Hillary's Political Obituary

Remove all ads!

The NYT is reporting that Hillary will end her presidential campaign and endorse Obama on Saturday. Here is the Article.

Apparaently, a lot of people had a similar reaction to Death Rabbit after hearing her "concession speech" on Tuesday night. With the reaction generally being summed up with the phrase: "What the hell was that?"

MSNBC also has an interesting article about what went wrong for Clinton. Their main argument is that Hillary was always counting on winning an overwhelming majority of superdelegates. I have a theory as to exactly why this happened (which the MSNBC article does not suggest), and I'd like to see what other think.

Obama ran a brilliant campaign, but I think he got a lot of help from the primary schedule. Consider this contrapositive if you will: What if the primaries were conducted in a different order? Things were pretty even delegate wise following Super Tuesday on February 5. But look what happened after that. The states where Obama had an advantage, based on either geography, demographics, or both, tended to occur early in the schedule. There were 11 primaries in February after Super Tuesday and he won all 11. Conversely, the states that Clinton would ultimately go on to win didn't heppen until later, and in some instances, months later. She won Ohio and Texas on March 4, and then there was only one other primary until Pennsylvania voted on April 22.

I don't think the dates on the calendar had much influence on the outcome of the individual primary elections. What I'm saying is that I think Hillary would have won Ohio and Pennsylvania even if the primaries happened in February instead of March or April. Similarly, I think Obama still would have won states like Iowa and Wisconsin if those states voted in March or April instead of January and February. My assertion is that the momentum Obama built up with his string of wins was what caused a lot of superdelegates to hold off, and in some cases even defect from Clinton's camp into Obama's camp.

So here's the question: If Obama had not had a run of victories in February. If those 11 victories were spread out across a span of 4 months as opposed to 3 weeks, is it possible that 3/4 of superdelegates would have broke Clinton's way instead of Obama's way? I know that's not what happened, and this is just a mental exercise at this point, but I think it's interesting to consider.

 

The articles I've been reading attribute Hillary's failure to her camps failure to understand the new delegate allocation rules. The big assumption was she would build an overwhelming lead on Super Tuesday -- basically gathering enough delegates to assure her nomination. All of her spending was based on that premise. She spend very little in states where she felt she would not do well and tried to capitalize on momentum in state where she had a large support base. Obama did nearly the exact opposite, he spent in states where he was down in the polls to narrow the gap and needed to push less in states where he was leading (since Hillary did not do much in those states). Obama realized the overall vote was more important before he even started the campaign, it took the harsh lessons of Super Tuesday for Hillary learn that lesson.

A second point was Hillary is tied to "old money" meaning she used traditional methods of fund raising -- $2,000 dollars a pop from people wealthy enough to contribute (which is a very narrow group given today's economics) at dinners and direct solicitations. Obama, on the other hand, understood that internet donations, although they would be a lot lower, would be much more plentiful -- it's easy to donate $5 at a time. Ultimately, allowing the masses to support the campaign proved far more reliable and Obama buried Hillary financially.

In a nutshell -- Hillary was bit slow on the uptake.

 

My feeling was that I never liked Bill and that extended to his family. Hillary yapped about the "right wing conspiracy" and I think she knew all along. Her moral values don't even come close to dovetailing with mine. I always saw her as a power hungry witch who pretended to speak for the little guy but was really a puppet for the elite -- her campaign financing strategy as evaluated by the previous post confrims that image to me.

No great loss. I hope she learns from this, concedes politely, and leaves politics forever. We don't need any more family dynasties in the White House. The Double Bushes were bad enough.

 

LKD - Well, I'm not sure about Hill's record as NY Senator, regarding your "elite" comment, but I don't think it holds up to careful scrutiny. Although, right off the top, I can think of a number of things that Bill did for the "little guy" that sustains his populist image: Increase in the minimum wage, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Tax Cuts, which were weighted for the "little guy," rather than the rich, and College Tuition Credits, which made college more affordable. It feels odd to be talking issues rather than all the hype and baloney that went on during the primary.,,

What? No American flag on Obama's jacket?

BTW, she should still keep her seat in the Senate, so I doubt she's leaving politics anytime soon.

 

You mean they didn't make her give up the seat while she was campaigning? It's not like she was likely able to do much work in the Senate while she was campaigning for a different job -- if I were a New Yorker I'd be pissed.

The same goes for Obama -- was he still holding his Representative seat while making this run? He can't be catering to the day to day needs of his constituants while all over the campaign trail.

Anyhow, when does HIllary's Senate seat come up for re-election? Will she run again as a Senator, will she take a break and gear up for the presidential candidacy in 2012, or will she do the decent thing and just enter the private sector and give us some relief from Clintons? You can all guess which one I want.

 

LKD - Ask yourself this: Did McCain give up his seat?

Yes, but you're not an American. So what do you care?

 

I agree completely on the McCain thing too -- I think everyone should give it up if they're gonna run for a different office, regardless of party affiliation.

And as Margaret Atwood once said "Canadians are like a mouse living beside an elephant." -- we can spout off about our independence and whatnot, but even the tiniest move from the elephant has huge repercussions on us!

 

Just because they are campaigning does not mean they cannot represent thier constituents. The gentlemen agreements (that I mentioned in a different thread) were put in place for this. Any vote will take into account the vote of the campaigning official -- either someone voting the opposite will abstain change their vote so the net result remains the same. We've been doing this for a long time and it works.

The only thing an absent candidate cannot do is personally introduce bills -- but typically the staff writes it even when the representative is there. The representitative sets the policy for his or her staff -- the staff typically does the labor.

 

One thing that we've been sure of for the last few months: The next president of the United States is a currently serving member of the Senate, and the two losers in the race will continue serving in the Senate, as none of them are up for re-election this year. Hillary just won re-election in 2006, so she won't have to run again until 2012. Obama won his first term in 2004, and McCain won his most recent term in 2004, so neither of them have to run again until 2010.

 

Huh, funny how the mind works -- I was sure that Obama was a member of the House of Representatives all this time. Guess I've been stoned (metephorically speaking.)

I know that the wheels of political machinery turn fine without the physical presence of the representative, but the principle of the thing would get to me as a constituent. "You were elected to work for (insert constituency), not go haring off all over the country running for a different job!" (you've gotta envision a guy with a pitchfork in hand and maybe wearing a straw hat and overalls to really get the effect of what I'm saying here )

 

So, when Obama or McCain vacate their Senate seats, will they be filled by an appointee of the same party or will there be an election in their state?

Anyway, am I the only one who thinks that "Obituary" is a rather strong word, given the circumstances ?

 

In my case the title implies wishful thinking!

As for the Senate seats, I'm sure that their won't be a by-election and the post will be filled by an appointee -- I say this because I am making a BIG assumption in that if the President dies there is no election outside the 4 year schedule -- the VP continues in the President's place. I'm guessing that a similar procedure is in place for Senators. I could be wrong, though . . .

 

Clinton's run for the nomination, in retrospect, was entirely too reminiscent of the Bush administration. By which I mean, when things started going poorly, her campaign...started insisting that they weren't. And continued to make increasingly ludicrous assertions as the campaign wore on. And, y'know, didn't seem to take any measures to address their problems beyond spin, spin, and more spin.

Six months ago I'd've been happy with either candidate. At this point, I pray to God that Hillary doesn't run again in any future presidential race. That's the sort of **** we do not need in the White House for "four more years!"

 

I'm not quite sure what measures you expected her campaign to take to improve matters, to be honest. She has had quite a few foot-in-mouth moments, but seemed to try to correct them quickly enough. As for the spin, I give you that easily - but it seemed the other campaigns were just as guilty.

Anyway, in case anyone is interested in her concession speech, it is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgi_kIYx_bY . Quite a good one, imo, and the tone wasn't bad either - celebratory enough to not leave the supporters disgruntled, yet strongly in support of the Obama candidacy. Hopefully the audience has taken it to heart.

 

I'm willing to give Hillary a final benefit of the doubt, personally. Though I thought it was incredibly tacky not to even acknowledge that Obama had won on Wednesday night, I thought her concession speech on Saturday was classy and well spoken. I think she hit all the right notes. I was honestly expecting either a half-hearted, damning-with-faint-praise endorsement or a defiant announcement to run as an independent, but she surprised me in a good way this time.

I don't think Hillary as VP is either likely or logical. But I do think she's a shoe-in for a cabinet position, which would be a great idea. I also don't think it's necessary for people to pile on about her failures and missteps at this point. It shows a lack of class and will only serve to alienate her supporters, many of whom who are willing to back Obama so long as their votes and their voices are "respected and appreciated." Her more fanatical supporters, however, are fair game for mockery and scorn.

EDIT: I'd just like to add that the title of this thread, "Hillary's Political Obituary," is a little bit of the classlessness I'm referring to. She will still be a powerful Senator and a leader in the party, and I can't imagine she leaves public life for a long time. Her Presidential ambitions are most certainly dead, but not her career. Her clout has certainly lost a lot of its oomph, but I imagine she'll regain much if not all of that in time.

 

I think this comes close to summing up how I feel about the Hill's failure, at least at her first attempt at the presidency:

I can almost hear her saying, like Arnold: "I'll be back."

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/20...ession/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/feature

 

Splunge,

Please read my first paragraph. The quote of mine you reference was made on Wednesday night, immediately after she had officially lost and classlessly refused to concede (complete with jackass Terry McCauliffe introducing her as "the next President," her hinting at fighting on to the convention, etc.), and I'd reached my breaking point with her bullsh*t antics (as did, apparantly, the rest of the Democratic party, hence her exit). Once she did concede several days later however, and did so quite nicely IMO, I was satisfied and felt that further piling on after that point was in turn classless and unnecessary. Like spitting on the losing team's mascot or pissing on someone's grave. I see no contradiction, and you may not either once you read the rest of my post. But point taken.

 

You're right on the presidential thing - there is a specifically elected VP that takes the place of the President if the President cannot complete his term, whether that be through death, resignation, or some other means.

However, with Senators and members of the House of Representatives, there usually IS a special election held to fill the seat. Heck, this spring there were three special elections to fill Congressional seats, even though the people who were elected will have to run for re-election this fall to retain their seats! Some senators who wish to retire mid-term will time their depature with a fall election (even if they weren't normally scheduled to run) so that the vacated seat can be immediately filled.

But you are partially right. The rules vary from state to state, but in most cases, a state's governor has the power to appoint a temporary replacement to any vacated Congressional seat, until such time as a special election can be held to formally fill that seat. This can obviously cause some shady politics if the governor is from a different political party than the Congressperson vacating the seat.

To illustrate by way of example, lets say that McCain does in fact win the presidency this fall, which would cause him to vacate his Senate seat. The current governor of Arizona is Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. Even though McCain is a Republican, there is no requirement or obligation on Napolitano's part to replace McCain with another Republican, and could legally stick a Democrat as a temporary replacement for McCain. Arizona would then conduct a special election, probably sometime in the spring of next year, to elect someone to fill that spot, complete with a primary before the election. In such a scenario though, there would be a much shorter timeframe between the primary and the general election.

Finally, the newly elected junior senator would not serve the full six year term, but would rather complete McCain's term that was won in 2004. Just as McCain would have to run again in 2010 to retain his seat, the person finishing McCain's term would have to run in 2010.

AND

I did not intend any disrespect. I thought that the adjective "Political" preceding obituary made it clear that I was referring to her political ambitions for the presidency that were dead, and that I was not wishing death on her. However, I acknowledge that her career in politics is clearly not over with at this time, and will not end prior to 2012 (when her current Senate term expires) and will likely continue beyond that.

Not to be a nitpick, but I do think that saying Hillary is a powerful Senator is a bit overstating her accomplishments at this time. She has eight years in the senate, but that ranks her just 39th in seniority among Senate Democrats (I'm excluding Republicans because you were clearly speaking about her influence within her own party - we both know she is universally despised by Republicans). I actually find it stange that some people are putting the argument forward that the position of Senate Majority Leader is more presitigous than Vice President. It's not that I disagree about the relative prestige of the positions, only that there are a lot of other Democrats with a lot more seniority than her that are much more likely candidates for Senate Majority Leader, even if Harry Reid does not continue in that position.

 

@DR - Aldeth's post was also started before her concession speech. So he had no way of knowing what she was going to say in her speech, much like you had no way of knowing what she would say once she finally conceded. So my post was more of a "pot-kettle-black" thing (which you obviously got, given your "point taken" comment). That aside, I must admit that, when I read the thread title, I thought you had started it, since that's exactly the kind of snappy wording you're known for (and, to be clear, I'm saying that's a good thing ).

Anyway, on topic - I agree with DR that VP is unlikey, and that a cabinet position is probable. I just can't see her as VP to Obama.