« TPM - Why Nothing on Obama's Press Release? | Phoebe Fay's Blog | I Promise to Stop Being Angry at Hillary... »
Betrayal
In politics, people pick sides. Sometimes they pick the side you like, and sometimes they pick the other side. It's how the system works. Part of the point of a primary is to convince more people to come over to your side. Voters, delegates, and organizations all pick sides. It's to be expected.
Yet, to Clintonites, picking the other guy is betrayal.
On NARAL:
This is politics. You make your case, and you either get the support or you don't. If you don't, then you either make a better case, or you move on. But to attack people like this? It's crazy.
Yet, to Clintonites, picking the other guy is betrayal.
On NARAL:
“This action by NARAL is a betrayal. If they can dump Hillary they can dump any of us,” said Rep. Jane Harman , D-Calif. “This is really personal.”On Bill Richardson:
"An act of betrayal," said James Carville. "Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."Maria Pappas, Head of New York NOW, On Ted Kennedy:
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard."Is there anything comparable on the Obama side? Has the campaign ever responded to any of Clinton's endorsements with more than a shrug and "we're disappointed"?
This is politics. You make your case, and you either get the support or you don't. If you don't, then you either make a better case, or you move on. But to attack people like this? It's crazy.
Advertisement
Thanks for bringing this up, Phoebe.
There is nothing equivalent on the Obama side -- because he has substantive things to talk about.
And I agree with you: let people vote their conscience. I have no problems whatsoever with Hillary backers deciding to vote for McCain, writing in Hillary, voting for Nader, etc. if they do it out of conviction and reasoned thinking.
I have no respect for people who do that if they do it out of bitterness.
But it's still their choice.
May 15, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, thanks for the diary. I have been struck by use of the words "betrayal" and "traitor" that have been used by women (ostensibly feminists) against, in particular, other women who don't throw our political support behind one certain candidate.
My partner recently attended a dinner of friends all over 50, white, lesbian feminists and she was roundly castigated and questioned because she supports Obama. Obama was derided as a black male pretender for his usurpation of Clinton's national (white) woman moment. The attempts to question my partner's support for Obama became quite heated and the unfortunate phrases "traitor to your gender" and "betrayal of feminism" were used to describe her support of one Democratic Primary candidate who was against the invasion & War over another who voted to support George Bush's War. We agreed that if I had been there, none of this would have probably been uttered since I am a lesbian of color, and it has been our experience that most white people speak differently to each other about people of color when there isn't one in the room.
I can't wait for all of this to be over, Obama our nominee and our President, so people can stop acting in ways they will regret later. I hope.
May 15, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Macropolitical inference by individual anecdotal diddy.
May 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev, we feminists are kind of attached to that "the personal is political" thing.
May 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a feminist because I believe in what feminism means, the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. (I'd like a bigger word..like if Humanism meant believing in the equality and worth of all humans)
So as a feminist I would be offended if decisions were made on who to support or not because of their gender.
It has seemed to me that to declare a woman is owed allegiance because of her gender is sexism, not feminism.
May 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? My comment was meant to support spotthedog, not Clinton.
May 16, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get out much, do you? Here's a sample from NARAL's blog. You can go there and read it yourself. Clearly, as much as you would like to dismiss it, my experience is not isolated. It's called use of a personal anecdote to illustrate a larger phenomenom. As scofflaw notes, in the feminist world it's called the "personal is the political" and has value in our understanding of the world as lived in the particular. Clearly you don't have much of an understanding of feminism, but it's not required. As a Second Wave feminist, I'm one of those who was there in the trenches at the beginning (yes, I actually do know many of the feminist luminaries weighing in on this on both sides). I'm probably older than you, so I'm not surprised or dismayed by oddles of self-satified smugness that attempts to be passed off as pithy cleverness. But since you seem to need quantity, enjoy:
"I just wish to add my voice to...women who feel betrayed by your actions"
"What a grave grave GRAVE mistake...not supporting...a fantastic FEMALE candidate.."
"I am disappointed as a woman that you endorsed Obama..."
"The need to do this endorsement now escapes me. This is a sexist position to deny Hillary the right..."
"I could go on pages, suffice it to say, women support women..."
"Shame on NARAL...You are joining too many men in the Democratic party who would rather lose an election than nominate a woman."
"This is an insulting and a slap in a face to her career and to all women. Shame on you."
"I am disappointed as a woman that you endorsed Obama before the Democratic Primary is even over!"
"You confirmed my long-held contention that feminism in this country is truly dead."
"By not supporting Senator Clinton you might as well be endorsing Senator McCain...What kind of feminists are you??!"
"Et tu Brute. That's quite a blow to your gender and delivered at a prime time in campaign, too. The most rabid women haters could not have done more damage."
"Take me off your lists...if I get one call or harassment/I'll take legal action. you made your bed - now go sleep in it with B. Hussein O."
"The founders of the women's movement everywhere suffer a serious setback when their own sisters attempt to destroy them...The founders of the women's movement roll in their graves today..."
"I can't believe you aren't endorsing a woman for President are you a bunch of stupid ignorant women who prefer to be told what to do by a man."
"I'm supporting Hillary. I prefer to promote my own minority, not someone else's. Shame on Democratic Women!!!!!"
For your empirical enjoyment, here's the entire link:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/05/naral-prochoice-6.html
May 16, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many black politicians have received comments as bad for not supporting Obama?
May 15, 2008 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, how many? Give us a few links.
May 15, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there was John Lewis, that's one. I'm pretty sure there was a second one, as well. None of these are coming from the Obama campaign itself, but most (if not all) of the betrayal comments directed at women for voting for Obama are also not coming from the Clinton campaign.
May 15, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis said it was hard for him to switch his support to Obama because of his long relationship with the Clintons. He said he had to recognize that something significant was happening in the country around Obama, and he had to honor the preferences of his constituency. Show me some equivalent public statement from key Obama supporters about Lewis to what was said above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
May 15, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In re-reading contemporary news accounts, perhaps I am misremembering how prominent the critics were of Lewis et al. with respect to the unfortunate "plantation" accusations. I cannot find a named Obama supporter who actually leveled such an accusation.
May 15, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please post your proof where the Obama campaign told black supporters that they were "betraying" Obama by standing by Clinton.
May 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the comments by Tavis about how much pressure he has gotten is evidence enough.
May 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't, where's the outrage?
May 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, show us a public statement from someone equivalent to the Congresswoman, Clinton surrogate and major organization quoted above, relating to Tavis Smiley's whining.
May 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...Tavis "LOOK AT MEEEEE!" Smiley? ROFL...Are you talking about him? Um...okay...it's incredibly stupid, but I'll bite: When did the Obama campaign say that Smiley being his same old egomanaical self means "betrayal"?
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just Tavis. This is old. But pretty much shows what I mean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07support.html
May 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in the hell is the stuff in that article at all comparable to the quotes in the OP?
May 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you don't offer examples of Tavis Smiley being attacked; you offer the example of Tavis Smiley perceiving himself as having been attacked.
Tavis Smiley did get criticized, but from what I saw the public criticism was generally on the grounds of the way Smiley was choosing to criticize Obama, not the mere fact he was supporting Clinton-- i.e. the criticism seemed to be for example that Smiley had crossed some kind of line that should not have been crossed with some of his comments ("something in the neighborhood", etc) and did not focus on the fact by itself he was supporting Clinton or criticizing Obama.
May 15, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Provide the link where prominent Democrats attacked an African-American for supporting Clinton.
I'm not talking about random people posting on Internet sites. You can find every ugliness on the planet on various forums. (I spent an hour on hillaryis44 last night, and that stuff is vicious, but I do not attribute the views of these rabid supporters to Clinton or her campaign.)
So again, provide the quotes, or concede the case.
May 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Betrayal" is just a word and it probably accurately communicated the emotion the speaker was feeling. The same word hasn't been used by the Obama camp because he doesn't have as many public relationships which go back decades and any public groups or entities to whom he has provided service have been backing him in the election.
Offhand, I'd say that if Rev. Wright, Dick Durbin or the Illinois Democratic Party had endorsed Sen. Clinton, then Sen. Obama would feel the same emotion, but they've all have either remained neutral or in his corner, so the same emotion just isn't there.
May 15, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point that Hillary, as the establishment candidate, is more likely to have been "betrayed". But still it's an example of the gracelessness that has, sadly, characterized her campaign.
May 15, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
...as opposed to all those posts yesterday about how the people of West Virginia are all a bunch of ignorant racists?
"Betrayal" is just a word; It's an accurate description of the speaker was feeling. The fact that Sen. Obama hasn't done that much with the constituency groups of the Democratic Party, or that he has few public friends with whom he has closely worked for a long period doesn't make him "better". In fact, the opposite could be argued and these attempts to make every little word choice appear offensive will help cost us the election in November.
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously comparing internet postings to the quoted comments by Harman, Carville and NY Now?
The fact that the chosen word may represent the teller's true feelings is kind of the point.
May 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no difference between what was said yesterday and what was said before, it's all just people expressing their opinions and no ones opinion is any valuable than any other.
May 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was said yesterday was based on the polling that 20% of the voters said race was important, and of those 82% voted for Clinton. WVans admitted that they were uncomfortable with Obama race. That's racist. What black voter has said they're voting against Clinton because she's white?
May 16, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL coming out for Obama is disgusting. As Jane Harman says they now can dump anyone at anytime. Why get involved in a Primary Campaign? It is a dumb a move as Moveon. Clinton supporters are starting to see many many signs that we are not welcome or needed in any Obama Democratic Party tent.
May 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"we are not welcome...?"
"WE"???
That's a big word coming from a non-member.
Louisville, I simply don't believe you are a Democrat, just a phony concern troll.
And your one goal is to divide our party.
I do believe there a lot of bitter, desperate Clinton supporters fomenting and foaming at the mouth in sheer desperation, but you aren't one of them. You are just here to pretend you are a "disaffected Dem," with no party to call home, and you are consistently working to push others into that despicable condition.
May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ok. Contact Chris Redfern in Columbus. Or either that or Howard Dean. Or maybe the Virginia Dem party....or maybe the Kentucky Dem party....Or maybe ...
I was doing things in this party when you were still picking boogers out of your nose.
May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you heard, us old folks are "the establishment"; Obama doesn't need the votes of "real Democrats" or to placate core groups within the party because he can make them up votes with Independents; We should put a Republican on the ticket; Decades of party service means nothing; Every Democratic leader who hasn't endorsed Obama or remained neutral has no vision; Presidents Clinton and LBJ were bad guys; Jesse Jackson was just a black man; The Democrats had no ideas until Obama came onto the scene?
May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I didn't see this coming. NARAL? wow. Gotta say thats a kidney punch.
May 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
...especially considering the timing or the fact that their endorsement really won't help in most of the remaining primaries.
May 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
But did you read their explanation of the timing? NARAL has said that both candidates have been excellent advocates (indeed they both have perfect voting records for NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood), but that it's clear to them that Obama is going to be the nominee and they want to help unify the party behind him.
They're not trying to affect the results of the primary, but they are trying to affect the results of the general (by getting in now).
May 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can explain breaking up with your Wife all you want but the message is still the same Ben. Why get involved in the first place. Nerves are raw. I see it as a way to humiliate Hillary. Simply put Obama and the left want to destroy her.
May 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're proving the point of the OP. You're seeing any endorsement as a slap against Hillary. Why does NARAL owe Hillary anything here? What difference does it make that Hillary has been fighting the same fight, but for longer?
Suppose you had a candidate who had been actively pro-choice throughout their 30-year career, and a second candidate that had been actively pro-choice throughout a 15-year career. And it was the judgment of the organization that both candidates would solidly support their cause, but the one with 15 years of experience had a better chance of being elected. Why should the organization support the 30-year experience candidate just because of the longer period of support?
May 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think that NARAL's endorsement will have any effect on the remaining primaries and there's really no question about who'd they support in November. Also, I have to say that Hillary's service to the cause goes much deeper than her few years as a Senator, so the fact that the two candidates have a similar voting record is beside the point; Hillary's been in the fight for much longer.
Still, I don't think the endorsement really matters and I think that it was poorly thought-out because why should they take any unecessary action which could alienate some of their base?
May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said. They are intent on humiliating her. "Destroy the bitch" is the motto. If TPM has shown me anything it is the hatred that it has for anything Hillary.
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have some kind of one-way filter on that causes you to hear stupid shit about Hillary but not stupid shit about Obama?
There's plenty of both in the blogosphere, and this site. If it's 70/30 here, it's not 100/0. There are other sites at least as heavy the other way.
People have to stop whining about how there are some assholes attacking their candidate. True of both candidates, not the point.
Love of the party means you rise above it, it's very simple.
May 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just disagree. And I don't really care about folks here or any other blog for that matter. What matters are things like NARAL which as I said before is a tough shot to take. What a mistake.
May 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your view of NARAL is confusing to me. If they endorsed Hillary, she's unlikely to win the nomination now, not sure what good that does.
I respect that the thing isn't over, but you understand that your candidate isn't likely to win. Obama has a 100% rating from one of the major abortion rights groups. It's not like he's going to appoint judges against their interests. It's a free market, and the idea that an endorsement is intended to injure and insult is simply not right. You or Clinton is entitled to hate it, but that doesn't make it hateful.
May 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL should have just stayed out of it. Just like MoveOn. Their collective dogs weren't in the fight. Why picks sides. We can all admit that both are good representatives for each group. It smacks of something else to me.
May 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For NARAL, the stakes are high. They want -- need -- a Democratic pro-choice President. They want to support the winner.
The other thing is that NARAL, like many other feminist groups, has taken lessons from the mistakes of the second-wave feminist movement, which failed to take racism (or women of color) seriously. NARAL is committed to reproductive justice for all women. They're entitled to believe that healing the rift between white women and other Democrats of color is important to their mission, and they are entitled to support the candidate they think can best do it. They're entitled to conclude that Obama is better for their priorities than Clinton is. Fwiw, I think they're right.
May 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, believe me. I am the very tip of that iceberg. 15 million votes for Hillary. How is Obama or anyone in the Obama Org going to try and attract us. To date, I don't see even a sliver of an effort.
May 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Hillary herself would no doubt say, it's "premature" at this point to try to start attracting you in the way you're probably wanting to be attracted. (I.e., via olive branches to Hillary.)
May 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true dude. IF they have won. Call off the dogs. Axelrove is still doing his dance.
May 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Louis, I know you're a very committed Democrat and not a concern troll.
At some point this thing of "the other camp isn't making me feel good" has to end. Obama is a unity guy, and he has said a lot to praise Hillary and her campaign, and will continue to do so. Because his share of Dems nationally is 71-76%, depending on who you read, he's going to be reaching out more to the Rust Belt states, probably less the Appalachian states, to work toward her base within the party. It will happen.
Let's not personalize this quite to that degree, it doesn't help. No one is saying that the near-half of the party with her is irrelevant. I've met David Axelrod, and he talks very respectfully of Hillary's campaign. He's not "Axelrove." Give the guy his props, if you want to be fair, and want people to be fair to your causes.
May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can this not become personal at this stage? Certainly the villification of Hillary by Obama supporters started well before 2008.
Not sure what your getting to on how many dems he is pulling. I think its wishful thinking if your saying he has 71-76% dems. He has gotten here based mostly off of Independents and "new" voters. The rank and file of the party is squarely in the other camp.
That is his problem in a nutshell. We can stop calling names all we want but certainly if the shoe was on the other foot there would be some howling going on.
Imagine if the SLC endorsed Hillary over Obama.
May 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louis, just factually, Rasmussen says Obama has 71% of Dems, Gallup says 76%. That's why he leads McCain in head to heads. He has his half of the party, and in the general, about half of her half, which puts you around 3/4 for now.
As to your point about SLC, she still has roughly half of the Congressional Black Caucus as SDs, though those SDs' districts weren't with her. So I don't have to imagine that, it's the case. Doesn't offend me. Soon those SDs will all be with him, not because he got more black, but because he'll soon the nominee.
I'll leave you be on this, but it's a great stride for the party to have a woman or black nominee. Much positive on this, hope you get more excited later.
May 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, done too. Just didn't realize that that had happened. The NARAL thing. A bit of a shock.
May 15, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a limit to how conciliatory the Obama campaign can be before Clinton actually drops out.
Either Obama's the nominee for all intents and purposes, in which case NARAL acted in an entirely appropriate manner, or he isn't, in which case your demand that Obama's supporters act magnanimous in victory is ridiculously inappropriate.
May 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you want Obama to do to attract you?
May 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't see it, it's because you're not looking. Edwards' speech last night was all about reconciliation and reaching out.
May 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville1975:
What has he done to "attract" you? How about he is a Democrat, and you, supposedly, are too? When Dean lost the primary fight in 2004 Kerry didn't do anything to "attract" me; he didn't have to. I am a Democrat, and he was our nominee. My God, you must be a Boomer. All this talk about how everybody owes you something. And if you don't get what you want, you will take your ball and go to the field of people who hate you. Selfish, selfish. Unfuckingbelievable.
May 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't care for this "you must be Karl Rove" shit when Sen. Clinton's supporters were slinging it, and I care for it even less coming from an Obama supporter.
Chill. Lou is a disaffected jerk. That doesn't mean he's any less of a liberal than you claim to be.
May 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought NARAL was for women's rights; not specifically for women.
Both Clinton and Obama have strong records on women's rights so why is it "disgusting" for them to support the candidate with the Y chromosome?
May 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you serious with this shit? I was a Dean supporter and local delegate. I was privately disgusted that my party chose an establishment candidate who voted for the war and had no chance of winning the election. Did I throw a fucking tantrum? No. I put a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on my car, a sign on my lawn, wrote letters to the editor of my local newspaper, and voted for him proudly. Why? Because I am a Democrat, and he is the one my party chose.
Are you kidding me? You will only remain a Democrat if your party chooses the one you wanted, period? And if you didn't get your chosen candidate, you will vote for the guy whose positions are diametrically opposed to the candidate you supposedly support? Give us a break.
You are not a true Hillary supporter because you obviously are wholly unfamiliar with what she stands for. She is pro-choice, and McCain wants to put women in jail for having an abortion. If McCain is elected, he will get to put a minimum of two, and as many as five, justices on the Supreme Court. And they will all, I promise you, be in their fucking 40s with low cholesterol and nice blood pressure. And they will hate women, gays, minorities, laborers, and non-Christians. But as long as you got to make your point, it was worth it, right?
May 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why get involved in a Primary Campaign?
From reading NARAL's statement it seems it is precisely because the primary campaign is over and the general campaign has begun that NARAL chose to get involved.
May 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desperation is the mother of more desperation...
May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
More talk on this NARAL decision
http://feministing.com/archives/009197.html#comments
May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay - Nice post. It's that old debbil: Entitlement.
And political dynasties breed it and it has to be stopped. It's anathema to democracy.
I've had it with these entitled politicians - it's never too late to polish the fifes and the drums from 1776 and be Americans again. Maybe they need to be reminded of that every so often.
Jefferson believed that completely and the longer I live, the more I see what he meant.
May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more of an Adams guy, even though his son became President, and I agree about dynasties.
Jefferson owned his mistress (having one, totally fine with that, owning the mistress, not so good), had a bunch of kids with her, didn't acknowledge her parentage of them, and didn't set her free at his death.
In a word, Jefferson was a wanker.
May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
O my god - Adams is the worst of allllll the founders.
He started this bullshit - the Alien and Sedition Acts? Are you mad? Totally?
O I'm terribly disappointed. I can't stand Adams.
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adams takes so much grief, as if everything he did in his life was negated by one really shitty thing. He _did_ go along with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he didn't exercise the sweeping powers they gave him, and he:
Didn't. Own. His Family.
Can't even compare those two things, for me.
Give me an angry lawyer who avoided war with France over some fancy talking guy who owned other human beings. It's not like "everyone was doing it" like marijuana in high school, and Jefferson was peer-pressured into slaveowning.
Slavery was an issue discussed in connection with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, one that bore more heavily on the mind of Washington, no fancy pants intellectual but a Virginia landowner who grappled more honestly with this issue, it was discussed in connection with the Constitutional Convention.
Americans of conscience in the 1700s were dealing with the contradictions between Jefferson's lofty rhetoric and this evil, but Jefferson was not. He was quite the narcissist, and his use of the Aurora and proxies to promote faction was, while understandable by contemporary political mores that didn't exist yet, not consistent with the Washington/Adams yearning for national unity that was more idealistic than political, and more beneficial to our form of government than harmful to it, IMHO.
Writing the Declaration of Independence and buying Louisiana are two epic, signal achievements in American history. I give him his due there. But I don't like him as a person.
May 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, can we compromise on Franklin?
I mean - Thomas Jefferson had his faults, but wanting an aristocratic presidency was sure not one of them. And the man was no pedestrian thinker - he was a genius.
Adams was another New Englander, AFAIC.
But Franklin is my kind of guy - he loved the ladies and he loved to party and he was as smart almost as Jefferson.
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done Tena.
To my way of thinking, one of the biggest drawbacks for both Jefferson and Adams -- geniuses both -- was that they each liked each other -- assholes both. ('Course that was when both careers were over.)
Ben Franklin was the original hard-working genius hippy. A bit of a self-promoting blowhard, but more of a renaissance man even than TJ.
May 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Tena.
Franklin was great, and knew how to have a good time. And yes, Jefferson was a great thinker. I like the thinking and doing to have more congruence, but no question on the Adams side, the Alien & Sedition Act was evil.
My affection for Adams is in part because I used to walk across the Freedom Trail in suburban Boston every day on the way to class. The New Englanders were the firebrands of the Revolution. They're kind of crotchety these days, but back in the 1770s, they were pretty righteous.
May 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALMOST??? Franklin brokered the "Great Compromise" and helped keep the constitutional convention going!
May 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jefferson's rankle with Hamilton is what gave rise to the two-party system.
Jefferson was definitely prickly...and had serious issues in maintaining his finances. Hamilton, on the other hand, figured out a way to put the US on some sort of economic system that was stable.
Everyone is beautiful... in their own way...
May 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, if Franklin doesn't work for y'all as a consensus hero, how about Tom Paine?
May 15, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, I love TPM. Where else tonight are people arguing passionately over which of the Founding Fogies was best? 8-)
May 16, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena:
No one at TPM is more anti-dynasty than myself (just look at my profile), however the Adams weren't much of a dyanasty: they represented two different political parties.
Same with the Roosevelts.
The Kennedys were very different, of course. But that seems to have stopped.
The Bushes and Clintons with tight bonds, same party affiliation and tight proximity of presidential terms are the real danger here.
May 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We political outsiders are the ones who really take all this posturing and taking sides to heart, much more so than the candidates and their campaigns. They are accustomed to all the back-biting and betrayal as the norm. As PA blue collar,low income white guy, this campaign season has filled me with hope,anxiety,faith in my fellow man, and feelings of anger,and pride in our young people. It has been an emotional rollercoaster ride that makes me sick to my stomach and still compels me to keep riding. I for one will not feel like kissing and making up with the opposition, and will be happy when it is all over. And what universe are the Clintonites living in? Is it a hopeful one, or just one where they have faith in the treachery and survival instincts of their candidate? What is more compelling,the feeling of betrayal, or their blind loyalty to the wrong woman at the right time?
May 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your assumptions but it simply isn't the point with the NARAL endorsement and I know you know that.
May 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does the NARAL endorsement mean to you then?
In my mind most late to the party endorsements (including Edwards) are really just people or groups hopping on the bandwagon of the likely winner so I don't typically take an endorsement like this too seriously; but obviously you do and I would respectfully like to understand your feelings about it.
May 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL is not Emily's List. They are not an organization whose purpose is to promote female candidates for elective office.
They have one issue: Reproductive rights. If this had been Emily's List, your vitriol would make sense, but NARAL? You are way off on this.
Also, since Hillary is not the candidate (Bill is), but rather a puppet for the real candidate, why do you care which of the two Democratic men vying for the White House NARAL chose?
May 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double standards Phoebe.
I would like to say more, but took a pledge to my self last night to leave her alone!
May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of you asked, rather wistfully, when HRC supporters would be wooed by the Obama camp?
Please, look at the facts. You are being wooed right now. You hear nothing disrespectful about HRC from Obama or from his team, although the same cannot be said in reverse.
You will be wooed even more obviously: 1) when HRC shows us she actually cares about the party and gracefully concedes; 2) when HRC supporters stop swearing angrily that they will vote for McCain; and 3) when HRC supporters start thinking about what a McCain presidency would really mean: more ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices = more invasion of privacy and less choice; more voter registration restrictions in future elections skewing the results to the GOP; and less support for workers on every level... all this, just for starters.
Cinton supporters: please stop sabotaging our collective chances; instead, join us in support of a new and better day. We welcome you.
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You are being wooed right now. You hear nothing disrespectful about HRC from Obama or from his team..."
And in fact you have an Edwards appearance where he goes out of his way to praise Hillary.
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it my imagination or when Edwards tried to praise Hillary in his speech he was greeted with a loud chorus of boos?
May 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well, Hillary needs to do some wooing of her own. Her unpleasantness has not earned her a whole of friends in the Obama camp. BUT, Obama has CONSITENTLY risen above her nasty attacks.
And, by the way, Obama stepped up and put the nix on the booers.
May 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I just take you back in time a while to exhibit why you don't hear "negative" campaigning from the Obama campaign? Why? Because they are running and have run a campaign style right out of the GWB playbook. GWB in 2000 didn't do anything outright by himself or anyone that was associated to him to torch John McCain. Still the deed was done. How? Of course, those "supporters" of his campaign that somehow couldn't be brought into line with what the campaign wanted.
It is the same with the Obama campaign. Say nothing outright yet leave it to your minions to say what you want said. The style is exactly the same. It seemingly has worked? And why not, it gave us GWB as President twice. GWB did never "swift boated" John Kerry but he sure didn't stop anyone either. David Axelrod and by extension BO has done the same.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
May 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what were the untrue smears against Clinton? If Obama surrogates were pushing smears, if there was negative push-polling, then please, post examples.
I can give you an example of an outright lie promoted on behalf of the Clinton campaign - the Muslim lie. This has been pushed all over the place, by a lot of different sources. As far as I know, none have been tied definitively to the Clinton campaign, but as far as I know, Clinton didn't do anything to stop them.
Please, give me a comparable example of a lie being spread against Clinton?
May 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this willingness to interpret words and phrases in only a negative light that's not helping Obama with MOR voters and which may come back to haunt us in the fall.
"As far as I know" isn't a lie; It doesn't promote an agenda; It was just an off-the-cuff add-on which reflected a fact. Hillary didn't know what is in Obama's heart. There was no question from the rest of the response that she believes Obama to be as he represents himself, but none of us know what he truly believes and the lawyer in Hillary probably couldn't leave her response unqualified for this reason.
May 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ignore my question. Louisville is accusing Obama of running a smear campaign against Clinton comparable to what Bush did in 2000, but he gives no proof. I asked for an example. I still don't have it.
I gave an example of a known smear campaign against Obama. I want an example of a comparable smear campaign against Clinton.
May 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay, your example of an outright lie promoted on behalf of the Clinton campaign - that Obama is a muslim - is just plain wrong. It is simply ridiculous to dub HRC's stupid off-hand disclaimer ("as far as I know") as a smear campaign. Swift Boat veterans for truth - that's a smear. A silly lawyerism, to be sure, but a smear campaign? (And please don't bring up the trifling non-story of the photo of BHO in tribal garb that hasn't even been linked to the Clinton campaign).
So there is no reason, really, to bring up any equivalent lies peddled by the Obama campaign. There haven't been any. And I'm not straining to find any either. I suggest you do the same and worry about John McCain in November.
May 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't even been linked to the Clinton campaign is completely wrong on the facts.
Drudge said he got it from Clinton. Clinton's campaign boasted of leaking to Drudge through a staffer paid in substantial part to do that, as she (Tracy Sefl) had carefully cultivated a close relationship with Drudge. See NYT 10/22/07, J. Rutenberg, "Clinton Learns To Play Along With Drudge." Those are two links.
And no, Phoebe, nobody answered your question, or will.
May 15, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Articleman, you're a lawyer; you should know better than to rely on such flimsy sources. All the Rutenberg article says is that Clinton has tried to cultivate better communications with Drudge. Doesn't mention the photo at all. The only "evidence" that anyone associated with Clinton had anything to do with it was Drudge himself, a less than stellar source, who said Clinton "staffers" had given him the picture but never produced the email he claimed backed up this assertion. The Clinton campaign immediately denied having circulated the photo, which, I believe, had appeared previously on conservative websites.
It's a non-story, hardly worth arguing over, and even if it were, the possibility that a Clinton staffer gave Drudge an AP photo of Obama in tribal garb is a far cry from a smear campaign.
May 15, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drudge said that he got it from the Clinton campaign; Several people have pointed to various articles that talks about how campaigns play Drudge, but for all intents and purposes, Drudge burned his source by giving "credit' in his post, so why has he never revealed their identity? I know that if I had sent him the photo to generate ill feelings toward another and if put it on the web stating that purpose and creating a firestorm of blowback for me, I'd never send him another phot, so why won't he reveal the source?
May 15, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please let me know where Clinton's staffer "boasted" of leaking the photo?
And I did answer Pheobe's question. There has been no campaign by Obama to smear Clinton with lies. Nor has there been one by Clinton to smear Obama. The question itself was based on a faulty premise.
May 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes across as childishness and it doesn't reflect well on Hillary.
May 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Up where the comment thread starts to get skinny, both Louisville1975 and myself raised a point about timing. Along the way, several others have made mention of "entitlement".
Hillary may not have been entitled to NARAL's endorsement. As several have suggested, her and Obama have similar voting records and they're really not expected to be very far apart on any of NARAL's issue.
I just feel and can understand some using the term "betrayal" because Hillary has carried the group's water since their inception and because they weren't staving-off an anti-choice Democrat, there really was no reason for them to act.
Way back on April 1st, I snarked to someone's post that former Rep. Lee Hamilton's endorsement of Obama wasn't big news because he should be expected to support the Democrat. Barack Obama is most likely going to be the Democratic nominee and there really shouldn't be any question of how NARAL (or Lee Hamilton) are going to vote in the fall. I just feel and agree with others that because their endorsement is unnecessary and nothing is gained, they "owed" Hillary enough respect for her several decades of service, they could've held-off for a couple more weeks.
May 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fair comment if you would have felt the same should they have endorsed her instead of Clinton. I suspect NARAL feels that continuing the contest damages our chances in the General Election, it's the only reason I can see for their endorsing now.
May 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops, that should read "instead of Obama".
May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. There was no reason for NARAL to endorse anyone at this time. To be quite honest, I don't know that there was any reason for them to single any one Democrat out for being any better than any other at any time throughout the race, except maybe to point toward their ratings.
The NY NOW woman's attack on Ted Kennedy was a bit over the top, but Ted and his kin have had a lot of problems with women over the years and for the most part, I don't know that NOW has ever said a bad word. Her comments were over the top, but I'm sure they accurately reflected the way that she felt.
BTW: NARAL lobbies on behalf of a position, while NOW is designed to promote women (as the NAACP is to another constituency), so the two groups are different.
May 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There was no reason for NARAL to endorse anyone at this time"
I think there was a reason: because they see it's a pretty safe bet that Obama will win the nomination, and they want to get on his good side now.
Same reason we are seeing more and more superdelegates come out for Obama, because the risk of backing the losing candidate is pretty low, while value of coming out for Obama will drop considerably once he's clinched the nomination.
May 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates have to declare at this stage in the process, they have no choice but to do it before or during the convention.
There shouldn't be any question about who NARAL would endorse in the fall, it's going to be the pro-choice candidate and not the one who opposes their platform. In this case, the Democratic nominee should expect their support as a given and though I don't think they should endorse anyone (much like the similarly-organized, "Human Rights Campaign), I really don't think Obama would start to favor overturning Roe v. Wade because some advocacy group waited a few weeks to endorse.
May 15, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates have to declare at this stage in the process, they have no choice but to do it before or during the convention.
There shouldn't be any question about who NARAL would endorse in the fall, it's going to be the pro-choice candidate and not the one who opposes their platform. In this case, the Democratic nominee should expect their support as a given and though I don't think they should endorse anyone (much like the similarly-organized, "Human Rights Campaign), I really don't think Obama would start to favor overturning Roe v. Wade because some advocacy group waited a few weeks to endorse.
May 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the dupe.
The screen didn't progress, so I hit the button again.
May 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maginster makes an important point. Yes, there have been a few instances when Hillary's backers have reacted with anger at having been "betrayed" while there are no similar instances on the part of prominent Obama backers (at least none I can think of). (One has to distinguish the backers from the candidates and their campaigns - I'm not aware of any similar instances coming from them). I would attribute a good deal of this to the fact that Hillary has been around longer and has deep ties to some of those who have switched over to Obama. Hillary has a long history with Naral that Obama, I would imagine, doesn't. Richardson served in two cabinet positions in the Clinton administration and had a personal relationship with the Clintons (Bill claimed he had promised not to endorse Obama). I'm not familiar with the remarks by the head of NOW, but I suspect the same dynamic. Hillary has worked with these people and groups for many many years. As a newcomer to the national scene, Obama simply doesn't have the relationships that can be betrayed. There is also a strong feeling among Clinton backers that their candidate (as well as the former President) has been unjustly vilified as, among other things, a race baiter, by Obama's supporters. This is a serious charge that I can only imagine to be very upsetting to someone who has supported a progressive agenda throughout her political career and withstood more than a decade of scurrilous Republican attacks. Last night when John Edwards spoke in praise of HRC, the crowd booed. So when a Democrat with ties to the Clintons switches over to the wonder boy, it's understandable if emotions run high.
You asked about similar examples from the Obama camp? Back in February, Jesse Jackson Jr was running around intimating that black supporters of HRC could face primary challenges, and he warned Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Dem MO) to line up behind Obama, asking if he wants to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the white house. Not the same, I know, but analagous.
May 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cite your sources about Jesse Jackson. Give us links. Your word is not enough. Sorry.
May 15, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_supporter_jesse_jackson_1.php
May 15, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only not the same, but not analogous. The OP's point is that the whole "betrayal" line doesn't recognize the reality of politics. Jesse Jr. was just talking about the reality of politics. He didn't say "you're betraying our black brother," he said "your constituents might think you're betraying our black brother."
May 15, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the distinction is a bit slender. Anyway, when Jackson asks a Hillary supporter if he wants to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the presidency, I'd say that's pretty close to calling him a traitor. To say that talk of "betrayal" has no place in politics is to deny human nature. To take an extreme example, if Michele Obama were to come out in favor of Clinton, Barack would be justified in calling that a betrayal, no?
May 15, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, I'm not denying human nature. I'm sure the sentiments are genuine, but I also think they are revealing, and the public comments are graceless.
The Michelle hypothetical is flawed because you're comparing loyalty between spouses to the loyalty of other politicians or a lobbying organization.
Specifically as to NARAL, how do you respond to the scenario I posited above? The goal of the organization is to get candidates elected who support their cause. Candidate A has 30 years' history supporting the cause. Candidate B has 15 years' history supporting the cause. Organization's leadership believes Candidate B has a better chance of getting elected. Why shouldn't the Organization support Candidate B? Their loyalty is to their mission, not to Candidate A just because of that candidate's longer period of support.
You can argue that NARAL's decision wasn't smart in terms of alienating contributors and such, but I don't think you can argue that they owed Hillary their support, or that endorsing Obama is contrary to their mission, just because Hillary has been around longer.
May 16, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, don't you see a problem with all of this "betrayal" focus? It makes all of this about THEM, the Clintons. And by the way, isn't it Hillary that's running? Why does Bill always push his way into this?
Richardson backed Obama because he supports what Obama stands for. The appropriate response from Hillary would be to respect that and not to make it about loyalty and "I thought you were my friend."
NARAL endorsed Obama because they decided that was in the best interests of promoting their agenda. The appropriate response from their supporters would be, "We trust the leaders of this organization to do what's best to forward its stated mission."
And so on.
That's my number one problem with Hillary. Everything, when it comes right down to it, is really about Hillary. I don't want someone who seems to be driven by pure narcissism leading this country. I need to have some sense that our leader cares about the interests of this country.
May 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary hasn't said that she felt betrayed, though in my opinion, she'd have every right to that emotion because of her long service to the cause.
The person who used the word is apparently a Clinton supporter and a member of NARAL. She's also an elected official, whom I suppose the group has endorsed in the past and because of her "any of us", I take it that she fears that though she may have voted the NARAL line and is a member in good standing, they could just toss her many years and endorse a Republican opponent because a political argument could be made.
It was a wrongheaded move, but few have ever accused the leaders of NARAl of being particularly bright. What makes it wrongheaded was that it's completely unnecessary and by taking such an action which will have no benefit to themselves, they've risked alienating some portion of their membership on whose financial support, they rely.
But again, Hillary didn't say "betrayed", some person from California is the one who made the charge and the group should've remained neutral until there was a reason to endorse.
May 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear the argument about the timing of the decision and I can see the logic in it, in terms of the NARAL membership feeling that their own support of Hillary's campaign was disregarded and undermined by this announcement. I respect that.
But, that betrayal theme does keep coming up every time a prominent figure or group backs Obama (Carville's Judas comment, Bill's finger-wagging tirade,...). It just looks bad. And as the Leader of her own campaign, Hillary needs to set an example.
Maybe it's just not time yet.
May 15, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
CarolBG: One could see it that way and many certainly do. It's a familiar refrain: all the Clintons care about is themselves. Obviously, there's some truth to this. Rare is the politician who doesn't. Personally, I'm more interested in who will win the election and who will govern more effectively. I don't have a definitive answer for either question. Right now, looks like Obama's going to have that chance. (Oh my god! He said "right now." It's like "as far as I know."). In any event, I don't see how the comments of a few people - not the Clintons - about betrayal really contribute to the conversation.
May 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely... even for the silly season this kind of rhetoric is overblown.
Real betrayal is getting stabbed to death in the east portico of the Senate on the Ides of March.
Or having your identity revealed to your persecutors with a kiss.
Or coming home to find your partner has erased your collection of Good Eats episodes from the Tivo.
These are the kinds of sins whose perpetrators end up in the ninth circle.
May 15, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 15, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cite your sources about Jesse Jackson. Give us links. Your word is not enough. Sorry.
May 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I dont believe in olive branches, just respect. Vote for the best candidate. I hope all HRC supporters think its Obama, I know my opinion wont change their vote.
May 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL's mission statement lists "Electing pro-choice candidates" as their first priority.
Judases. Traitors! How dare they endorse Obama? Clearly, the only appropriate response to this betrayal is a vote for McCain.
May 15, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm ssurprised they didn't endorse him.
May 15, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no friends in politics, only interests, no? In this case, how can one complain about being betrayed?
May 16, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole NARAL thing is laughable. Aren't the Clintons the ones who said things like If you don't want to get tackled don't put on the uniform??? Saddle up??? Now they start cryin' like a bunch of sore losers over an endorsement??? Oh but this is personal???
Come on it's politics remember???
May 16, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It hasn't only been on this issue, but the facts do often get muddled; Hillary didn't complain. The OP quotes from a California Rep, a guy who used to work for Bill and who now works for CNN and a young lady who heads Hillary's local NOW Chapter, who made a statement that the national office distanced themselves from within just a couple of hours.
May 16, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe,
Excellent post. Thank you.
[Also, belated thanks for your assist yesterday with Monkey avatar guy and his Catechism tutorial. Good grief! For a minute I thought I was back in high school with the nuns...]
May 16, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That photo suits you.
May 16, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink