Sen. Clinton - you have suprised me and I salute you.
As a wine swilling, well educated, male, resident of a well of a liberal community, the media says I am not supposed to
say a positive thing about you. Yes. I voted for you in 2000 for Senate. I was not enthusiastic about you before.
I saw you how hard you worked for the 2000 Senate campaign. My reaction was she wants power. Then, I saw you up close how hard you worked for NY. Yes. Sen. Chuck Schumer is as good in that regard. But, I never felt
that positive about you. I admired Pres. Clinton but not you
before. When you started running for Dem. nomination, it is fair to say that I was hopping for someone else to emerge to give you a fight.
But, all that has changed today. When I saw you working hard for NY Senate, my reaction was she wants power and she is cashing on her fame and built in advantages as a first lady.
During this primray: you are dealt so badly that my anitpathy melted away. You withstood all your adversaries
and in my opinion, you have actually WON the Democratic nomination on merits. You won more states with Electoral votes. You won more BIG prize states. You won more votes. You are leading in more swing states. This is no mean achievement when most of the media is openly supporting your adversary.
1. So many of your friends stabbed you in the back at important moments in the primary race. ingrates and all..
2. Media: Yes. It is the most biased coverage that I have seen. Maybe the rightwingers are correct when they complain that Media is liberal.
Your words are twisted and interpreted in the most negative context. your every gaffe is blown out of proportion and your opponent is given a pass time and again. It is so grating to see again and again columnists
cranking out articles opposing you and supporting your adversary with all the double standards.
3. Racism : Yes, you may have won some racist votes. The
media kept pointing it out. But, it is more accurate to say
that you have lost 100s of delegates because of Racism on
the part of African Americans. I hate to say this as
someone who is always supportive of them. Whatever may be the faults of you and Pres. Clinton, you have tried to do
the right thing when it came to minorities and in particular African Americans. In my opinion, you have pandered to them and bent over back and courted them like on one before. Yet, they have abandoned you for a nominal African American. Racism is when you like or dislike someone just because of Race or skin color. So, it is racism that has costed you the number of delegates and
ultimately the nomination on technicality.
4.Blue color working class Male voters: I felt that you willnot get the male voter support. I am surprised that you won them state after state. Perhaps, they saw the working class roots in you behind all that exterior.
5. Young Woman: Yes, young woman didn't support you
in great numbers. But, you have done them a great favor. Donot be pushed over. Fight for what you believe in. Stand up and you will win. In many respects, you have WON on merits. As a father of an young daughter, I thank you and salute you.
I feel much the same way for many of the same reasons. In discussions during the 2004 race I posted that I would not support Hillary in 2008. I was an Edwards supporter. Funny thing though I now find myself one of her hard core supporters.
I actually started moving to her during the debate with the 3 candidates. While I was pulling for my guy I couldn't help but notice to my disappointment that Edwards lost the debate to both Obama and Hillary and Hillary was just astonishing in the depth and breath of her knowledge. While I still voted for Edwards in the Fl primary because of his rhetoric I was even then questioning whether that was the best choice.
I'm not blind to her faults, weaknesses, or her gaffs and errors. But I have come to admire her and value her contribution to our nation. I will support her until she decides to declare her candidacy over. And I will support her in the future if she decides to run again.
June 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I first advised Sen. Clinton to end her campaign on May 7th, after Indiana and North Carolina. I wanted her to stay in and I wanted her to win, but it seemed to me at that point that it wasn't likely to happen. I thought then (and continue to think) she would have been the better choice.
I bring all that up to give me some credibilty on where we now stand: What I intend to say is based on more than just the typical last-minute, passing hard feelings of a disappointed loser.
The overall public treatment of this talented person has been a SCANDAL. In many years of following national politics, I've seen roughly comaparable abuse TWICE: Richard Nixon, and Sen. Clinton's husband in the later part of his Presidency. This current situation is BY FAR the worst, for two reasons: It is the least deserved, and technology has moved us to the point that such abuses are both much more prevalent and much more conspicous than they might have been in previous eras. (Keep in mind, this comes from one who has spent years defending the right of a free press, and who has generally believed heretofore that they usually mean well, and usually try to get it right).
I don't mean to single these two people out (there are other offenders), but the behavior of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC has been both odious and atrocious. They have become progressively so jarringly prejucidial against Sen. Clinton in their commentary and their on-air conduct, that I am embarrassed for them. I am equally embarrassed at MYSELF, that I sat there so long and took it in. I tried to give both of them the benefit of the doubt, because I've generally enjoyed those shows over the years, and have been willing to forgive their many lapses of decorum and judgement. No more.
I could certainly say a good deal more about this, time permitting. I'm sure I'll get more chances, because this Democratic Primary campaign is bound to become a laboratory study for years to come, on the excesses of modern media, and its ability to foul the waters of the Democratic process.
June 3, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
1 Wilson,
Dont forget how the media handled Al Gore. That was the benchmark of disgrace. I think how Senator Clinton was treated rises to that level.
It is true, that every single word she said was parsed and reparsed looking for some racial overtones or anything to make her look bad. The Clinton Rules exist.
June 3, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "young women" have no idea what they have done to themselves.
When McCain becomes president, they will find out.
June 3, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so struck by how each candidates' supporters view the contest and the media slant/angle etc.
I, as an Obama supporter, saw the MSM piling on him while Clinton twisted the knife.
I saw Clinton literally mock him and his speeches on several occasions ('...and the skies will open up...blah, blah, blah'; 'just words - empty words'; etc...)She called him naive and an empty suit; she rode the Rev. Wright train; the Bill Ayers train; the Farrakhan-passing-a-note-to-Hamas train; the 'slumlord' train; the-whites-won't-vote-for-him train; she (and her husband)belittled him in favor of McCain (who, along with her, has passed some magical mark in the CIC test and both are people who actually LOVE America); she ran a poor campaign; she slung mud; she tried to change the rules of the game after she saw she was losing; she told MI and FL voters that Obama is trying to disenfranchise them; she's lied - a lot; she's played the victim throughout this campaign (even though she was heavily favored to win the nomination from day-1) while telling Obama that if he 'can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'. She and the moderators of the last debate all tag-teamed him...Nothing in all of the other debates even came close to that spectacle -nothing!
And now she's lying thru her teeth about winning the popular vote.
Face it...thru her and her campaign's vitriol, lies and bumbling, she's made herself fodder for a press corp that loves nothing more than to nail a Dem nominee's pelt to the wall anyway.
Did Clinton get shabby treatment as a candidate? Yes, of course, she's the first female to get this far, a Clinton and a Dem nominee - and her campaign's kung-fu sucked! What, exactly, did she expect?
Yes, she got some really piss-poor treatment by the press. But,how bad could it have been when the wingnuts left her alone?
Did Obama get some shabby treatment by the press? Yes, of course! He's black and running for President. He's been painted as an ultr-liberal Marxist (by another Senator!), a Black radical / Muslim-Manchurian candidate and the poster child for affirmative action.
The Rev. Wright/Ayers b.s played for at least a month non-stop...He's had to fend off Clinton and her supporters (both elected officials and ordinary people), the Repub attack machine, wingnuts, racists, his own pastor, McCain's campaign and the sitting President - all at the same time!
And he's come out smelling like a rose.
And he's done all of that without ever impugning Clinton's character, questioning her patriotism, saying anything about her associations (did he mention Norman Hsu? - nope!)or showing her anything but grace and respect.
He won the nomination fair and square - by the rules as laid out by the DNC that all of the campaigns agreed to - including her's.
Admire her strength? Sure! We all do. But strength without wisdom (or at least a good strategy) is kinda pointless...
June 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what I am more directly referring to is the intensely PERSONAL nature of the attacks on her. For instance, when the reporter made reference to Sen. Clinton "pimping". This is the kind of language that could never be used with Sen. Obama, or any other black candidate. In general, it seems to me we have not reached the point in our discourse where the same boundaries that AUTOMATICALLY limit and censor our discussions of race, apply equally either to gender or to Clintons. Being both, Sen. Clinton was in the eye of a perfect storm.
As a 2nd clarifier, I am referring more specifically to MEDIA coverage - what they may or may not have said to or about each other is another matter. On that score, I cannot accept the idea that Sen. Clinton got the better of it. I think the national media in general have been more than fair to Sen. Obama.
I would assume from your remarks (some of them rather personal, as well) that you might disagree. Anyone reading this has every right to make up their OWN mind as to our relative objectivity.
June 3, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink