If you have "no place to go," come here!

When did Hillary agree not to have her name placed in nomination?

Did I not get the memo?

Howard Fineman:

Obama says he wants to use his natural diplomatic skills to bring peace to the planet. But if he expects to be given a crack at it, he must first use those skills inside his own party.

At least that’s the way I thought politics worked — you go the extra mile to unify and delight your own folks.

Then again, the Obama campaign is rewriting the rules of politics for a new generation. Maybe that’s why he’s not especially eager to earn extra credit with the Clintons.

[snip faux balancing]

Mr. Clinton was a popular two-term Democratic president who led in comparatively prosperous and peaceful times.

As for Mrs. Clinton? Well, she got more (registered) Democratic votes in the primaries than Obama.

Sure Obama is cold. Sure, he can be more calculating than he appears. But doesn’t the history-making nature of his campaign matter more than hurt feelings?

You’d think everyone would try to get along, or at least fake it.

But right now, the situation is pretty dismal. The former president doesn’t know what, if any, role he will play at the Democratic National Convention.

And while Hillary has agreed not to have her name placed in nomination, that concession has yet to yield a definitive answer on what, exactly, her role will be in Denver.

As usual, I think the simple answer is the best:

Obama is sending a humongous "Fuck you" to the Clintons, and their 18 million supporters, because he doesn't want them in the party. Donna Brazile told us this would happen; the "creative class" [cough] told us this would happen; and it's happening.

On Tuesday, I was on the phone with one of Hillary Clinton’s leading fundraisers, a woman who agreed to speak with me only if I promised not to name names.

She was on vacation along the coast of New England, and was telling me that she and her wealthy, well-connected Hillary-loving friends remain mystified and annoyed.

“It’s not that we’re being dismissed,” she said. “The Obama people are perfectly happy to have our support. But their attitude seems to be, ‘we can win without you.’ And I guess that’s why none of us is going from rah-rah Hillary to rah-rah Obama.”

One disgruntled seaside bundler does not a crisis make.

No, that it doesn't. But really, with the convention this close, the last elected Democratic President who was allowed to take office doesn't know his role? And the candidate who more Democrats for voted for than the putative nominee doesn't know her role?

How big a "Fuck You" is that?

NOTE Link alert via TalkLeft.

No votes yet


Nadai's picture
Submitted by Nadai on

either that, or Fineman's just plain lying. The last I heard, nothing had been decided about putting her name in nomination. I suspect this is just more of the Obama camp trying to create their own reality.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Donna Brazile raised the issue of Clinton not on the ballot in the WSJ on the record (saying basically Clinton shouldn't ask to be on the ballot because it was divisive, I'm paraphrasing). Then the NY Daily News had a leak that she wouldn't be on the ballot and now Fineman.

Sure, that could just be a coincidence, but after all the shit the Obama campaign shoveled at me through the media, I think it's more likely that they are pushing this angle.

As for Tuesday, I don't think it's been finalized, but I've read other reports of that date as well. But whether those are true reports or more "leaking", I have no idea. Tuesday will be the anniversary of women's suffrage and there's a parade scheduled in Denver by Clinton supporters as well as an Emily's List event. It would be kind of ironic, in a bitter way, for the party to celebrate women's suffrage on Tuesday and then have forced Clinton's name off the ballot on Thursday. Wouldn't surprise me at this point, they'll piss on anyone to achieve their vaunted "unity."

RedSox04's picture
Submitted by RedSox04 on

the same way that people "agreed" under Stalin-- by fiat, and if they objected they were shipped off to the Gulag.

That's what the Democratic Party's become under Obama, right?

On a related note, is anyone else concerned that the Democratic Party is becoming the new Republican Party (sans social conservatives)? Seems like every Country Club "let them eat cake" asshole I know has shifted from being a Republican to being an Obama supporter, taking their money and influence with them.

Kevin Hayden's picture
Submitted by Kevin Hayden on

How can Hillary 'agree to' not having her name placed in nomination, while simultaneously 'not knowing her role?'

As to Bill's role, I recall it was to be kept at a distance during the campaign... of Al Gore.

This latest from Fineman seems designed to advance party division, based mostly on the fact that Obama's campaign continues its practice of remaining tight-lipped about details. I figure we'll see what transpires when it transpires.

And who will be the keynote speaker? In recent history, that spot's been held by a person who then went on to become the next Democratic nominee.

I've spent many a year with the capacity to criticize Democratic presidents while also defending them from attacks that arose from the GOP hate machine that were fueled by innuendo and rumor and playing off various biases. I fully expect that pattern to persist with any Democrat that gets elected to the White House in my lifetime, just as I expect my first choice for a nominee will never actually become the nominee, in the rest of my life.

So I certainly well understand cynicism. But it remains accompanied by a big dollop of skepticism about emanations from the Beltway pundit class.I may not be certain what specific agenda most of them have, but I'm pretty certain theirs rarely parallels mine.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

If HRC knows her *role*, as long as she knows her *place*.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

...when you kicked half of your own political party in the teeth and the other political party wants to destroy you, Mr. Obama.

campskunk's picture
Submitted by campskunk on

well, now we know that Howard reads the New York Daily News. shame on you, Howard ;-)

mrs. campskunk used to work in the city, and she'd show up at work every day with her copy of the Daily News, while her boss would bring in the Wall Street Journal. of course, the Journal would sit unread on his desk as he read her Daily News.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Don't you mean Howard CONTRIBUTES to the Daily News? That story was debunked. Not to say it won't change in the future, but Hillary was on video saying specifically the opposite.


Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

HenryFTP's picture
Submitted by HenryFTP on

so long as we STFU. If we try to bargain with our support because we haven't agreed to be silent, we're racists (or enabling racism or criminalizing a woman's right to choose). Even if we offer support but steadfastly refuse to STFU, we're divisive and bitter at the very least and perhaps something worse (like objectively pro-McCain).

How did the "post-partisan" approach to politics become "if you're not (unquestioningly) for us, you're against us?"

Submitted by lambert on

It was always like that, from the very beginning.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

HenryFTP's picture
Submitted by HenryFTP on

which turned me off when I finally accepted that Obama was really serious about doing nothing about accountability for Bush and Cheney malfeasance and misfeasance.

Funny how it was less passive and more aggressive when it came to lumping Clinton policies together with Bush-Cheney policies -- but then it eventually dawned on me that the policy positions have just been a smokescreen for the heart of the matter, the personality contest.

Too bad the country isn't like the Harvard Law Review -- they could elect a capable and effective managing editor to make sure the work got done effectively and on deadline.

HenryFTP's picture
Submitted by HenryFTP on

and that's why they won't.

But Cheney has proven that a Vice President should not act as a Prime Minister because the Vice President is not accountable to the President (the VP cannot be fired), not accountable to the people (thanks to Jefferson and Burr, you can't split your ballot for President and Vice President), and not very accountable to Congress (appropriations run through the President, and impeachment does not work if 34 senators refuse to convict).

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

I loved this...almost like the beginning of a story book.

(Okay, minus the "and then, kids, mr. nastyboss stole mrs. campskunk's newspaper every single day.")

But, seriously, cute name, nice beginning.

The Hillary stuff? Isn't that how the Obama narrative goes (a la Gerard Baker and Lambert)--"Oh Mrs. Clinton doesn't want her name called and we're just trying to do what she wants, to make her feel happy and comfortable."

Sounds like the beginning of another story book.