LITTWIN: It's just not that hard to s-s-s-say
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Joshua Roberts / Bloomberg News
Sen. Hillary Clinton speaks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Clinton said presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama "will be a good friend to Israel."
Hillary Clinton knows she didn't win. What she can't seem to admit - or even say the word - is that she actually l-l-l-lost.
For those of us who thought that the Democratic campaign was safely over and put to rest, it's clear that we don't watch as much cable TV news as we should.
It didn't end. It hasn't ended. And no one is sure yet when it will end, or, for that matter, if it will ever end.
The enduring truth about the Clintons is that every race involving a Clinton becomes about the Clintons. And this race - even though Clinton has, you know, not won - is now about whether Obama will put Clinton on the ticket. It was ever thus.
I wrote the other week that the Democratic campaign would be done only when Clinton said it was done. But, believe me, I had no idea. I didn't mean that even after all the votes were in, and even when Barack Obama clearly had more of them, that she still wouldn't say it was over - as if she had discovered a radical method of score-keeping.
Maybe she has. To recap: We're now in the 10th inning of a game that finished the ninth with Obama leading, 6-5. If only the Rockies could have figured out how to make this kind of magic happen.
In any case, before Obama can begin to take on John McCain, he first has to deal with Clinton, who is apparently going to c-c-c-concede on Saturday.
Now, America breathlessly awaits.When she gives her speech, how much of a c-c-c-concession will she actually make?
When Obama gave his valedictory speech in St. Paul - a moment to soften even the hardest of hearts - it was, of course, historic. But there was another piece of history, and I think this one's unprecedented, too:By the time the ink was dry on the next morning's newspapers, there was already a new story line. It's the one grabbed straight from the headline Clinton wrote for herself in her this-is-not-goodbye speech: What does Hillary want?
Well, what does she want?
Or maybe it's better framed this way: What doesn't she want?
OK, Clinton didn't win. But if she can no longer run for president and win, she can still run for vice president and - yes - win. I don't know if she even really wants the job, but it's obvious now that she desperately wants to be asked. It would be the first vice-presidential offer that doubles as an apology. Making up is hard to do.
And if asked, she'll supposedly take the job. That's what we're hearing. That's what she's apparently told supporters.
But maybe I've got the desperation wrong. It's Obama, the winner, who's holding all the bad cards. He's stuck with Clinton baggage if he puts her on the ticket, and he's stuck with Clinton baggage if he doesn't.
Still, I've got a hunch about this. There is winning, after all, and there is winning. And what kind of dramatic, stunning win would it be - in this twisting, twisted race - if Clinton got asked and said thanks, but no thanks?
Clinton has not waited to be asked, of course. Politics, as they say, is not beanbag. It's not Emily Post either.
She has put the pressure on Obama immediately, when tempers are short, when her supporters are still angry, when the story is still hot and nobody with a pen or a camera wants to let it go.
Clinton surrogates are now wandering the country in search of cameras to promote the so-called unity ticket, saying that Clinton somehow deserves to be on the ticket - it's a matter of respect - with the guy she had spent months disrespecting. Or were those just words?
But now it's Obama who's in the bind. Clinton has the power to let him off the hook Saturday. What do you think? The betting line starts here.
Because now Obama has to either ask her (and look like a wimp) or not ask her (and risk further offending Clinton's already-offended supporters) or ask her (and get mad-dog Bill Clinton in the bargain) or not ask her (and be reminded of that fact every day here to November).
There is a way out, though. And if I'm reading it right, Obama has already found it. It's an escape Indiana Jones would admire. It starts with Caroline Kennedy - there's a headline maker - who has been named to his three-person vice-president vetting committee.
The committee, you can be sure, will take its time. The vetting will be long and thorough - and mostly long. And did I mention Caroline Kennedy was on the committee?
There will be rumors that Obama will nominate Clinton for a Supreme Court slot. And there will be questions: Are Democratic women really going to abandon Obama for McCain so he can name the justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade. Why? Because Chris Matthews is a dolt? Because Obama said Clinton was "likeable enough"?
I mean, what does Obama need, and how does Clinton deliver it? And wouldn't Bill just get in the way? The big dog, remember, eats wherever he wants. And if you read the Vanity Fair article, he sometimes, uh, steps right into his food.
If Obama wants help with Ohio, as an example, he's got a governor he can pick to be vice-president. Does anyone really believe putting Clinton on the ticket convinces reluctant working-class white voters - the ones who used to be more than reluctant about her - to vote for Obama? What in the name of Rush Limbaugh are people thinking?
What Clinton definitely doesn't do is reinforce Obama's message. You have to remember why people were attracted to Obama in the first place. He's new. He's fresh. He's different. He's not as new and fresh as he used to be, but that was inevitable after a 17-month campaign, and especially after Rev. Jeremiah Wright made his entrance.
Obama gets the chance now to remind people what they thought of him before they had ever heard of Rev. Wright. I don't see where Clinton helps.
In fact, if Clinton had gotten the nomination, McCain could have legitimately made the case that he was the candidate of change - a change at least from 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, years of red vs. blue, years of dividing vs. uniting, years of scandal vs. scandal.
If nothing else, Obama ch-ch-changes all of that.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
June 5, 2008
4:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Amazing how fast Littwin jumps ship when a futher left candidate comes along. Just a couple of years ago Mikey was all defending Hillary and her agenda of socialism. Now it looks like he jumps ship to support an even further lefty.
It is funny to listen to him on Backbone radio as a guest. Not only do his columns show a left over hippy from the sixties looking to recaptuere a failed youth, but every time he opens his mouth you can hear him chewing on the soul of the shoe he sometimes wears.
If Littwin had any journelistic integrity he would be looking into Obamas sorted and checkered past. His time at Harvard, the lawsuit against Harvard that relaxed standards for the President of the law review leading to Obamas reign of nothing. The lack of clerkships (no offers). Mike should look into campaign funds that come from the internet and questionable sources.
But nooooo, Mikey wants to spew propaganda of a candidate that lacks experiance and a platform that does not go deeper then " I bring hope and change".
June 5, 2008
5:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
Simple answer to Hillary: NO. I will not have the scorched-earth racebaiting campaign she ran rewarded.
June 5, 2008
8:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
geez Shadow for someone who seems to be so full of himself, you sure are a poor speller.
June 5, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Littwin has been carrying water for Obama like the rest of the leftist media. They totally and pointedly ignore the man's background. It would be refreshing to see some objective journalism--investigative is out of the question.
The main problem with Obama is he is the most unqualified candidate running---maybe the most unqualified candidate since Jimmy Carter. That is a problem for you liberal Democrats. Jumping ship from Hillary because she has more negative approval across all voters than any elected nominee and hoping Obama can slide by because he is a slick talker. Many white guys will not vote for him because he is black, or half black. But for many independent voters his problem will be he has no substance, except as more liberal than Hillary.
Obama mouths platitudes and how he will change the grid lock in DC. But he has absolutely no record of bipartisan legislation. When he did attend the Legislature he voted Present 130 times on any controversial issues so he could avoid defending his vote. That is what is laughable about his call for less partisan politics---Littwin's parting compliment to Obama---a fine talking point but like all his talk comes with absolutely no plan. In spite of his lack of legislative experience, he is far left of Hillary and is the sweetheart of Moveon.org and the rest of the anti-American socialists.
June 5, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
Obama should find a cabinet position for Hillary - and perhaps appoint her to the Supreme Court in the future. I do not believe she should accept the VP spot even if it is offered. Obama/Richardson or Obama/Edwards have a much better chance of unifying the party and beating McCain in the fall. Hillary will have a long career no matter what - the people of New York will continue to elect her to the senate if that's the route she chooses - or she can be a part of this administration in any capacity except VP.
Just my opinion, but I'll bet I'm right :-)
June 5, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
Ignore his back-ground? You mean like ignoring the fact that George Dubbya Bush was a cocaine snorting drug addict? Or that George Dubbya can not account for just where he was while in military service. And those records conveniently disappeared. Talk about ignoring somebodies background. How do so many ignore the fact that the Saudies were 100% responsible for the sept. 11 attacks. But Dubbya attacked Iraq? Built up mis-information to deceive congress and the public, and attacked Iraq? How do you ignore the fact that Dubbya cabinet members have testified that Dubbya, within his FIRST WEEK in office, told his staff to FIND a reason to invade Iraq? How does one ignore the back-ground of a filthy disgusting president who's strings are being pulled by Saudi royalty and Saudi oil? How does one ignore that background? All the while desperately throwing out negative yet weak propoganda about Obama? How does one ignore the fact that when a Republican is president, taxes are cut, spending sky-rockets, borrowing is out of control, and the future economy is screwed?
June 5, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
R8R_H8R writes:
PRESIDENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEBT
http://denver.yourhub.com/WeldCounty/...
Just the facts, no perceptions, hard data taken from the White House itself:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The Gross Federal Debt now stands at 63.5% of the GDP. Of that, 33.5% were contributed (racked up) by Reagan-Bush, 6% by G.W. Bush, and 6.1% by printing money. The remaining 18% are left over from WWII
In 1981 the gross national debt, compared to the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931. Despite his claim to hate the debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending. This is not partisan politics, this is straight off the White House web site.
As the graph shows, Bush II repeated Reagan's performance and turned the debt upward again. Bush II's own Office of Management and Budget provides all the data.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq...
chart(click link above) shows how the United States debt skyrocketed during Reagan, spending under control with Clinton, and then through the roof with Dubbya. Increase Gov't. spending/ Lower taxes = DEBT! These numbers are taken directly from the White House website
The eye-popping $9 trillion gross national debt is owed by the "General Fund." That's the part funded by our income taxes. Half of that goes for the military and to pay interest on the debt. Fortunately two huge parts of the budget, Social Security and Medicare, are running huge surpluses.
President Reagan came to power claiming the trillion-dollar national debt was the country's central problem. He then proceeded to double it. President Bush has predicted he will set a 50 year debt record-if re-elected.
White House data show the gross national debt hit a 47 year low just as President Reagan was taking office. It climbed steadily under Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, declined under Clinton and made a quick U-turn under G. W. Bush
June 5, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Mikey:
You write about her not being gracious, but look at your article Mikey. You just can't make yourself quit trashing her. Be a gracious winner...not some blowhard who can't quit gloating. Your kind, are the people Obama needs to silence, cause your going to lose the election for him. There are 18 million people who need a few days, give Clinton and her supporters a chance to "let it go."
June 5, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shadow writes:
Spencer,
just a product of Colorados public school system
June 5, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
I accept that Mr. Littwin supports Senator Obama and has used his column as a billboard to advertise that fact. That’s his prerogative.
But I question his ability to be candid about those who share his support for the senator.
A lot has been made of those supporters of Senator Clinton who have publicly expressed outrage about her failed candidacy and said they won’t vote for Senator Obama in November opting instead to sit it out or vote for John McCain.
But nothing has been said about those Obama supporters who are in his camp only because they hate the Clintons—and please don’t tell me there aren’t any. How would they react if now, after vanquishing the dragon lady, they are forced to accept her as part of the ticket? After all, their guy won. Would they refuse to support a ticket Senator Clinton was a part of?
In fact, I wonder if Mr. Littwin is one of those.
June 5, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
Shadow,
I don't mind so much your atrocious spelling. But your facts . . . That's a different story.
There was no lawsuit at Harvard to relax standards for the presidency of the law review. There was a lawsuit seeking diversity in the faculty. The president of the law review is elected by members of the law review.
And you're wrong, too, that Obama had no clerkship offers. He was actively recruited by judges and was a lock to get a Supreme Court clerkship if he had wanted one.
I'm always amazed at how people can be so certain of themselves on one hand and so factually challenged on the other.
June 5, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
raysmom writes:
rjnova- Good post, unfortunately, polarized liberal idealogues are not listening. Their sour-grapes hatred for Bush blinds them to reason- every conversation about every issue and every other candidate turns into a spewing hate-fest. See R8R's MoveOn.org. litany. I won't bother rebutting- it would fall on deaf ears. And I'm a registered Dem, so you can leave your neo-con insults at home, R8R.
Mr. Littwin- insults to bloggers demeans you. Make your point, that's fine, but zip up your snarky superiority- your elitism is showing. Why does that not surprise me? The company you keep, Mr. Littwin- the company you keep.
June 5, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
Rock Obama, Michelle, Hill, Bill and a French Maid under one roof?
Hollywood couldn't dream this up. Add to this plot the VP prays daily Rock will be assassinated so she can appoint Bill to be the VP. Hill resigns and Bill is Prez who appoints Hill to the VP slot. Viola, three terms for slick Willy. Their summer home will be a double wide in a gated trailer park in the Ozarks. NFW
June 6, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
RIverGirl writes:
Mike - Thanks for taking the time to relay the real facts to Shadow. Unfortunately there are thousands of Shadows out there who enjoy buying into the outrageous sound bites that are on the internet and cable news. In fact, it is the responsibility of all of us who support Sen. Obama, to do what you did.
Seems many of your bloggers dismiss Obama supporters as "Kool-Aid drinking" followers. (Jonestown fact check: It was actually Flavoraide). Have they, or any the Faux Fox viewers, stopped to ask themselves why so many old time partyline Democrats were quick to back him and recognize that there is hope for positive change from this election?
As for Hillary on the ticket? YIKES! I'd rather see Obama invite McCain to join him...OK, that was just too far over the line. Sorry. Simple truth is he will not ask Hillary. Any well informed voter, should not throw their vote away, because they are disappointed for her. Does a woman who asked her supporters for advice on what she should do sound like someone who is ready to govern "on the first day"? Not in my world. What she did on Tues. night just exposed the real "It's All About Me" Hillary.
June 7, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Happy NOW Mikey???????????????? Oh, I forgot, Hillary is STILL alive.....