MyDD :: HRC in NY Daily News OP-ED: "Why I continue to run"

HRC in NY Daily News OP-ED: "Why I continue to run"

by DaTruth, Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:38:32 AM EST

I've never been more ashamed of the "gotcha" and feigned outrage exhibited by the punditocracy and many, many blog commenters over HRC's SD Editorial Board meeting. Anyone with an ounce of integrity and honesty would have to admit that she was referring to historical truths: that even a day is a lifetime in politics, and that anything can (and has) happened in past election primary seasons. Yet even having to continually defend her rationale for staying in the race is absurd. She just won two overwhelming victories in WV and Kentucky; she still continues to outpoint Obama in Head-to-Head vs. McCain in the GE; for all the talk that this is "over", she still runs fairly evenly with Obama in national Dem trackers (closer by the day, lately).

I'm so sick of these nattering nabobs of negativisim (to quote that wonderful guy <snark>, Spiro Agnew) who chime in daily over what she should or shouldn't do. Andrew Sullivan? What a pathetic human being. Howard Fineman? Please; why would anyone take YOU seriously? The political chatter in this country is devolving rapidly. It's really sunken deeper than I could have imagined, and I'm pretty used to the low class b.s. that masquerades as political opinion/commentary.

Here's Senator Clinton's Op-Ed in today's NY Daily News, the same paper where a disgusting columnist named Michael Goodwin ripped her for being "sick", etc., yesterday. Anything for a headline, I guess.

Hillary: Why I continue to run
BY HILLARY CLINTON

Sunday, May 25th 2008, 4:00 AM

This past Friday, during a meeting with a newspaper editorial board, I was asked about whether I was going to continue in the presidential race.

I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.

Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.

I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.

But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.

And today, I would like to more fully answer the question I was asked: Why do I continue to run, even in the face of calls from pundits and politicians for me to leave this race?

I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher - and the need for real leadership has never been greater - and I believe I can provide that leadership.

I am not unaware of the challenges or the odds of my securing the nomination - but this race remains extraordinarily close, and hundreds of thousands of people in upcoming primaries are still waiting to vote. As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain. But that has not happened yet.

I am running because I believe staying in this race will help unite the Democratic Party. I believe that if Sen. Obama and I both make our case - and all Democrats have the chance to make their voices heard - in the end, everyone will be more likely to rally around the nominee.

I am running because my parents did not raise me to be a quitter - and too many people still come up to me at my events, grip my arm and urge me not to walk away before this contest is over. More than 17 million Americans have voted for me in this race - the most in presidential primary history.

I am running for all those women in their 90s who've told me they were born before women could vote, and they want to live to see a woman in the White House. For all the women who are energized for the first time, and voting for the first time. For the little girls - and little boys - whose parents lift them onto their shoulders at our rallies, and whisper in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be." As the first female candidate in this position, I believe I have a responsibility to finish this race.

I am running for all the men and women I meet who wake up every day and work hard to make a difference for their families. People who deserve a shot at the American Dream - the chance to save for college, a home and retirement; to afford quality health care for their families; to fill the gas tank and buy the groceries with a little left over each month.

I believe I won a 40-point victory two weeks ago in West Virginia and a 35-point victory in Kentucky this past week - despite voters being repeatedly told this race is over - because I'm standing up for them. I'm standing up for the deepest principles of our party and for an America that values the middle class and rewards hard work.

Finally, I am running because I believe I'm the strongest candidate to stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain. Delegate math might be complicated - but electoral math is not. Our campaign is winning the popular vote - and we've been winning the swing states we need to get 270 electoral votes and take back the White House: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida and West Virginia.

But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.

Tags: Hillary, Clinton, RFK, context (all tags)

Permalink :: 88 Comments :: Post a Comment

Thank you (2.00 / 12)

Thank you for sharing. That was a beautiful piece and affirms every positive trait I have admired in Hillary Clinton since the day I picked up her autobiography in 2003.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:46:59 AM EST

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 1)

You do realize that was a production of Ghost writers right?

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:59:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 8)

I am familiar with how these things work, yes.

Although you went out of your way for no reason to attack a book that I enjoyed reading, I won't return the favor with any disparaging remarks on The Audacity of Hope.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 1)

I did not mean to offend, I was pointing out the very point you mention.

The Audicity of Hope was in fact written by Obama.

There are numerous stories of the multiple writers who wrote the Clinton book.

CBS NEWS:

For Clinton's two literary efforts - the 1996 book "It Takes A Village" and the 2003 book "Living History" - she used ghostwriters. That's no grave sin: Plenty of politicians use ghostwriters. But it should be noted that Clinton didn't exactly shower hers with credit. In "Village," Clinton infamously failed to include Barbara Feinman - the ghostwriter Simon & Schuster paid $120,000 to help Hillary with the project - in her acknowledgements. Hillary haters subsequently made Feinman a literary martyr, alleging that she'd written the entire book. More recently, Hillary's advocates told the New Yorker that Feinman's work was so unsatisfactory that it was basically unusable and Hillary didn't credit her out of spite. The truth probably lies somewhere in between - which still doesn't make Hillary look particularly good.

Nevertheless, Clinton did seem to learn her lesson from the episode and in "Living History," she acknowledged the help of ghostwriter Maryanne Vollers. But Clinton didn't go so far as to list Vollers's name alongside her own on the book's cover, a gesture plenty of other presidential candidates - including John Edwards and John McCain - have made. As for Vollers's feelings about her work with Hillary, the novelist Walter Kirn - who lived in the same Montana town as Vollers - once wrote that Vollers came to conclude that "there was no Hillary, really, just a creature concocted by her people who was happy to be a concoction of her people." Vollers subsequently disputed Kirn's characterization, branding him a "delusional Clinton hater" and reaffirming her admiration for Hillary. When I called both Feinman and Vollers to learn more about their experiences working with Clinton, neither one was able to tell me about them due to the confidentiality agreements they'd signed. The editors of "Village" and "Living History" - Becky Saletan and Nan Graham, respectively - did not respond to phone messages, nor did Lissa Muscatine, a former Clinton speechwriter who reportedly helped with the writing of Hillary's two books. And Feinman's former literary agent, Flip Brophy, who brokered her deal for Village, refused to discuss the matter with me, branding it "old history."

Obama's literary efforts, in contrast to Hillary's at least, are an open book. As a relatively unknown young lawyer with a smallish book advance, Obama obviously couldn't afford a ghostwriter for his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father," so he wrote the book himself. But anyone familiar with the story of Raymond Carver and Gordon Lish knows that editors sometimes do more than just massage an author's prose - they can also rewrite it. So I called Henry Ferris, who was Obama's editor on "Dreams," to ask him how many of the words in that book were Obama's. Ferris didn't have too many specific memories of the work he did with Obama more than a decade ago. "He and his book now are seen in such different ways than I was looking at them at that time," Ferris explained. "I didn't take on the project thinking he'd be a leading candidate for the presidency." But Ferris was absolutely adamant about one thing: "He wrote it completely and totally all by himself," Ferris said. "No one helped him." He added, "The manuscript needed shaping and focus, it needed editing, a lot of which he did based on suggestions I made. He was a terrific writer, a great stylist. ... This was not a job where I went in and had to completely redo this book for him. He needed the kind of guidance any first-time writer would need."

For his second book, the 2006 "The Audacity of Hope," Obama got enough of an advance ($1.9 million for a three-book deal) and was certainly busy enough with his work in the Senate - not to mention laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign - that no one would have blamed him for going the ghostwriter route. But, according to Rachel Klayman, the Crown editor who worked with him on "Audacity," he didn't. "I get irritated when people ask, 'Does he have a ghostwriter?' because it's the opposite of that," Klayman told me. "Not only does he not have a ghostwriter, he's on an entirely different plane from most writers editors work with." Klayman said that Obama's writing process was similar to that of many authors: He'd write a draft of a chapter - oftentimes working at his computer late at night - and then send it to her and a group of other people (although in Obama's case these people weren't just friends but mainly political and policy advisors) for suggested edits

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/2 2/opinion/main3865576.shtml

I was just pointing out that she didnt' write either book and unlike McCain and Edwards didnt' give the other writer credit on the cover, which lead to the perception for many that she did.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:18:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 4)

I appreciate the information but I don't see what you're trying to prove or accomplish.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

That was a beautiful piece and affirms every positive trait I have admired in Hillary Clinton since the day I picked up her autobiography in 2003

The point was that if her "autobiography" it might be instructive to know she didn't write it and you are attributing your admiration to the wrong person.

If that book is the source, as you say it is, isn't it better to admire the ghost writer and speech writer who actually produced the object of your admiration?

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 6)

The object of admiration was her life story, not the word choice of an assisting writer.

Are you actually trying to get me to say, "You're right, I never should have admired her"?

Still, I'll make no comment on The Audacity of Hope. If supporters enjoy the book and have personal admiration for Barack Obama, that's not the type of bond I'm looking to tear apart.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Authenticity (2.00 / 1)

might be the word you are missing here.

a PR piece vs authenticity.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Authenticity (2.00 / 6)

Ok, stop, seriously. You insult my intelligence for no reason. I'm not naive and unaware that these political memoirs contain a flattering slant towards the authors. But there are underlying facts that can't be disputed: her youth in Chicago and Northeast Pennsylvania, her visits to de facto women's shelters in rural China, her experience being physically ill (flu) when meeting with a foreign dignitary and how exhausting it was for her to pull it together, her lifelong commitment to civil rights works, and her unabashed calls for universal healthcare.

Still despite all of these base attacks on Hillary's book which I enjoyed reading, I will continue refraining from belittling people who enjoyed The Audacity of Hope or Dreams of My Father.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Presidential - Hillary is BY FAR the best candidat (2.00 / 5)

I think her statement speaks for itself. This whole campaign season has been a towering example of why the entire system needs to be reengineered.

Hillary is the strongest candidate by far.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No need to get defensive (none / 0)

I note that this is often the case when one points to facts.

Obama included many unflattering parts of his life, his youthful discretions etc., that give his work a flavor of real world experience that many of us who have strayed from the path can relate to.

I am not trying to take anything away from your admiration for Clinton's work. Okay. So no need to insult my intelligence either.

Talk about hypersensitive to the point of irrational hysteria.

overthrow the government~participate

by missliberties on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No need to get defensive (none / 0)

"Talk about hypersensitive to the point of irrational hysteria."

"No need to get defensive"

I'm not "defensive." My comments here have been a pretty calm observation of some very thinly guised insults. Pointing them out is not tantamount to "irrational hysteria."

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (1.25 / 4)

See, I was going to leave it alone...

If it's such a non issue that someone else wrote both of her books, why argue the point?

Again, I was just pointing out that the stated source of your admiration was not the product of her hand.

It's not a big deal, you could have read a biography instead of autobiography and felt the same way but it's nice to know which you are reading.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:56:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 7)

You assumed I was an idiot or at least ignorant to the facts-of-life in editing/writing. It's very much a joint effort; I have done it before and am well attuned to the practicalities of how a book, and here a Senator's memoir, accepts literary input and editing from a collaboration.

This is probably the most insulting response I've gotten to a purely positive comment in a very long time.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Why would it be so insulting, if you didn't have the information to make an informed judgment.

You have 4 books.

Clinton- No credit to other writers
Obama- No credit to other writers
Edwards- Credit to other writers (on cover)
McCain- Credit to other writers (on cover)

I don't know about you but looking at that list I would assume Clinton and Obama wrote the book on their own while Edwards and McCain used Ghost writers.

How is it insulting to suggest that through her choice to not credit the "other" writers you might have been mislead?

The larger point, she likely didn't wright the topic of this diary either.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 8)

It's insulting because I made a brief statement explaining that I admired her life story and you decided to "enlighten" me with purportedly derogatory details about the process of writing/editing with which I was already familiar.

Most Supreme Court justices do not write their own opinions; the clerks do the labor. But the opinions contain very definite traces of the justices' viewpoints, personality, flavor, approval, etc. Most memoirs I have read have involved a lot of back & forth communication between the subject and a second party. The same phenomenon occurs there.

I'm also aware that the letter above is likely a joint efforts involving some dialogue and input obviously from Sen. Clinton herself. That doesn't implode my opinion that it's a good work, well conceived, well stated, and with a little bit of inspiring rhetoric that we all love these days.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:32:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

The facts surrounding the publication of her book is only "derogatory" if you think they cast her in a negative light, do you?

The supreme court is a ridiculous analogy, one is interpreting the law, the is a self promoting story.

As we have this conversation "thou dost protest too much" comes to mind.

If the fact that she did not write her own books is not a commentary on the credit given, then how does pointing out that fact amount to a attack.

It's a strange new world when simply pointing out facts is a derogatory attack.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 5)

I'm not sure how many Supreme Court decisions you've read recently, but they're almost uniformly written in a way to underscore the justices' brilliance and insight, a fact that shines through regardless of which clerk undertook the task of writing it (far moreso than any memoir/biography). The analogy is apt though; assistants conveying the views and original thoughts of justices who may never actually touch the keyboard on which their opinions are "penned."

Pardon me if I don't believe your presentation of "ghost writer" stories was intended to be a positive or even neutral attribution to Hillary's book. That said, I feel the less I say, the better. Despite my repeated refusals to trash you or your preferred candidate's books, you appear compelled to counter everything I say and I feel I'm experiencing an academic exercise rather than a human conversation.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

You make a good point, I should have been more clear.

While I will admit there is a sense of how decisions are seen, it's from more of a historical perspective. When their opinions are read (particularly dissenting opinions) will history show them to have been the voice of reason and well constructed jurisprudence.

These autobiography's all of them, are to drive current perception and drive public perception today. That was the point I was making about the two not being analogous.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 6)

Could you please cut this out. Although you would like very much to set this diary off course, the rest of us would like to stay with the content. Thank you.

by Scotch on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nextgen. Please try to be less irritating. (2.00 / 4)

Thanks in advance.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:28:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nextgen. Please try to be less irritating. (none / 0)

Your right, never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative!

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But you missed BPK80's point entirely. (2.00 / 3)

S/he wasn't praising Hillary's writing. S/he admired Hillary's beliefs and what she'd accomplished. You started an argument for absolutely no reason -- just for the sake of nitpicking the words of a Clinton supporter, I suspect. What do you feel you've accomplished?

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But you missed BPK80's point entirely. (none / 0)

That's just the point, he wasn't admiring what she beleives, he was admiring what a group of writers thought would sound good.

Clearly from all those up in arms because I pointed out this work was produced by others, the actual writers did a good job.

an aside, why didn't she credit the ghost writer of the second book on the cover, like McCain and Edwards did?

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 7)

BPK80, I admire you for restraining from fighting fire with fire and not criticizing The Audacity of Hope. Your critics here though just don't want to stop. If they appreciated your goodwill gestures, I too would have let it go; but since you keep getting attacked despite your responses of goodwill, I'm going to jump in.

Just who was it that inspired Barack Obama to write The Audacity of Hope? This person was such an inspiration that Obama actually took the title of his book from one of his sermons. Hint: now Obama is outraged by this same inspirational figure, who was once such a defining influence in his life.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

ad hominem

This has no bearing on the point of this discussion.

As Sen. Joe Biden explained so well yesterday.

Senator 1. Puts up safety bill

Senator 2. Puts up opposing safety bill.

Senator 1. Criticizes the merits of Sen 2's bill.

Senator 2. My family died in a car crash, how dare you question my bill!!!!

Are you saying she wrote her own books, it does not matter she didn't or it's an insult to discuss the fact that she didn't.

Pick any of the three topics above which actually argue the question in point.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 4)

I was sick of your ad hominem attacks on BPKO. What I stated is factual. Sorry you don't like it.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Thank you. I really had no idea that a simple comment of admiration for Hillary's life story would set off a firestorm of arbitrary controversy.

Maybe people are very sensitive to Hillary's existence and the fact that despite overwhelming attempts to force everyone to dislike her, it just doesn't work. I know there are a lot of reasonable supporters of both candidates so I don't hold this against the community or Barack Obama himself.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 6)

I have to agree with BPK on this, and give her/him kudos for responding to your dishonest misrepresentation of what s/he was saying into something it is not with such compromising replies.

Although I'm sure you already realize this, you're misrepresenting his/her point with the statement you quoted. His/her statement could have said simply "That was a beautiful piece and affirms every positive trait I have admired in Hillary Clinton," which I took to be the main point of BPK's statement. However, a further "time-frame" was added by noting "since the day I picked up her autobiography in 2003." Your trying to twist that into his/her saying Hillary was an awesome writer does not make it so--that's not at all what s/he said, and you're using this statement to make an attack on Hillary as a writer is inappropriate. But as so often, this is just another attempt by an Obama supporter to trash a positive statement about Hillary and turn it into an argument. Perhaps you should follow BPK's example and drop it while you're ahead...and keep it in mind the next time you try to misrepresent someone's statement as something other than what is being said.

If you want to compare their writing abilities, that is a separate matter entirely and you're entitled to address it if you like--but be honest about what you're doing instead of trying to start an argument that has nothing to do with that into what you want it to be. I think most readers here are too intelligent to be manipulated by your twisted misrepresentation.

HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

by ChargedFan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

You inflate my original point.

I merely pointed out that she didn't write the book he referenced. The additional points only came up as a result of him asking why it was a relevant point.

I am comfortable in my original factual point, the autobiography he references as a source of his admiration for her, was not written by her.

If someone would like to dispute that point, I'm all ears.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 2)

...and had you written a diary regarding your assertion that she didn't write the book referenced and asked for disputing points, I wouldn't have responded. That's not a discussion or argument I'm trying to have, nor care to. However, your assertion that BPK's description of "every positive trait" included the writing of this book is a point I will argue as that's not what was said.

Again, it was simply a point of reference for time. But since you seem to have a problem with the fact that the term "autobiography" was used, please note that many biographies have been written about Hillary as well, including in 2003 when she is attributed with writing her autobiography. The wording BPK used explained very clearly a source that helped him/her realize "positive traits" attributed to Hillary. Had the term "autobiography" not been used--which left no doubt whatsoever which book was being referenced since there is ONLY ONE book described as being such--much further clarification would have been needed to know which book was being referred to. The statement, as written, serves as a clear and concise statement to what the poster was saying.

Again, I'll say that your "merely pointing out that she didn't write the book he referenced," as you say, serves no other purpose than to try to make a point you wanted to make by misrepresenting what was being said. Had BPK stated something to the effect of "I admire Hillary because of her brilliant writing of her autobiography," then your counterpoint assertion would be entirely appropriate--but that is not at all what was stated, and therefore I stand by my take of your reasoning for posting.

So enough said--you've made your point, and I've made mine; but I choose not to dispute the point you're trying to turn this into as it is not a substantive matter in my mind.

HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

by ChargedFan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

My point was a non point other than the making sure the poster was informed that she didn't write the books he/she refrenced.

All the rest of this gnashing of teeth ignores the factual point I made.

She didn't write the book refrenced, if you have some new information to dispute that claim, I will retract my factual account.

This has been fun because I now get to get to make this comment.

To channel Sen. Clinton.

I was just stating a historically accurate point. I appologize if anyone took my comments out of context and assigned any unintended meaning to my words. I would never mean to insult her by just commenting on a fact we all remember.

Funny how it feels on the other side, huh?

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 1)

"My point was a non point other than the making sure the poster was informed that she didn't write the books he/she refrenced."

This is part of the problem. You assumed there was a possibility I was ignorant to the microscopic details of the book's process and decided to play the role of "BPK80's educator."

"All the rest of this gnashing of teeth ignores the factual point I made."

It doesn't. We all know that book writing is a collaborative effort. The relevant question is, "what is that being offered to prove"?

It would be like me seeing a nice comment about admiring Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech and trying to rain on the parade by linking its title "Audacity of Hope" to Wright and by extension, Louis Farrakan. Saying that would be factually accurate but the purprose for stating it would only be to antagonize and insult someone for responding positively to his speech.

Perhaps you will find this explanation constructive and instructive, or you may continue to contend that your behavior in this thread was flawless. Either way, I've said all I have to on this topic. Best wishes.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Except your point might be valid since he actually wrote the book, unlike her.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 1)

Perhaps he's showing another example of how deceptive and secretive Hillary is, and suggesting that this would disqualify her for the presidency.

And it's not a single piece of data that is compelling. It's the majority of data. And the sad, predictable trend.

by Rationalisto on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 1)

I think you are full of shit. You are peddling the nonsense that was extensively debunked. Fineman produced a piece of crap that Hillary spent an entire summer fixing. Just read the article in the New Yorker about it. Fineman actually came close to losing the money because of her shoddy work as reported in that article. Fineman is part of the "power structure" in Washington and spread these rumors which were picked up by all the media. Lizza's article deals with the issue of "inspiration".

by rocky on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

So you are saying she actually wrote the two books on her own? If so you should share that with the Clinton camp, they don't even make that claim anymore.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Rocky is right - Hillary wrote it (2.00 / 1)

And here is the New Yorker"

That year, Clinton began writing a book about children and society called "It Takes a Village." The thing that Washington insiders remember best about the book is Hillary's failure to thank Barbara Feinman, the writer hired by Simon & Schuster, the publisher, as a collaborator. The truth, though, is more complicated, and shows Hillary to be less a Machiavellian liar than a woman whose guardedness leads to self-sabotage.

Editors at Simon & Schuster reacted to early chapters with dismay, and worried about the quality of Feinman's contributions, but they kept their reactions private. Over the summer, a manuscript emerged, but neither the publisher nor Clinton's aides--nor, especially, Hillary herself--were pleased with it. When Feinman left for vacation, Clinton, a Simon & Schuster editor, and a few key aides, working on their own time, continued on the book without her. (Feinman fulfilled the terms of her contract, and was never told by the publisher that her work was unsatisfactory.) In November, the Simon & Schuster editor spent three weeks at the White House, working intensively to expand and refine the material with the aides and with Clinton, who filled yellow legal pads with incorrigibly wonky prose, in "round, schoolgirlish handwriting," the editor told me. In private, Clinton was strikingly relaxed, padding around the Book Room and Solarium in sweatpants and Coke-bottle glasses, the editor said, calling her "buttercup." Clinton's personality, the editor found, "is refreshingly sharp and clear--but she can't show it."

"It Takes a Village" appeared in January, 1996, with an acknowledgments page that mentioned nobody. Clinton had apparently given in to the urge to pay her ghostwriter back (as had Simon & Schuster, which considered withholding the last portion of Feinman's hundred-and-twenty-thousand-dollar fee but quickly relented).

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 2)

It wasn't ghost written.

by interestedbystander on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:19:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (2.00 / 5)

The comments I wrote above were all positive. I don't see the value in trivializing either Democratic candidates' books so I'll go no further.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Fair enough, I will not comment further on this topic.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you (none / 0)

Obama has writers too.

by ellend818 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I find it suspicious (none / 0)

that there are at least three diaries with the same title as this one. Is this a coordinated assault on the rec list?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which Clinton? (2.00 / 2)

Hillary vs. Hillary this is the issue.

On one hand she extols the virtue of her fight as a fight for the voters voice.

On the other hand the now that Sen. Obama has secured a majority of elected delegates the only way she can win if the "party elite" set aside that voice of voters and install her as the candidate.

I don't see how you honestly reconcile those two opposing views.

If her desire is for Super Delegates to vote opposite the elected delegates she can argue that point 3 months ago, today or June 4 but it does not square with the "hear the voter" message of today.

Before anyone goes to the often repeated popular vote metric, show me a way to accurately measure voter intent in MI and caucus states that can be accurately quantified and I'll be all ears to hear the argument, even if flawed.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:58:21 AM EST

Re: HRC (1.71 / 7)

What Obama and his campaign have implied is beyond disgusting. He should offer a full and complete apology to Hillary.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:05:24 AM EST

Re: HRC (2.00 / 1)

Obama Said...

I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that

You said...

What Obama and his campaign have implied is beyond disgusting. He should offer a full and complete apology to Hillary.

I say....

Huh?

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you crazy? (2.00 / 2)

The Obama campaign has implied nothing other than it was unfortunate and careless but surely with no ill intent. Everything that has come out of the Obama campaign on this "RFK assassination" thing has been classy by any standard. Apologize? Hillary should be thanking Obama for his restraint and graciousness. It is far more than she has afforded him in the past.

by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you crazy? (none / 0)

No the Obama campaign has been beyond disgusting. George S. pointed it out.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

Way to keep up with the news, there, chief. When I lived in St. Mary's, we had access to the intarwebs- as it seems you do, as well. Try taking a look to see what Obama might've said before making yourself look foolish. Just a suggestion.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC (none / 0)

What his campaign has implied here is beyond disgusting. Hillary never mentioned Obama's name but his campaign jumps in and starts screeching. Anyway, George S. exposed them on this yesterday.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She has no credibility left! (2.00 / 4)

Not only did Hillary mislead (yet again) by suggesting that she mentioned RFK because TK was on her mind (yet we now know she's been pushing that line for months), but she misleads by suggesting primaries typically go on and on and on for months on end, when in past campaigns, March BEGAN the primaries, so June was not so far away.

That she suggests, today, that she can "still win on merits" is just extraordinarily unreal to me.

As far as I'm concerned the additional 52 delegates Obama needs can't commit soon enough.

"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08

by JulieinVT on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:10:59 AM EST

Re: historical facts (2.00 / 5)

Comparing 2008 and 1968:

As pointed out in another diary:

1. Which candidate is(2008)/was(1968) a senator from New York?

2. Which candidate vigorously campaigned in the Appalacian states?

3. Which candidate is/was running against an opposing candidate favored by the Democratic leadership and elite?

2. Which candidate is/was favored by the working class?

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM EST

Re: historical facts (none / 0)

Their last names both had 7 letters.
They both had 3 initials.

by parahammer on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: historical facts (2.00 / 1)

It does seem to me that
RFK v. Humphrey is the closes historical parallel that we have to
Obama v. Clinton=

the young inspiring first term senator against the established pol.

Very close fit.

John McCain: Cheney with a temper

by wrb on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (2.00 / 3)

How is O doing in Appalacia? And just who is it that's favored by the Dem elites? Who is it that's fighting for the working class?

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (2.00 / 3)

How's Clinton doing in the mountain west? In metropolitan areas? How about in Virginia? Heck, how about in California?

Make those "Appalachia" comments all you want to, Obama's had more blowouts than Clinton, by far. And if you think she's suddenly fighting for the working class, and isn't a product of an elite group of entrenched Democrats... really... what reality are you occupying? She is the establishment candidate. That's the whole platform she ran on until March.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:33:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (2.00 / 2)

How's Clinton doing with the delegates? The superdelegates? With honesty? With competence? With credibility? With judgment?

I could go on, but the coffee's ready.

by Rationalisto on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: facts (2.00 / 2)

p.s. BHO is no RFK -- and no JFK either, for that matter.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BPK - I was happy to read what (2.00 / 6)

you had to say, sorry to see you attacked, I really wish these Obama supporters would cut this stuff out.

by Molee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:41:42 AM EST

well put. (2.00 / 5)

but alas:

"Clinton rules" -- the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum

by canadian gal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:09:09 AM EST

Re: well put. (none / 0)

Well, they do have a history of being masters of the demagoguery. Not saying it's right, but they got the reputation from somewhere. It's one of the liabilities they have to live with, and should have planned for, methinks.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reputation from somewhere (2.00 / 1)

it came from the right-wing smear campaign that was so pervasive, that some of the left wingnuts are furthering the smear and more than helping the right wing in their goal of divide and conquer.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reputation from somewhere (none / 0)

You mean like Hillary Clinton calling Barack Obama an elitist? That's not aping right-wing talking points at all.

by elrod on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: words (2.00 / 1)

more accurately, his words sounded elitist.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: above demagogy comments (2.00 / 1)

HRC a demogogue?

Anyone who speaks up for the people is deemed a demagogue -- usually by right wing pundits though, because they have no respect for the people or the common good.

by moevaughn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:The RFK thing (2.00 / 3)

Dear Hillary,

Please, please forgive us all. We are so sorry that we have in any way caused you to be "dismayed and disturbed" that your assasination comment would be construed in a way that flies in your face or whatever.

It is OUR fault. Please accept OUR apologies. WE should be ashamed.

by rf7777 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST

Re:The RFK thing (2.00 / 3)

I said three Hail Marys and shot my gun at a sexist man, in penance.

by Rationalisto on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Why I continue to run" (2.00 / 4)

Not to worry. Outside of the blogesphere people are sane. I was talking to some of them just yesterday, who actually are capable of reading, and watching and not twisting everything they read into a pretzel to slober all over and hope that everyone else is as stupid as they are.

by Scotch on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST

Re: "Why I continue to run" (none / 0)

So they know her campaign is over. Do they wonder why she continues? Those sane people you were talking to I mean.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:04:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Why I continue to run" (2.00 / 2)

No, in fact it's pretty clear to them that it was good for the party and broadening the discussion, and in fact most of them think that she would be a superior candidate. Some however, like Obama. All of them think that she has a right to stay in. At the picnic I went to I talked to a lifelong repulican who changed to democratic this year after losing confidence in the republicans after bush. She voted for Clinton in the primary, thinks this "flap" is much to do about nothing, because it was obvious to most people who don't have an axe to grind what she meant. She will vote for Obama in the fall, if she has to to get rid of McCain that way, but thinks Clintons policies are superior. I spoke to others who didn't have the same republican background, but were of much the same opinion. they rolled their eyes at the whole RFK thing because it is a made up story and not that important to them. I could tell their personal stories too, if you would like. Would you like me to? I've got some time........

by Scotch on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Why I continue to run" (none / 0)

They're absolutely right. Clinton can stay in as long as she wants. Huckabee did even after it was clear he couldn't win.

As far as the RFK flap goes it was simply one of many politically tone deaf moments for the Clinton camp. I don't think she meant to say she was waiting around for Obama to get assassinated either. Though he's certainly at greater risk of it than anyone else.

Thanks. Their political opinions are sufficient:)

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She's very confused. This isn't something that (2.00 / 1)

a clear headed person would think, write, or publish. She can't win. Her examples were historically inaccurate. Her staying in the race sowing the seeds of dissent and faux outrage with truly outrageous statements (slavery? As a descendant of slaves she can kiss my ass) is not bringing the party together.

This is the statement of a narcissist and someone who is as unprofessional as she is ambitious. She has lost her way and her supporters and the bubble campaign she's existing in are not helping her. She is destroying the last bits of her legacy. Reports out of NY are showing that even there she will have a difficult time of it politically.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:21 AM EST

Re: She's very confused. This isn't something that (2.00 / 1)

Yeah. She's narcisstic and everything you would like her to be. Not.

If you would get out more and away from here, you might have the clearer head of which you speak.

by Scotch on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's very confused. This isn't something that (none / 0)

Uh yeah. Her actions and words are pretty much a classic case of NPD.

John McCain on social security.

by heresjohnny on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC OP-ED: "Why I continue to run" (2.00 / 3)

Thank you for sharing this piece. And I just have to say that as disgusted as I have been by Keith Olbermann's coverage of this primary, his "rant" about Hillary's comments take the cake. He's such a self-righteous, antagonizing, manipulative individual--he does not deserve to have his own TV show, and I will never stop my TV on that channel when he's on the air again.

I'm glad Hillary has responded with this op-ed piece--it's just unfortunate that despite Bobby Kennedy Jr's repeated support and the paper's editor supporting the reasoning of what she was saying, the Hillary haters will still go on and on about this and continue trying to misrepresent and take out-of-context what was said.

HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

by ChargedFan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:15:03 AM EST

Why I continue to Run (2.00 / 1)

In my opinion, what Hillary was originally trying to accomplish in that interview in South Dakota is to imply that the mysterious reason that people are trying to push her out of the race is due to sexism. She didn't want to say it outright because that might make her look like she's playing the victim card, but she kept implying it with "it's a mystery to me" and "I don't want to speculate about their motives."

This element of her response is a good example of what it is about her character that drives people crazy:

She is very smart, very accomplished and competent, she is tough and determined, and she would ultimately have made an excellent president, but---

She is also very condescending, dishonest and manipulative.

To say that "it's a mystery to her" is an obvious lie. Whether or not her opinions are true, she clearly has opinions on the matter of why people are pushing her out of the race, but she responds with the "mystery" line in order to manipulate the listener. She wants the listener to fill in the blank in their own mind and then feel supportive and a desire to defend the victim of sexism. This is manipulation not honesty.

Additionally, it is a manipulative tactic to make general statements about all the people trying to force her out so that she has someone to fight against. She would come across more honest if she named specific people and instances of being forced.

A more complete assessment of why people are anxious to have this primary done with is that after saying that John McCain was more ready to be CIC than Obama, and after throwing the kitchen sink at him in March and April, many people don't trust her to finish the race out without causing further damage to the extremely likely nominee.

by glopster on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST

Well said (none / 0)

She's passive-aggressive to the core. Some of her supporters really believe she's fought an entirely positive campaign. When you're that passive-aggressive, you don't even realize how much trouble you cause.

Sexism is just a convenient charge to explain her unpopularity. Yes, sexism has explained some of it, including from some Obama supporters. But it doesn't explain the bulk of it.

by elrod on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She doesn't get it - 1968 was a BAD year (none / 0)

While some have interpreted her RFK remarks as suggesting she's holding out for an Obama assassination, I believe she really did mean that some campaigns continue on until June. But even if I take her at her word, I still can't figure out why she'd invoke 1968. There are so many other examples to pick from - 1980, 1984 come to mind. And it's not like this was some off the cuff remark where 1968 just popped up because of the emotional resonance; she said it in March and in April (though without the specific assassination reference the second time).

1968 is a terrible example for any Democrat to bring up as a reason to stay in the race for three reasons:
1) The RFK assassination meant cutting down a candidate whose charisma many have compared to Obama. Whether you buy the comparison or not, the RFK assassination is an extremely sensitive moment for Democrats (and all Americans) and should not be raised by a Presidential candidate so flippantly. Maybe it's political correctness, but the RFK assassination is one that gives me chills - and I wasn't even born until 1973.

2) Another nasty side-effect of the long 1968 campaign was the DNC in Chicago. With all the talk out there about demonstrating in Denver - and even right-wing taunts about riots in Denver - why would anybody look to the last time real riots occurred as a fond example of a long campaign?

3) 1968 was the beginning of the realignment against the Democrats. Yes, we lost even worse in 1972 and 1984, but 1968 was the moment when the Democratic Party fell from grace. Again, why would a thoughtful, intelligent and disciplined candidate like Hillary Clinton casually bring up 1968 as a positive example of a long race?

If we take her at her word about 1968 then the proper conclusion is opposite to the one she intended. We should do everything in our power to AVOID another 1968 - and not just the assassination part.

She just doesn't get this. The outrage was not "made-up," even if it was flamed by people like Olbermann. And note that conciliatory tone taken by Obama through this.

A proper apology would have said, "I am sorry for invoking such a painful time in history and should have chosen an election less fraught with emotion and sadness than 1968." That would have answered my concern (about 1968).

by elrod on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:39 AM EST

Re: HRC in NY Daily News OP-ED (none / 0)

Run Independent Hillary!!! After listening to and reading what these Obama supporters have being doing on this blog site, I'm glad that finally moderate democrats and republicans can see the benefit of creating a unity ticket with Hillary on the top. Is this where the divisive politics lie? If so, I do not want any part of it.

by Check077 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST

Excellent Diary... (2.00 / 2)

Thank you for this.

by nikkid on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST

What I like about Hillary is (2.00 / 1)

She doesn't let incidents like this stop her - she corrects them and then moves forward. Shows she believes in the voters.

by catfish2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST

Re: HRC in NY Daily News OP-ED (none / 0)

The simple point is this.
The Primaries "extend" to 6/3 but it is over.
just as in 1992 the Primary went to the First week(not middle of)June and it was just as over.

By 6/3...
By 6/3...

...by the way
she never said boo about comparing MI and FL to the struggle and sacrifice of the abolitionists, civil rights deaths and jail, and Zimbabwe..

If she is so concerned about disenfranchisements..
What about the real one in D.C.?

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST

Re: HRC in NY Daily (none / 0)

I want her to stay in until all votes are counted and we have a public debate on which is most qualified and which has the best chance against McCain. She's setting the bar very high and she's standing up to character trashing the likes of which we don't see from us, except for Ted when he went after Carter. At that time I wanted Carter to drop out because he had no chance of winning and turn it over to a candidate who had a chance, so I could see Ted's point in trying to push Carter to give up and let someone who might win try. Hillary can't be smeared in the most common ways women are attacked, she isn't crying and going home, she isn't whining and even when she speaks truth and it's smeared as whining, she doesn't shut up. She's shown us how, how hard it is too, how you need to be prepared to be hated. I am continuously amazed by her stamina and endurance, and her cheerful and upbeat mood. She's optimistic and hard working and she prepared for the job, she's a great female role model, and will be whatever the outcome of this race.

The character assignation of Hillary has now come home to roost. Some here feel free to say that she meant to endanger Barack, an amazing and ugly charge that would not have been possible had Barack not already made his case against her, by saying she'd do anything to be elected. He thought so too, as betrayed by his first indignant response. He's unfortunately shown that he can't be a statesman, he can dish it out but he can't take it, and so he seemingly hates his opponent, it's not just a contest for him, so it seems. This is why he'll betray his own values and not unite, not be led by the bottom to choose her as a running mate should he be the nominee.

I think this stance is what will sink him with the remaining super's. We need a candidate who can row with the flow, can change course when it's necessary to win in the fall, who can take advice from those who would prefer her at the top of the ticket. the best way he can counter his 'elite' label is to be humble, and to listen to the bottom.

In he coming days we are all going to find out what he's made of. Is he a leader, can he put the fate of the nation ahead of his personal likes and dislikes? You can't lead unless you have followers, and the behindlings are mad at him, he's depressing and name-calling and far too full of himself to be a great leader. But, he can change, maybe this is just Axlerod, maybe Barack wants to reach out to me and show respect and admiration for all great Americans, and make me want to vote for him. I totally resent being told I must, when he has no obligation to make me want to. Why will it be my fault if he loses to McCain because of his refusal to listen to the bottom.

by anna shane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST

Re: HRC in NY Daily (none / 0)

"Why will it be my fault if he loses to McCain because of his refusal to listen to the bottom"

Well, if enough people don't vote for him, and you're one of those people, then, yes, it would technically be partially your fault he didn't win. Just saying.

John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country

by minnesotaryan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her analogies aren't apt. (none / 0)

RFK didn't enter his first contest until May.

Bubba didn't enter his until late February.

Hillary's been in contests since early January.

Therefore, she has, in fact, been running longer than either of those two candidates.

by Bush Bites on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:21:32 PM EST

"Why I continue to run" (none / 0)

I don't mind her continuing on. Why anyone is bothered by her soldiering on is puzzling? With that said, her examples with Bill and RFK weren't applicable to this 2008 campaign, b/c they both were under different conditions. Lump them in with comparing FL and MI to Zimbabwe and civil rights.

This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!

by venavena on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST

Sounds good to me! (none / 0)

"As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain."

Yay! Keep fighting positively for your candidate Alegre! If she doesn't get the nomination, I hope you'll follow her lead, just as I'll follow Obama's (and support her obviously) if she does!

John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country

by minnesotaryan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:14:34 PM EST

Sounds good to me! (none / 0)

"As I have said so many times over the course of this primary, if Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I will support him and work my heart out for him against John McCain."

Yay! Keep fighting positively for your candidate Alegre! If she doesn't get the nomination, I hope you'll follow her lead, just as I'll follow Obama's (and support her obviously) if she does!

John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country

by minnesotaryan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.