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 
Boy – talk about a thread getting off-topic! Thanks for nothing, Mouse.
proudvadem – when you say things are going both ways and proceed to give only an example of what the Hillary campaign has done, it doesn’t square.
AIAW, Bill & NND – glad to know I’m not the last Hillary supporter in Virginia.
hoh – if that’s the only reason you couldn’t support Hillary, I think that’s pretty shallow.
gene – since you’re so concerned about Democratic voters, how about your candidate allowing the votes for FL and MI to count?
MB – right as usual.
All – sometimes it’s best to just ignore Mouse.
Vivian, you brought up Iraq in your post, and proudvadem commented about Iraq before Mouse did.
How does that equate to Mouse taking things “off topic”? You didn’t say “sometimes it’s best to just ignore proudvadem for starting the Iraq debate in the comments, but you want to ignore Mouse for responding.
Boy, liberals are weird about free speech.
NND, your Marine was not drafted, and Sen. Clinton voted for the war without even bothering to go read the intel reports.
All of which ignores the fact that of all the Democratic candidates for President this year, the Democrats will nominate the LEAST qualified. Pitiful, but not surprising.
“Democrats are definitely not wimps since there are far more elected officials in congress serving on the Democratic side that have actually been in the military.”
And your Democrats in Congress (including Sen. Clinton) voted to go to war in Iraq, and continue to fund the war. It seems they know better than their core constituency.
Actually, Gene, it seems you are incorrect. Here is a site that track who in government has served in the military. 12.5% of Republican congressman have served, vs. 9.9% of Democrats. 16% of Republican Senators have served, but only 13% of Democrats.
Where did you get your numbers?
Go to hell you little pipsqueak of a mouse.
My Marine was not drafted but he answered the call to serve his country, prior to 9-11. Just because we do not draft does not mean little tin horn chickenhawks like bush and cheney, with subservient cowards like you, may misuse their service by sending them into a needless and unnecessary war. There is not greater stain on the entire neo con cabal that the stains of the red blood of the soldiers sailors and Marines who were sent to their death and dismemberment for some idea ginned up in a right wing “think” tank.
By the way, Senator Clinton voted for the Authorization to Use Force as THREAT of force as leverage to go to the UN to return UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspections regimes back into Iraq. I actually applauded the success of this when the inspectors were in fact reinserted into Iraq. But they were finding that Iraq did not in fact still posses the prohibited WMD and blew a hole in the entire war rational. It was your boy bush who lied to all when he announce the AUF vote was a vote for peace. It was your boy bush who lied to the world when he promised to go back to the UN for a second resolution if war was the next step. It was you boy bush who misused the AUF, just like he misused and broke our military.
You right wing apologist for bush are either uninformed idiots or just plain stupid. In your case, I bet both.
Vivan,
Yes things DO go both ways. I have never said the Obama campaign has been a perfect one, nor he a perfect candidate. In my eyes, for there to be a “perfect” candidate- Paul Wellstone would have to come back to life.
I am pragmatic enough to say it DOES go both ways- I’m not happy with things the Clinton campaign has said- especially about the youth vote. It makes me very happy to see the under 35 vote start to get mobilized. And like I said- this same argument was made in 1992 when I part of that “youth” vote that swept Bill Clinton into office.
Let me just say this, neither campaign can claim to wear a “halo”. I don’t like things I have seen on both sides and I know that this is how things get. This is the reason I’m not on the campaign trail anymore- I don’t have a stomach for it. As much as I love politics- I don’t like the way that primaries become “us vs. them”, when in turn- we are ALL Democrats.
“My Marine was not drafted but he answered the call to serve his country, prior to 9-11.”
Good for him. I notice he is still in, too.
“Senator Clinton voted for the Authorization to Use Force as THREAT of force as leverage to go to the UN to return UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspections regimes back into Iraq.”
That’s a good one. Congress voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 on October 11, 2002, more than three weeks after Iraq had agreed to allow the inspectors to return without conditions.
Why would Clinton vote to authorize the use of force to get Iraq to do what it had already done? Maybe since she couldn’t be bothered to read the intel reports before sending the troops to war, she couldn’t be bothered to learn that Iraq had already agreed to allow the inspectors back in. Maybe she couldn’t be bothered to actually read the Resolution before she voted on it.
Brian – I mentioned Iraq. There’s a difference. It’s called context. If you don’t get that, then I guess you’re in the same boat as Mouse. Or is Mouse your alter ego?
And don’t throw that “free speech” stuff at me. There are always limits to free speech. Telling folks to ignore Mouse in no way limits his free speech. If I wanted to limit his free speech, I could just ban him. Which I’m tempted to do quite often.
NND – calm down. It ain’t worth it.
Mouse – cool it. I mean it.
Vivian,
I have no problem with giving Hillary her delegates alloted for 55% of the vote in Michigan, and the other 45% to Barack, and also have no problem alloting Hillary her delegates from Florida which would be based on about 54% and allot Obama the rest of the delegates. that would be the fairest way to resolve the issue. Would not change anything however. Also you act like I am one of those out there beating the Bush for Obama and you know that has not happened. I am not outspoken for either candidate, just stated my preference and have basically left it alone. My candidate wil be the one that wins this thing, which based on the numbers will be Obama. Ask NNDEM how serene I am about the whole thing. Oh NNDEM, just to make you feel at home and keep your streak going- STFU. P.S. That should win me a nice cold 22 oz. pitcher of some nice cold true Irish Ale.
Pipsqueak:
I still haven’t decided whether you are ill-informed, stupid or both.
October 10 – The United States Congress passes the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
November 8, 2002
The UN Council votes unanimously for resolution 1441, the 17th Iraq disarmament resolution passed by the council, calling for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq. The resolution also demands that Iraq declare all weapons of mass destruction to the council, and account for its known chemical weapons material stockpiles.
November 13, 2002
Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.
Maybe conservatives have their own special calendar that goes backwards, like the way they think!
NND, Iraq’s acceptance of U.N. SCR 1441 in November is little more than a reiteration of the agreement of 16 September, 2002, to allow the inspectors in “without conditions.” They had already agreed, as of Sept 16th, to allow the inspectors to return. Why did Clinton, three weeks later, vote to authorize the use of force to get Iraq to agree to allow the inspectors to return?
Who the hell gives a hoot about these stupid resolutions by us or the U.N.. the fact is that we are there, we are losing lives based on a bunch of lies(proof is in watching Colin Powell speach at the U.N.) in violation of Bush’s oath of office. Nobody lives by the UN resolutions. the U.S. is a main violator of any resolutions that might come down the pipeline, followed closely by Israel, and then the other countries just line up behind all the rest. Just this dialogue between Anon and NNDEM proves Iraq was a major disaster and we need to get out. Our Troops did what was called on them to do and we won, now it is time to get out and if the Iraqi’s want to kill each other and can’t get their stuff together then that will be their problem. It is not like they have not had the same problem before. P.S. Our troops signed up to defend our country not because the CIC says so, but because our country is somehow threatened and they were never told before hand that they could lose their lives based on big lies.
Vivian,
I’m sorry to say that I am one of those registered voters in Norfolk who didn’t vote in last Tuesday’s elections. Why you may ask. My answer, that I am disillustioned by the choices. It’s not so much voting for the best person, it’s become more like voting for the lesser evil. Too bad there aren’t more down-to-earth folks that are willing to represent the people – the “real, hard-working, low and middle income people” and have their best interest at heart. The whole situation is a sad one.
Let me type this thing out for you real slowly for easy comprehension……..
1- The AUF was passed to provide the leverage for the US to go to the UN to get a resolution of disarmament and a vigorous inspections regimes back in Iraq.
2- The UN passed the resolution and the world knew there would be military consequences should Iraq fail to comply.
3- Iraq capitulated, accepted the new resolution and UNMOVIC and the IAEA reentered Iraq.
4- The Inspectors were provided unfettered access to suspected sites, finding nothing but a technical violation of Al-Samoud intermediate range missiles that had a range of a few miles over the allowable limit. They were bulldozed and destroyed.
5- No other violations were being found and bushco was screwed…their rational for an invasion and occupation (the marketing campaign for a new product (the war) they rolled in in September) was blowing up.
The threat of force in conjunction with robust diplomacy worked for the stated goal of verifiable disarmament by Iraq. It WAS A SUCCESS and that is what Hillary voted for. Her error was thinking shrub was a man of his word and would abide by agreements he made. I fault her for that and I fault me for giving bush credit for this great diplomatic success which turned out to be a lie and charade he perpetrated on the American people, the Congress and the world.
It did not matter if vague earlier statements were being made. They were distractions to stop the real diplomacy going on at the UN. If that is all that was required, the inspectors would have already been in Iraq. Read some of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s articles on this and how the real world operates.
You are deluding yourself into thinking anything other that bushco made a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions and no re-writing of history will prove anything other than that fact. The real grown-ups, men like Jim Webb and Anthony Zinni, predicted the clusterF that was to follow this reckless and wrongheaded decision to invade and occupy a country in the heart of the middle east. Damn, anyone who as seen Lawrence of Arabia could have predicted it.