Don't play Hillary's losing blame gameBy Frank Wooten (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, May 11, 2008
 Hillary Clinton, six days before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries: "If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee." Sure. And if I'd gone into show biz instead of the newspaper biz, I'd be a movie star. Most folks play stacked mind games with self-elevating "ifs." More on that, and on that Clintonian party-rules con, below. First, though, a far less amusing Clintonian con: Clinton's lopsided loss Tuesday in North Carolina effectively turned out the lights on her already-dimmed hopes for the Democratic presidential nomination, despite a narrow triumph the same day in Indiana. But in the wake of that Waterloo, she stayed in the race, telling USA Today during a Wednesday phone interview that she has a "much broader base" than Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press story that she said "found Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." More "ifs": If any Republican candidate branded any black candidate's support as "weakening" among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans," he (or she) would be widely — and justifiably — condemned. If any Republican presidential candidate, under GOP rules, won 32 of the 51 primary and caucus contests so far, including, at one critical point, 11 in a row, he (or she) would have clinched the nomination long before a rival could stage a late rally. Those are Obama's stats. Yes, the GOP generally awards far more delegates — often on a common-sense, winner-take-all basis — to the winner of a primary or caucus than the Democrats, who split them far too evenly, diluting victory's rightful spoils. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, further dilute voters' will by superimposing party-insider "superdelegates" on the process. Either way, Obama wins. Clinton's newfound fixation on "white Americans" likely hinges on this galling twist: Her husband lost the general-election white vote while winning the presidency in 1992 and 1996; she won the primaries' white vote while losing the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. (Lyndon Johnson, in a 1964 landslide, was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win the general-election white vote.) Boo-hoo. More "ifs": If Clinton's husband hadn't played the race card on the day (Jan. 26) of our state's Democratic primary, and if her campaign hadn't kept dealing it since then, her share of the black vote wouldn't have dropped from 19 percent in that S.C. primary to 7 percent in Tuesday's N.C. primary. Her husband's dismissal of Obama's looming S.C. victory as tantamount to Jesse Jackson's isolated 1984 and 1988 victories here set an ugly tone. If Rush Limbaugh hadn't launched "Operation Chaos" to blunt Obama's winning-streak momentum, the Democratic race might have ended much sooner. The right-wing radio powerhouse ordered his "dittohead" shock troops into the Democratic fray to vote for Clinton, aiming to extend — and embitter — the nomination fight and undermine the eventual winner. Though some folks dismissed "Operation Chaos" as a publicity stunt with little or no political impact, Clinton won four of the next five states after it started. And a release from Obama's camp pinned his close loss in Indiana on "the Limbaugh effect." Limbaugh vowed on Thursday's show to press the operation forward on the Michigan and Florida delegation-seating fronts. Yet "El Rushbo" also offered this lament on Clinton's "incompetence": "If she had just known how to use the gift." Gee, another "if." John Greenleaf Whittier, a 19th century American poet and abolitionist, puts "if" more elegantly in "Maud Muller": "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: 'It might have been!' '' Thus, Clinton, who preposterously presented her first-ladyship as a presidential qualification, now wallows in what "might have been." She blames party rules, black voters, ex-allies' betrayals, the media, apparently anybody but herself for her failure. This unseemly spectacle is a case study in how not to gracefully handle defeat. Then again, in fairness to that particularly sore loser, few of us avoid at least occasional indulgences in buck-passing delusions about life's disappointments. We should all strive to, in the traditional sense, "take it like a man." OK, so lots of males don't "take it like a man" — and lots of females do. Make that "take it like a grown-up." So if the White House candidate you're rooting for loses, don't whine about the black vote, white vote, female vote, male vote, electoral college, party rules, campaign-finance rules, biased reporters or pompous pundits. And whoever wins, root for him — the "her" option is finally kaput — to succeed. strong>Frank Wooten is associate editor of The Post and Courier. His e-mail is wooten@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 11 comment(s)
Posted by pamc on May 11, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What emotionalistic nonsense! We need a Democrat who can win in November, and Hillary has shown that she has the states and the demographics and the poll numbers to beat McCain.
Obama admits she will win WV and KY in landslides, so he is trying to confuse her voters and make them stay home. Although the states are safe wins for her, we still need every vote to increase her national popular vote total.
Be sure and vote and remind your friends to! Find out if anyone needs a ride.
Posted by Regenbogen on May 11, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I could never vote for empty-suit Obama. He simply is not qualified for the job. Period. Somehow it's okay to talk about blacks supporting Obama, but if anyone dares to mention the FACT that white blue-collar workers overwhelming support Clinton, then it's racist. I don't get that. Blue-collar workers simply connect with Hillary's message on the economy. Why is that so hard to understand? Keep on blowing your hot air, Mr. Wooten. You sound like a very angry man.
Posted by 1805 on May 11, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Recognize that voters want a choice, not a symbol of change. We want someone in the White House with the goods, the gravitas and the guts to lead us down a perilous road. The center of this country, the middle wants someone that has experience. We've had 8 years of rhetoric (think of all the nice words George has given us Compassionate Conservativism, running against those Washington Elite). Obama turned to the left and picked up where George left off, with a 'watch what I say but not what I do' campaign.
From the rationale about Wright to the flag saluting to the associations with figures whose patriotism we doubt, Obama is unelectable in our eyes. We want a leader who can and will lead to a place we can picture because their words are tied to action, not simply a best guess.
I would never vote for an Emperor with no Clothes Obama, either...
Posted by clingingtomyvote on May 11, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Comments like this are very divisive. That is why I will be clinging to my vote. Do not play voters for fools Mr Obama. That is not the kind of change I am looking for.
"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
Posted by jcless on May 11, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm one of the 16 million plus voters that voted for Hillary and if Obama gets the nomination I will not vote for him in November. He's lied, has had poor judgement, he's arrogant, elite, he snubbbed the white working class and now he thinks we will come running over to him for the party. Our country is more important than the Democratic Party. I'm 65 yrs. old and though I've always been a democrat; it's still not too late to change. It would be a disaster for him to be the President.
Posted by PatrickKnif on May 11, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Should Clinton quit? Absolutely not! Although much of the media seems to believe that it, not the voters, should decide which candidate should be elected, and when, and has doggedly tried to force Clinton from the race, she'll win it. She's smart, tough, experienced, & far better prepared for the job and responsibilities of the oval office. We know she'll steer us back to a sound economy without wars, with good employment, the same health care plan that Congress members enjoy, gas & electricity we can afford, increased employment, lessened out-sourcing, & an income tax that's fair to us instead of favoring the wealthy.
Based on Obama’s record and accomplishments to date, we have no reason to believe that he could or would do the same; and his history, basic philosophy per his autobiography, his "selective" memory, and close ties to people like William Ayers, Louis Faraquan, el-slsl, Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko cause deep concern about his qualifications, who he would choose as advisers, cabinet, and chiefs of staff, and where he would lead us. He promises change but so did George Bush. Clinton promises change, and we can trust that hers will be for the better.
As the campaigns progress and more of Obama's true character and morals, history, etc., emerges, many voters have already had second thoughts about his self- proclaimed honesty, transparency & accountability (and also about his scarcity of qualifications) and decided that Clinton is the better candidate, and many more voters will have second, & third, thoughts as they learn more about Obama. This is verified by the exit polls. As us non-elitists say, Obama ain't all that he'd like us to think he is, and the voters are learning.
As to the so called “race card,” Obama and his camp have long, from the beginning of his campaign, been playing it with no qualms or furor at all, claiming that Clintonites support her because Obama's "black" (never mind that she's spent most of her adult life working to help blacks), and that blacks should support Obama because he's black. It's much like Mrs. Obama's attending college on an American scholarship and then stating she's never been proud of America and that this country is “just downright mean.”
Posted by sandi1wiz on May 11, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillary is not quitting and why should she?? From the very first debate she was bashed by Edwards and Obama.Hillary is 100 times stronger more brilliant and way more experienced.Obama has been crying the race card from day 1 and yet Obama and Michell can say whatever and its OK.The news media has puffed up empty headed Obama and downded Hillary .The race was fixed by the media.If our country is ruined the news media are the ones who caused it.
Hillary 2008
Posted by sjtruth on May 11, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This race is still neck and neck. At least half of the Democratic voters have cast their votes for Senator Clinton and there are more primaries to be held. This call from the media, DNC and the Obama campaign for Senator Clinton to drop out is unprecedented. It's the medias job to provide fair and unbiased reporting which certainly hasn't been the case where Senator Clinton is concerned.
Senator Clinton is staying in the race for me and millions of her other supporters. and we're behind her 110%. So stick to your job and quit trying to supress the vote and hand this election to Obama. It's not over yet .
Posted by johnnyschad on May 11, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Careful Sir! Half of the people needed to win the White House support Senator Clinton. We do so for rational reasons that, respectfully, Senator Obama does not and cannot address.
The Obama "win" is certainly not a mandate. He's not that far ahead.
Terms like "whining" should be used sparingly, especially when your candidate will require most of Senator Clinton's supporters to succeed--IF he gets the nomination, that is.
Posted by jchbrock on May 11, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But, what is the will of the people?
The press is silent on the issue of caucuses, but caucuses have led to the lead in pledged delegates for Obama and what has happened since then. Caucuses disenfranchise Hillary's main voter base: older voters, working people who cannot take off from work or cannot afford baby sitters so that they can participate in lengthy caucus processes, and the many women who are intimidated or pressured by the fact that caucuses are public. Primaries use secret ballots and absentee ballots for a reason. An additional problem is that the delegates of a caucus state were awarded on the basis of low caucus voting numbers, making the skew towards Obama even more pronounced.
Look at the website election.msn.com, specifically the states of Washington and Texas, to compare primary results to caucus results. The delegates were awarded on the basis of the caucus. Obama won the following caucus states: Alaska, Colorado, Connecti cut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska , North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. Hillary won Nevada because many caucuses were held in the workplace and people were given time off to vote.
Obama supporters, to whom I gave this argument, say that Obama won the caucuses because of his superior organization and that is why he should have the delegates, but I contend that it is not a matter of organization. I fell last year and broke my T5 vertebrae. I would not have been able to vote in the caucus in Texas because of the long lines and the cold night. But, I live in the great state of California and we have a primary that Hillary won by 10%. And, yes, I am an older woman, part of Hillary's voter base.
Caucuses should be declared illegal, for the future. But, the future is not my argument now: look at the outcome of primaries to determine electability in November. The general election is like a primary, not a caucus. Everyone votes.
Posted by crankyyankee on May 12, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The will of the people depends on if your talking about white people or black people. Whites are divided about 50/50 for Hillary/Obama, but blacks are over 90% for Obama. That stat alone says volumes about who the racists are!