Hillary, You Didn’t Win. Now Don’t Whine

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Hill2008 @ 06/01/2008 12:17:07 PM

    Who cares about the Dem big-whigs when they are sexist and pushing their power to the candidate they want - not who the American majority wants. I care about my United States of Americam! WE ARE NOT STOPPING THE INDY 500 AT LAP 475 BECAUSE SOME GUY (WHO WILL BREAK DOWN SOON) AND HIS CRONIES SAY SO !!!! It's Hillary Clinton for me and many like me or McCain second choice. I care about protecting my beautiful wonderful USA over all else.

    • Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/01/2008 1:25:15 PM

      OT OH! Redneck Id Alert..."indy car reference"! You are an uninformed and uneducated (politically) person. Shame on you for following based soley on EMOTION! Just because she is a woman, YOU CONVIENTLY FORGET HILLARY AGREED TO THE RULES!!! (When she thought she was going to win). Only republicans disregard rules/laws to get what they want.
      Why are you still B!TCHING, FL/MI got counted, so what is your issue? HillaRove got her way. According to the rules, if that bothers you, that the DNC FOLLOWED THE RULES AS DID 47 other states, Then that just reflects oh how DESPERATE YOU AND THE OTHER HILLERITES truly are, sad and desperate, and uneducated (politically).

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/01/2008 1:20:13 PM

    Puerto Rico today. The world tomorrow? Good job, Hilly.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/01/2008 1:15:20 PM

    Says that her parents didn't raise quitter. I think that they must have slipped a book of instructions on how to be a Kamikaze pilot in with her other instructions. She's lost and is now trying to sink the USS Obama, along with all of the U.S. citizens aboard. Be a quitter, Hillary. We would like to live a few more years.

  • Posted By: simonanunhappydem @ 06/01/2008 1:14:53 PM

    The only thing I agree with Ms. Clift is that the Clinton campaign made a crucial mistake in not seriously competing in the caucus states.
    However, if Clinton is denied the nomination it will be fundamentally not because of this mistake but because the Obama camp, with the active help of the media, used the race card in a very clever but, to me, disgusting way: every one who argued against anything Obama said or did was branded a racist. Not by the candidate, of course, he is smarter than that, but by his advisers, his camp, and by his media minions and hangers on. It is practically impossible to fight against this dishonest tactic in an honorable and clean way, and Hillary decided to ignore it instead of fighting it head on, calling a spade a spade. However, being honest does not always work, and if Clinton looses the nomination she will learn what Dukakis has learned before him, that you can not fight a swift-boating tactic by trying to ignore it. The sad thing is that in this case the swift-boating was done by one democrat, Obama, against another democrat, Clinton. The common element in the two events is that the media was totally complicit in both instances. Obama and his campaign will not get away with this same sleazy tactic in the presidential campaign against McCain. I am still hoping that the super delegates of the Democratic party are smart enough to see through what happened in this campaign and nominate Clinton, because she is the only democrat who can win against McCain. I hope that this is the only thing on their minds when making their decision. Just a side note: a couple of weeks ago, when Obama did not yet have the delegate lead that he has now, his argument, parroted by the media echo chamber, was that the super delegates can not ignore the popular vote, can not overturn the will of the people. Now, that Clinton leads in the popular vote, this argument became somehow forgotten. It seems that if Clinton wins the popular vote the super delegates are pressured to overturn the will of the people in order to anoint your favorite candidate. How convenient!

  • Posted By: simonanunhappydem @ 06/01/2008 1:14:28 PM

    The only thing I agree with Ms. Clift is that the Clinton campaign made a crucial mistake in not seriously competing in the caucus states.
    However, if Clinton is denied the nomination it will be fundamentally not because of this mistake but because the Obama camp, with the active help of the media, used the race card in a very clever but, to me, disgusting way: every one who argued against anything Obama said or did was branded a racist. Not by the candidate, of course, he is smarter than that, but by his advisers, his camp, and by his media minions and hangers on. It is practically impossible to fight against this dishonest tactic in an honorable and clean way, and Hillary decided to ignore it instead of fighting it head on, calling a spade a spade. However, being honest does not always work, and if Clinton looses the nomination she will learn what Dukakis has learned before him, that you can not fight a swift-boating tactic by trying to ignore it. The sad thing is that in this case the swift-boating was done by one democrat, Obama, against another democrat, Clinton. The common element in the two events is that the media was totally complicit in both instances. Obama and his campaign will not get away with this same sleazy tactic in the presidential campaign against McCain. I am still hoping that the super delegates of the Democratic party are smart enough to see through what happened in this campaign and nominate Clinton, because she is the only democrat who can win against McCain. I hope that this is the only thing on their minds when making their decision. Just a side note: a couple of weeks ago, when Obama did not yet have the delegate lead that he has now, his argument, parroted by the media echo chamber, was that the super delegates can not ignore the popular vote, can not overturn the will of the people. Now, that Clinton leads in the popular vote, this argument became somehow forgotten. It seems that if Clinton wins the popular vote the super delegates are pressured to overturn the will of the people in order to anoint your favorite candidate. How convenient!

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/01/2008 1:09:47 PM

    She intends to poison the well if she can't own the water. and to hell with the thirsty. Let them all die.

  • Posted By: maxdaddy @ 05/31/2008 11:30:46 PM

    You say "[Professor] O'Connor has been quoted saying it will be generations, plural, before another woman will be positioned as the heir apparent the way Clinton was at the outset of the race." Professor O'Connor is right--but not for the reason she thinks. It is highly improbable another husband-wife team like the Clintons will come along where hubby's coattails get the wife to the front of the line for a party's presidential nomination. Professor O'Connor calls herself a feminist, but what kind of feminist relies on this kind of boost from a man.? The unfortunate reality is that the first woman who had a real shot at being president did not make it on her own. The first black guy did. No surprise here. But he made it in spite of his blackness. He was smarter and tougher. He was also nicer. Maybe O'Connor is right that Clinton and Obama are identical on the issues--let's concede the point. That's like knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Other things count to people, including being smart and tough, nice--even honest. On all those fronts Clinton comes up distinctly short. Sense of humor, too-which brings me, finally, to those nutcrackers. If Hillary had any brains, she would have bought a truckload and handed them out as trophies of honor.
    Ms. Clift, I love you on McLoughlin!

    • Posted By: eidiva @ 06/01/2008 12:36:08 AM

      Are you kidding me ?! You believe that Obama did it on his own? I am an African American female and I can tell you that nothing short of the Manchurian Candidate could explain his meteoric rise. He was picked by a handful of disgruntled Clinton workers (Axlerod and friends) who had worked on Devin Patrick's campaign who virtually pulled him out of obscurity. So you may ask what coattails did he ride on...John Kerry's; Jeremiah Wright's (who gave him the African American political and social network HE DID NOT HAVE ), and if you read his opening words, Hillary Clinton with whom he sat down with right after beginning his term. No one does it on their own...not even St. Obama

      • Posted By: ladeyday @ 06/01/2008 1:09:44 PM

        You must be one of those 10% still clinging to Miss Daisy...I mean Ms Clinton. I was wondering who they were & how they think. It astounds me that after Bill discounted Obama's SC win and HRC stated that "hard working" Americans are white Americans, so many black people support her. Guess it's that old plantation mentality, remembering how good it was under Mr Bill. It's not that you have to support Barack just because he is a person of color, but that you would continue to support HER after her obvious use of race (along with many other underhanded methods). Or is it because she is a woman? She is NOT entitled. I REALLY don't understand.......................

  • Posted By: midnight05 @ 06/01/2008 12:44:26 PM

    It's not women per se. It's THIS woman and how she has behaved herself and responded. It is her refusal to put party and country over herself. I would love to vote for a woman and I was pro-Hillary until she started with ME ME ME. I want to vote for a wmoan if one runs who makes me feel that she is worthwhile. Her votes on the war started it but it was her comment about RFK that clilnched it. I would never vote for her. If she were the candidate, I would stay home.

  • Posted By: RoundMound @ 06/01/2008 12:22:07 PM

    Commenters should try and make a point that stands on it's own, with out the support of the awesome Caps Lock, !, and ? keys. Come on, I dare you. Oops, I mean, "I DARE YOOUU!!!"

  • Posted By: RoundMound @ 06/01/2008 12:19:57 PM

    Commenters should try to make a point that stands on its own, without the support of the awesome Caps Lock, !, and ? keys. Come on, I dare you. Oops, I mean, "I DARE YOU!!"

  • Posted By: Hill2008 @ 06/01/2008 12:16:25 PM

    Who cares about the Dem big-whigs when they are sexist and pushing their power to the candidate they want - not who the American majority wants. I care about my United States of Americam! WE ARE NOT STOPPING THE INDY 500 AT LAP 475 BECAUSE SOME GUY (WHO WILL BREAK DOWN SOON) AND HIS CRONIES SAY SO !!!! It's Hillary Clinton for me and many like me or McCain second choice. I care about protecting my beautiful wonderful USA over all else.

  • Posted By: joe_mama @ 06/01/2008 11:57:23 AM

    HolyRoller--
    You are quite possibly the most ignorant person on the planet and this attitude is why it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE for me to support Clinton. Thank you for showing us all what Clinton's supporters are all about.

  • Posted By: HooLaLa @ 06/01/2008 11:53:43 AM

    I HAVE TO PREDICT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL LOSE IN THE ELECTION, BECAUSE HALF OF THE DEMOCRATIC BALLLETS WOULD EITHER GO TO THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES OR SIMPLY WON'T BE CAST ON THE ELECTION DAY. DOOM ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND AMERICA. I FORESEE ANOTHER 4~8 YEARS HORRIBLE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION TO COME.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 06/01/2008 11:07:50 AM

    AMERICAN HERO
    or
    ISLAMIC SYMPATHUZER

    EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM
    or
    INEXPERIENCE AND FOOLISHNESS

    RIGHTEOUS ANGER
    or
    SILLY LITTLE SISSY

    VICTORY AND PRIDE
    or
    SURRENDER AND SHAME

    PERSONAL FREEDOM
    or
    GOVT. MANDATES

    STRENGTH
    or
    WEAKNESS

    CHARACTER AND HONOR
    or
    CROOK AND FRAUD

    A mohammed in the White House??? God Forbid. And He has....

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: jameskbachman @ 06/01/2008 10:13:42 AM

    Gimme any rule, I'll break it- that was the theme song of a popular TV show, Laverne and Shirley. Well, that way of thinking has prevailed. The rule was broken, so rules don't really count, do they? Half a penalty for breaking the rule about when primaries are allowed. It shows we are halfway toward disregarding rules completely.

    • Posted By: Obamanator @ 06/01/2008 10:47:19 AM

      I know where you're coming from, but this was not purely a rright or wrong thing, this was politics. There needed to be a compromise. That's the way it goes sometimes.

      But I really do not understand where those who feel Hillary should just be given the Michigan / Florida votes (including 0 votes for Obama in Michigan!!) as if those were real contests. Isn't there a fairness test that needs to be met here? Why do those people find it so easy to just change the rules around now? That has never been considered fair, not in this country anyway.

      These things have practical consequences. If everyone agreed beforehand that those votes would count, we would have had campaigns there, no problem. But first Hillary agrees to the ryules, but now that wshe is losing, she thinks the rules are not fair. Isn't there something inherently unjust about that?

      And now she thinks that the (debatable) fact that she has the most popular votes means that she should be the nominee. But agagin, if that was the rule in the beginning, Obama's entire strategy would have been different. He crafted his campaign based on the rules of the game. Again, Hillary was fine with those rules until now, when she is casting desparately about for some rationale for victory. Does she even know how desparate she is sounding. How offensive that is to any sense of fairness I know.

      I am, of course, and am probably similarly blinded in some ways in my views about this. But can someone please explain to me in plain,language why these considerations about rules of the game and how unfair it is to change them after a long campaign based on a mutually agreed-upon set of rules. In what way is that fair. I just don't understand where you're coming from here. I assume there must be some intellectually honest argument here, but could someone please take the time to present it?

  • Posted By: vox_populi @ 06/01/2008 10:34:22 AM

    Senator Clinton is like a cheap red wine, vintage but not mellowed. The chief lesson we learn in life is how to subvert our ego for the greater good, whether that greater good is divine, our globe, a nation, a tribe, or family. Hillary Clinton seems like a confused teenager who ignores family, tribe, nation, globe, and divine grace. All the other candidates removed their names from the Michigan democratic ballot in September 2007 when the DNC Rules Committee ruled that they would not accept the results of a jump-the-gun January 15 primary. Hillary let ego prevail over party and left her name on the Michigan ballot.

  • Posted By: quill @ 06/01/2008 12:47:41 AM

    Before you could complain about the sexism seen against Hillary in this campaign, you would have to argue that it was greater than the racism faced by Obama, which is beyond ludicrous to anyone who's been paying attention I voted for Obama because Hillary Clinton has only cast one important vote in her entire life and she cast it wrong, and as a result almost one million people are now DEAD. Gender has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    • Posted By: not_another_american_idiot @ 06/01/2008 2:59:15 AM

      Right, and Obama never even voted on it because he wasn't even a senator when we went to Iraq. His claim to fame is an anti-war speech he gave when he had absolutely ZERO power. Since he has been a senator, he has voted to fund the war in Iraq??? So doesn't that make Obama the liar and hypocrite???

      • Posted By: Mimi13 @ 06/01/2008 7:10:56 AM

        Actually, there is nothing hypocritical about those votes. To deny funding to our troops that are in harm's way would be irresponsible. As a senator, Obama does not have the power to bring our men and women home. But, that doesn't mean that he wants them killed for lack of arms and protective equipment. He doesn't want to leave them stranded without potable water or sufficient food. He doesn't want to deny them medical care when they are sick or injured. Bush leaves Congress with few choices. As long as American men and women are in Iraq, Congress must provide funds for their safety and well-being.

        • Posted By: 18anapple2 @ 06/01/2008 9:56:21 AM

          how convenient for Obama..any demonstrated leadership on the issue before he came to the senate..besides that one speech ,any records of him being an active and leading member of any anti war protes group.? any demonstrated leadership on this issue on the senate floor while he cast those yeah votes!?!

    • Posted By: babzter @ 06/01/2008 7:59:03 AM

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't women get the vote like 80 years after black men?

  • Posted By: anamorphicart @ 06/01/2008 9:42:00 AM

    Thank you for your article, the only thing that's really pathetic, Hillary has no "grace".

  • Posted By: 18anapple2 @ 06/01/2008 9:36:33 AM

    sorry abt the double

  • Posted By: hiitsme @ 06/01/2008 9:09:23 AM

    Yo, Clinton feminists... GO ON! Give this election to MCCAIN, a man who REALLY wants to make sure Roe v Wade will be overturned! You may think you can undo the damage by electing Clinton '12... but that will not play out. You´ll wake up when it´s all too late. But it's the old story again: You just can´t help the self-destructive.

    • Posted By: 18anapple2 @ 06/01/2008 9:35:33 AM

      As a person who is responsible for a team and motivating them I can tell your style leaves a lot to be desired if you are trying to persuade people to come around to your point of view.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse