now, from my point of view.
wickle – thanks. That’s exactly what I intend to do 😉