Hillary Clinton -- Damned if She Does and Damned if She Doesn't

The political drums are pounding harder and louder -- Get. Out. Hillary.  GET! OUT! HILLARY!

GET! OUT! HILLARY!

Politicos ruminate over how much more the Democratic party can "take."   Some voters -- the one's who've already cast their ballots -- have primary fatigue and want to be done with the process.  Some Hillary Clinton supporters have even stopped blogging about their positions because of the unrelenting attacks from those who back Barack.

And an ever-growing number of Obama supporters are demanding that the first viable woman candidate step down for the good of the party.

I'm not the only one wondering why so many feel the need to push out a candidate who has come so far. 

Is our system so weak?  Is the Democratic party so inept that it can't stand a debate between two qualified candidates?  Is that what happens when the Democrats have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to possible candidates?

Former journalist Carole Simpson took Larry King to task last night on this issue, saying, and I paraphrase:

Why are so many people so eager to have the first viable woman candidate for President of the United States get out of the race?  She's smart.  She's qualified.  What's the problem?

The problem is this -- Democrats too often cower in the face of conflict.  I say this as a lifelong Democrat who has seen it time and time again, especially when it has come to important issues on Capitol Hill.

The war in Iraq.  Judicial nominations.  Health care for poor children.

And now, many are afraid the party can't withstand a nomination process that has embraced two incredible candidates. If we, as a party, can't handle this, then there really is no point to being in the White House because there's only more conflict to come, and not from our friends but from our political foes.

If Hillary stays in the race, the drum beat will only grow louder and, undoubtedly, she'll feel like Horton at the end of Horton Hears a Who when all the other jungle creatures back him into a corner, tie him down and cage him, because he won't give in to the unruly crowd's demand that he "admit" what is wrong, even when he knows he is right.

I fear that whichever choice she makes, she will be damned.  If Hillary Clinton stays in the race, she'll be considered a spoiler, even if she wins the nomination.  If Clinton accedes to the wishes of people like Senators Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy, her critics will say, "See, she couldn't stand the heat of her own party's primary.  Imagine what would have happened if she had become Commander-in-Chief!"

Whether you agree or disagree, hate or love her, at least let's give Hillary Clinton some points for standing up when so many want her to sit down.

Joanne writes about the intersection of motherhood and politics at her place, PunditMom. She's also a Contributing Editor for Politics & News at BlogHer.

Comments

[debbie - i obsess]

Joanne, I don't like or dislike Hillary Clinton. But she cannot win at this point, because the delegates are already pledged, and Barack Obama possesses far more than she at this point. Delegates would have to switch stance in order for her to win, a thing that is nigh impossible, because they're the staunchest supporters of their candidate, hence their *being* the delegates elected to their roles. The supers -- Joanne, you and I both know that they must vote according to the popular vote, and if that vote belongs to Barack Obama, which it currently does, then they would be voting against the people if they chose Hillary.

It's not about a personal attack on Hillary Clinton; it's simply a statement that she stays in for no good reason, given her lack of votes. Simple. Plain. Easy-peasy.

This should not be made into a personal issue. It should be a Democratic vote system applied fairly and appropriately. She's too far behind to win. Therefore, logically, by remaining in a race that becomes dirtier, apparently, according to some, by the daily news cycle, she only does damage to the party at large.

[PunditMom]

Debbie, I respectfully disagree. It is not a fait accompli for Obama. He can't win on pledged delegates either. It all comes down to the super delegates. And the whole point of the super delegates is to exercise independent judgment. I'm not saying this is a good system, but it's the one we're stuck with at the moment. Delegates would not have to switch for her to win. The supers are not obligated to vote for anyone and, as we know, can switch at a moment's notice if they feel like it. She is not that far behind and I am actually happy that the people (read: my parents) who usually feel that they votes in Pennsylvania don't count because by the time April rolls around a decision has already been made are actually having a say in this election.

We have a process. It's called the electoral process. Let's let it play out. If our party is a strong as we hope it is, we should be able to come together and beat McCain. If not, we don't deserve to.

[John J.]

Pundit Mom, if I thought it would be an honest, open debate between these two candidates, I wouldn't care if she kept running. Unfortunately, judging by the last three months of campaigning on Clinton's part, I expect it to be a pile of mud slinging and McCain endorsements out of Clinton's camp.

She also has almost 0% chance of catching up to Obama. She needs 65% of the vote out of every remaining contest - a feat she has only once accomplished in Arkansas.

I've heard some Clinton supporters say that these requests are sexist, but they are not. Huckabee was asked to pull out at the same point, Romney pulled out even though he had a better chance than Huckabee. This is a standard thing when a candidate has too steep a hill to climb and time would be better spent countering the McCain campaign, which has already stared releasing general election ads and attacks, than to keep rehashing the same things over and over until only 10% of Clinton's supporters are willing to vote for Obama because Clinton has demonized him too much.

[Dolly]

The sad aspect of dragging this contest on would be the increased potential to poison the process with Clinton litigation. There also might be the continuation of implied threats by special interest and large Clinton donors to super delegates. Litigation is just more Bush politics and my hope is that Hillary can bow out gracefully when the time comes. Hillary needs to show some class and put the party before her own ambitions.

[cynematic]

I will still vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination because I cannot abide McCain, but it'll be difficult to overcome the gag reflex because I've come to believe the only way she can get the nomination is through superdelegates completely ignoring voters from all 50 states prior.

Clinton's strategy seems short-sighted to me: win at all costs, take office with tremendous ill will and the taint of illegitimacy hanging over you, having run roughshod over a lot of people (including superdelegates, many of whom are her colleagues in the House and Senate), and with a poorly-run campaign and half-hearted Get Out The Vote apparatus so there's no way of increasing the Democratic majority in Congress? I'm doubtful her "bipartisan" efforts would be all that effective. And has she shown she has coattails or a way of making them? Looking at her poorly-run campaign that's quickly running out of money: no.

The Republican party is weak right now--for once. The war's a fiasco. Shrubya is clearly an idiot. The economy's a mess. Fundies who yearn for end-times are the mirror image of other fundies who also yearn for end-times, and they're freaking the rest of us out because they should be NOWHERE NEAR foreign policy.

With Clinton as president under the circumstances I've listed above, with weak support from Dems in Congress (or heaven forbid, a Republican majority in Congress), exactly what of her platform can she accomplish? And she'll be red meat to Republicans who love nothing better to Clinton-hate. They can rebuild their busted-up party on her compromised election to office.

Because given everything as it stands, the only way she can get the nomination is in a really really compromised way.

Wouldn't it just be smarter to concede now, let Obama screw up if he's really that "inexperienced," then run again in 2012?

[jaelithe]

Shoot, Joanne- I don't care that much about whether the Democrats "deserve" to win or not at this point.

After what the Republican party has done to our international reputation, our economy, our armed forces, our education system, our judicial system, innocents around the world, our own citizens and our own Constitution over the past seven years, what I care about right now is that they deserve to lose.

We gotta fight for the election with the party we have, not the party we want ;)

I agree with you that Hillary is in a tough spot, whatever way she chooses.

However I think she's making it a bit tougher on herself by going so ruthlessly negative on Obama.

If she'd stayed civil this entire time, she might not have won as many delegates. But she sure would have looked noble in the face of threatened defeat, and I'd like to think that would have made it a lot harder for people to sound reasonable demanding she drop out.

[Paul V]

So what Hilary lied about bosnia
barack Obama lied some many time ans worst on several occasion and lied about Jeremiah Wright, lied about his slum lord involvement ,,, Not only that has no agenda, but Obama Voter dis-regards his mistake why shouldn’t Hilary Supporters,,,,,, Do the same,,,, Very dumb observation,,
But I will let you know some simple fact,,,
Obama Can not win a big state everyone hung up he won more states,, if you can not win a big state you can not win,,
Second,, if Hilary loses the primary Obama will only get 25% to 1/3 third of Hilary Votes not enough to win against the republicans,, the other 2/’3 third of Hilary votes will either Not vote or Vote for McCain,, why do you think the Party trying to push a party but its TOO late,
The lines in the sand have been made, Obama Voter refuse to Vote for Hilary and Hilary Voter will not even vote for Obama for the same reasons,, This Party is Divided and it not going to change, Here is another fact, just in case your that completely clueless,,
This Race and Party is split down the middle weather you like it or not, Obama only a head by a little over 150 delegates that is nothing,,, Even if Obama win and he come clean,,, and at least 2/3 of Hilary voter do vote for him,,and loses 1/3 of Hilary Vote will not even be enough to win,,, Obama going to need at least 90% of the Democratic Vote to be the republicans,, I voted For Hilary I will not vote for no one else,, but Hey Keep the Faith he going to win,,, LOL

[PunditMom]

Obama has certainly had his moments of not being civil to Hillary and his own series of misstatements. Neither of them are pure, so I think it's unwarranted to criticize Hillary and not Obama -- his just don't get the coverage as much. Today, there is a Washington Post piece about Obama's claims that his father and the Kennedy's were connected because Obama Sr. was the beneficiary of a program that JFK started to airlift Africans out out of hot spots and come here for an education. Apparently there was no Kennedy connection at the time. Will the media give him a pass as an honest mistake or, as they probably would with Hillary, slam him for trying to make a connection with the Kennedy's that was never there??

[Jaelithe]

I never said Obama was a saint. Trust me, I'm an Obama supporter, not an Obama worshipper. I am aware of the fact that he has said things from time to time about Clinton that were harsh or even misleading.

But the Clinton campaign made a very open, very deliberate, very well-publicized decision to go negative when it became clear she was falling behind. Clinton's own advisers told the media it was the "kitchen sink" strategy, and that they planned to throw every possible criticism at Obama and attack him from every angle.

And I would have preferred Clinton try a different tack. For a couple of weeks there, I thought she seemed positively schizophrenic-- praising Obama's vice presidential possibilities one minute, and viciously attacking his ability to lead the next; getting suddenly indignant over mailings Obama had sent our months earlier that she had previously ignored, etc. All I'm saying is that I think it was a poor strategy. I think it made her look petty and snarky when she should have been looking regal and dignified.

If she wants to play up her superior experience, I think the best way to do that would be to ACT more experienced. Act like someone who has withstood the right-wing smear machine, and therefore can scoff at Obama's weak attacks.

Part of the reason Obama seems like he's coated in Teflon is that he ACTS like he's coated in Teflon. When someone attacks him unfairly, he says, "That's inappropriate. We should be talking about the issues instead of making personal attacks." When someone attacks Clinton unfairly, she says "Shame on you!" and "This is so unfair!"

It's the same message, really, but there is a key difference in tone.

[cynematic]

OK, here's the other thing I have questions about for Clinton supporters (aside from the whole "I'll vote for McCain over Obama"--WTF? Are you not a Democrat?):

*Kyl-Liberman--you're okay with bombing Iran?
*cluster bombs--it's fine to use these near civilians?
*Iraq war vote--it was okay to have voted yes?
*1992-2000--it's ok to give a pass to the Bill Clinton years? NAFTA, etc?

Again, Obama is not perfect but these are imperfections that are part of Clinton's record that I choke on.

[PunditMom]

I guess it just feels to me that so many expect Hillary to be perfect in order to support her. Iraq war? For me that is an apples and oranges comparison for her and Obama. He wasn't in the Senate, so it's all well and good that he said he was against the war, but he didn't have to vote. There is absolutely no way to know what he would have done in different shoes.

Clinton years? I think we have to make up our minds if we're going to give her "credit" for some of his things or just say only her Senate years count. If I went through Obama's record, I'm sure there are plenty of things that we could choke on, too. Plus, I wonder about how he will regard women in an Obama administration after reading the story about Michelle Obama and his absent marriage and parenting style, as well as other things, reported on in a recent article in The New Republic.

Hillary was not my first choice -- Edwards was. But she is still just as good a Democratic choice as Obama.

[Gunfighter]

"Hillary was not my first choice -- Edwards was. But she is still just as good a Democratic choice as Obama."

I suppose that is true, PM, that is if you think voting to invade Iraq is morally defensible.

[PunditMom]

I'm not sure why commenters equate support of Clinton with support of her vote on Iraq. Not candidate is perfect -- not even Obama. But overall, I believe the country would be in better hands with Clinton.

[John J.]

It doesn't boil down to just her Iraq war vote; it is a whole series of votes on her part. It is Iraq, and her unwillingness, even to this day, to say it was a mistake (the closest she has come is saying that she would change her vote should she do it again - about two to three weeks ago). It is her unflinching support for saber rattling against Iran - something Obama has been proactive in trying to prevent (he did abstain on the Kyl/Lieberman bill, but followed it with an immediate proposal to remove the ability for the Bush administration to use military force on Iran). Then there are other votes, her lies about her record and about Obama, and her campaign in general. It isn't just the one vote.

I also have to ask, Obama's absentee parenting style? You mean the fact that he is running for president while he has two young kids at home? Or that his job as Senator keeps him in Washington for several months out of the year while Michelle's job keeps her in Chicago? He has said on multiple occasions that he hates to be away from his family so much but that he and Michelle agreed that this was the right thing to do. This is something they both agreed to as equal members in their relationship.

I've seen Michelle speak, not in person unfortunately, and she does not appear to me to be a woman who would let a man run roughshod over her in the way you implied.

[cynematic]

I too have to question the "Obama absentee parenting style" as something to hold against Obama. Was it also a negative when voting for Bill Clinton?

I'm not saying you, PunditMom, are putting this forward, but rather the source (TNR?) is kinda skirting the edge with implications of "deadbeat dad/absentee dad/big scary bad black father who's not around." I mean, HUH? What the heck? Just where is this going?

I've never heard of ANY journalist holding a candidate's lack of hours clocked as a parent against them as they ran for public office. It's insane for anyone to run for office and insane for people in public service to give up as much of their personal lives as they do. So the Obamas are somehow blameworthy for having a commuter marriage, and Senator Obama specifically? I'm really not getting this one.

I wouldn't stand for it if a reputable media source said about Hillary Clinton that she was an "absentee parent" while working at Rose law firm, and it certainly doesn't make sense to me when applied to Barack Obama.

[Gunfighter]

I cannot divorce her war vote from her desirability as a President because her Iraq war vote tells me that she would be no less casual about throwing away the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, not to mention uncounted hundreds of thousdands of civilians, than the current President.

Senator Clitnon can't be trusted to make good judgements on the use of military force. Is there anything more immediate and serious than that?

As a veteran, I cannot, in good conscience, even consider voting for her.

[PunditMom]

To say that Clinton was "casual about throwing away the lives of our soldiers, ..." is not a fair one to her. Can we trust Obama or McCain to make good judgments on the use of military force? I think we already know the answer on McCain. As for Obama, it's anyone's guess. It's all well and good for a politician to make a statement about what he would do, in a vacuum, but no one knows what they will really do until they are tested.

[Karen]

Do a little investigating - go to larrysinclair092.wordpress.com. This thing is about to blow --- May be April or May surprise.

[cynematic]

Karen,
Crackpot much?