LITTWIN: Looking for the high road for Clinton's exit
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Friday, May 9, 2008
There are only three options left for Hillary Clinton - none of which, by the way, includes winning the Democratic nomination.
Let's go to the videotape:
She can either leave the race gracefully, with a timetable of her own choosing (possibly by withdrawing one brigade every month).
Or she can stick around, gracefully, until the last primary on June 3, and keep campaigning because she's been campaigning for so long that, at this late point, she can't physically make herself stop.
Or she can stick around - until the bitter end or even beyond - and risk losing everything she has gained in this extraordinary primary run.
The race is over. It ended last Tuesday - fittingly, with a tie - when Obama won North Carolina handily and barely lost Indiana. Clinton's last argument, that the momentum had swung irreversibly her way, had been knocked down. If you look at the race arithmetically - Obama has nearly passed Clinton in superdelegates - or psychologically or, for that matter, using any of Newton's laws of physics, you know it's over.
Everyone knows this, including both Clintons, although you'd think it was daring to say it aloud. When Tim Russert pronounced Obama the nominee late Tuesday night, it was a shock headline, as if Russert, alone among the punditocracy, had maintained the ability to count.
When Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic caucus chairman, said that Obama was now the "presumptive nominee," his office couldn't backpedal fast enough.
We know what the ending is going to be. All that's left to determine is how it actually plays out, and even Emanuel, who is allied with both Clinton and Obama, made the case - which he didn't back away from - that if Clinton wants to stay in the game, she'd better play nice.
I'm betting that Clinton is looking desperately for an exit strategy, a way to get out of the race without looking like she had been forced out.
But many people are still inclined to view Clinton only through the lens of unbridled ambition - and you know who you are. We do, too. You're the ones wearing those Hillary Clinton/Lady Macbeth tattoos. And, from what I can tell, most in the unbridled-ambition camp also believe Clinton is unwilling to leave the race without trying to destroy Obama's chances in the process.
Clinton offered evidence aplenty for this theory in a USA Today interview, citing a story saying "how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again . . ."
If you're not offended by that line, then you haven't been paying attention. Clinton isn't just citing demographics here.
She's apparently suggesting that America's, uh, hard-working white people won't vote for a black candidate.
It's one thing for Clinton to play the role of populist. It's another for Clinton - who is hardly a racist - to try on the role of George Wallace-style populism while campaigning in rife-with- hard-working-white-people West Virginia.
There's politics, after all, and then there's a certain kind of politics. When Bill Clinton attempted to marginalize Obama in South Carolina as the Jesse Jackson candidate, he at least had the benefit of using at least marginal subtlety.
But what do you call this strategy after you've lost the race - and you risk being seen, as one Democratic strategist put it, like the Japanese soldier in the Philippines after the war who was still fighting when everyone else had gone home?
The New York Times' Katharine Seelye argues that it might be just politics - that Clinton is, uh, simply encouraging Obama to encourage her to get out of the race.
Obama could, for instance, help her retire her debt or compromise on seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. It could even be about a vice-presidential bid, although I seriously doubt it.
But Clinton is running her own risks. When the race began, many Clinton supporters would cite Bill Clinton as the reason to vote for her. I'm not sure anyone says that now. I am sure, though, that the real loser in this race has been the Bill the Big Red Faced Dog himself, last seen (via YouTube) in a shouting match with a woman in a crowd at West Virginia.
In the last few weeks of the race, as Hillary Clinton was playing the role of underfunded underdog, the crowds had rallied to her. Something had clearly happened. And now she's clearly putting that something at risk.
What this race will be remembered for, in the end, is its conversation about race. We're still struggling, obviously, to figure out how to talk about it.
We started by pretending it wasn't an issue. Then Rev. Wright changed all that. And Obama's speech on race changed it again. And it's changed several times since.
What you'd like to see come of this race is for a black candidate not to be judged solely as a black candidate. Or for a black pastor who says outrageous things not to be judged differently from the white pastor who says outrageous things.
In other context, in another race, Hillary and Bill Clinton would both be making this same case. You read Hillary Clinton's remarks in USA Today, though, and they sound not only as if white working class people wouldn't vote for someone like Obama, but as if there's nothing to be done about it - and, for that matter, without saying there's anything that should be done about it.
I'm not sure how Hillary Clinton envisions this long campaign ending for her. But I'm sure it can't be that way.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 10, 2008
6:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
claudelong writes:
Thank you for putting things in perspective. It's sad to see Hilary getting desperate.
May 10, 2008
6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
"She's apparently suggesting that America's, uh, hard-working white people won't vote for a black candidate."
You mean the white-guilt vote, Littwin? A white candidate with B-HO's resume and affiliations wouldn't have made it past the starting line in this campaign. B-HO is a mixed race, mulatto candidate. You could have just-as-easily referred to him as the "white" candidate, but chose not to. Why is that, exactly? Inconvenient truth? It's the same reason B-HO chooses to identify himself as the black candidate in the race (not openly, of course, but he never denies it) - white guilt gets him votes and he needed something to blunt Clinton's run at the White House as the first female president. A guy like Colin Powell would have been the first black president in the White House if he would have run and won. B-HO will be the first mixed-race president if he makes it that far. Say that with a straight face now...
May 10, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
KaySieverding writes:
I read that one reason Democrat leaders like Obama is that he increases voter turn out and Democrat registrations. I think that many memories of the Obama-Clinton sniping will fade or could be spun. What would you think of Bill Clinton as Obama's V.P. candidate?
May 10, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
MarineGrunt writes:
I say just apply throttle and watch the fun! Too bad all the Repub's got out so early. We could have had a Caged Death Match!!
May 10, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetReal writes:
Littwin, along with most of the other "impartial news journalists" just cant shake their school girl crush on Barrack, no matter how inexperienced he is, or the questionable relationships he has, or his Moonbat voting record in Congress.
The breakdown of the last few primaries clearly show white males will not vote for Obama in large enough numbers to get him elected.
All the polls state that MCcain beats Obama in the general elections but would lose a close race against Hillary.
But the love affair will continue, as will more damaging revelations about Obama, which the lib MSM will initially ignore, then make excuses for and dutifully dismiss as attacks by racist and bigoted Republicans.
It is apparent playing the race card and attempting to cash in on the notion of white guilt is what todays Progressives and their willing accomplices in the Media have sunk to.
May 10, 2008
1:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Did samsmargolis actually use the term "mulatto?"
God you're out of touch . . .
May 10, 2008
2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Clinton has clearly lost out to Obama and Littwin feels like he and his media friends have been successful. But it will not work against McCain. Democrat White Guys would not have voted for ole Hill either. Obama is an elitist black guy who suits the liberals but is not going down with regular folks. He is without any substance but is a good talker. People find it weird he sat for 20 yrs and listened to Wright rant his racist lies and it never bothered him
The problem is that Obama is unknown with no history of accomplishing any important or any bipartisan legislation. What voting record he has makes him the most liberal voting Senator and the sweetheart of the radical leftwing of the Democrat Party who have pulled out all the stops to secure him the nomination. Obama has been just a bit too clever and now finds there is no image looking back at him in the mirror. And even worse it is becoming apparent to Democrats and they now have 2 candidates, neither of which can win the general election.
May 10, 2008
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Mikey:
So your boy may have won....the nomination. With folks like you writing about your fear of having a woman as the nominee, he may not make it to the White House, cause Mikey, you turn off as many people as Reverand Wright. Didn't your mamma teach you how to be a gracious winner, or is that just way above the way you live. You know Mikey, who cares what you think, maybe Mrs. Mikey, but she probably can't speak without permission.
May 10, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
GetReal,
It's always amusing to see someone talking in talking-points speech. You ought to check the facts, however. It could be informative.
First, Obama's voting record is nearly identical to Clinton's. They're both mainstream liberal Democrats.
As for the polls, check realclearpolitics.com for its poll of polls. Obama and Clinton both lead McCain.
And as for crushes, this is real talking-point-itis. So, let's all turn down our talk radios and, uh, get real. If you ask national political reporters which candidate they like personally, you'll find that most -- including me -- would answer McCain. He's the most personable of the three, at least with reporters, and certainly the most accessible.
Finally, as for "impartial news journalist," I'm a columnist, not simply a reporter. My job is to express my opinion.
May 10, 2008
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
BJG,
As long as I'm here, when exactly have I written about my fear of having a woman as a nominee? Every column I write is accessible on this Web page. Please show me anywhere I've ever written anything remotely like that. If you find one, I'm buying. If not, maybe you ought to say so.
Plus, if you knew Ms. Littwin, my wife the teacher, or Ms. Littwin, my mother the political activist, or Ms. Littwin, my daughter the law professor, or Ms. Littwin-Flax, my sister the education professor, you might think a little differently. Of course, if you don't care what I think, that's your right. But saying things about me that are patently untrue, well, that's why somebody invented anonymous postings.
May 10, 2008
8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Bmat - uh, yeah...I used mulatto to refer to B-HO. Right after I used the term "mixed race." Is there a politically correct, preferred term this month that suites you better?
- an offspring of a Black and a White parent
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Seems to be good enough for Princeton.
http://www.mixedfolks.com/names.htm
Seems to be good enough for the "mixed folks" website.
OK, I'm all a-twitter waiting for your politically correct answer to defining B-HO. Tick-tock...
May 11, 2008
5:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim writes:
Herbert's NYT column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opi...
I hear they are looking for a nice double wide in a gated trailer park in the Ozarks.
May 11, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Finn writes:
Gotta love it when the columnist comes to cyber-tough-guy world and distributes a couple beatdowns. Great job Mike! Gets old reading fabricated "facts" from these jokers but, more than that, it edges into ridiculous when they start telling us all what the writer thinks and believes. Get a life people!
May 11, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
BMat writes:
Posted by Gene on May 10, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mulatto |m(y)oŏˈlätō; -ˈlatō| dated
noun ( pl. -toes or -tos)
a person of mixed white and black ancestry, esp. a person with one white and one black parent.
Sounds like Obammma to me.
__________________
Thanks for the extensive research Gene. BTW - The "N" word is in the dictionary too. But you wouldn't use it would you?
May 11, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
GetReal, your post puzzled me, too. Why would you expect an opinion columnist to write impartial news articles? Using your logic, I'm not sure why you aren't also lambasting Vincent Carroll, Mike Rosen, or any of the other opinion columnists on RMN.
And yes, your slight to Littwin's wife was just plain low. FYI, it really doesn't take much courage to hide behind the anonymous shield of the Internet and make ill mannered comments.
May 11, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Bmat - your issue over the word mulatto isn't with Gene, although his cite is correct. And no, the n word wasn't used because the terms mixed race and mulatto were used. You're creating issues where none exist. Did you visit the website I attached for refernce? If you're talking about a mixed race person and want to define the precise mix, as I did in my original post, then I see nothing wrong with using the word mulatto. Are you going to try to tell us that word is off-limits like B-HO's middle name is off-limits, too? I'm still waiting for your politically correct list of terms to define B-HO...are we supposed to roll with the whole "enhanced pigment" line? That one still has me chuckling...
May 11, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezekiel777 writes:
Hillary and Bill remind me of that power hungry couple in "The Manchurian Candidate", 1962. Watch that movie and compare Hillary to the Angela Lansbury character....freaky.
May 12, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
You can tell Mr. Littwin’s candidate, Senator Obama, has the Democrat presidential nomination wrapped up because he’s being very magnanimous towards Senator Clinton.
How else to explain his description of Senator Clinton as being someone "who is hardly a racist” immediately after he has pointed out that “She's apparently suggesting that America's, uh, hard-working white people won't vote for a black candidate”.
Maybe Mr. Littwin’s definition of “racist” varies with the political party the speaker represents.
The language used by Senator Clinton in the USA Today interview is the political equivalent of using the N-word. This coupled with some of the remarks made by her husband during the primary leaves no doubt that both are bigoted.
There will be further discussions of race during the general election so let’s not forget who brought the subject up in the first place.
May 13, 2008
5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
JonBen writes:
A bunch of racists in this forum. "Mulatto." Referring to Obama as "B-HO" (what's McCain's middle name?). "Schoolgirl crush" on Obama.
Why don't you read his books and get a clue as to why a person like me, a 49-year-old "hardworking white American" (to use Hillary's infamous quote) might be inspired by this self-made man?
May 13, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
mike_littwin writes:
Don_Lopez,
I think you missed my point. Hillary Clinton is not a racist, and neither is Bill Clinton. You can look at their entire careers and see that. But using the race card and thereby exploiting the issue when you're not a racist -- as both have -- might even be worse.
May 14, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
Mr. Littwin,
I apologize if I missed your point but it was pretty well hidden.
However, if what you’re saying is true it would put the Clintons fairly far left on the evolutionary chart, somewhere before man started walking upright.
And if that’s the case then why are they still so popular among Democrats?