Hillary " Deranged Narcissist" Clinton Concession Speech Open Thread

7 Jun 2008 Author: rikyrah

Well, it seems as if Hillpatine is going to pack it in.

I’ll be honest- I’ll believe it when I see it.

But, here’s an Open Thread for discussion, because I definitely want to read your opinions on this.

***********************************

This is how I feel, but Peggy Noonan wrote it:

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.
Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.
We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

Tags: 2008 Democratic Primary, Barack Obama, Concession, Endorsement, Hillary Clinton

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Karrie
Hillary’s speech was very gracious IMHO. But quite frankly, can we move on? I’m sure people will keep their grudges against her, which is fine. But damn, can we concern ourselves with November? Can we focus on how Obama is supposed to win? Sorry if i sound bitter or angry, but this is becoming monotonous and ridiculous.
TruthSeeker
karrie,
what makes you think we are NOT focused on winning in November? I assure you, it is entirely possible to think along two lines at the same time.
heartsandflowers
She gave a speech blah blah blah. I didn’t listen to it either though maybe I will in a few days. I knew no apology or admission of below the belt antics or of smearing Obama was forthcoming. I wonder though for the average Clinton voter who didn’t want their vote back, if they feel used in some way? They think it’s disappointment but after all the chaos, anger and frenzy only to be told to support the nominee wouldn’t a normal person feel kinda cheated? You were just a pawn, just a number to be used as leverage for giving out earmarks and no bid contracts and shady business deals. And no I don’t feel that way about Obama because he always talks about working hard and doing things together whereas with Clinton it all depended on her benevolence.
Michelle
re: the NYT article mentioned by truthseeker:
The 350,000 e-mail messages that Mrs. Clinton received after soliciting supporters on Tuesday include “an overwhelming chorus of ‘We want you to continue to be our leader,’ ” said Ann Lewis, a Clinton adviser.
Well, that “overwhelming chorus” there just might be based on the fact that the emails were from a form on her site that itself forced anyone signing to say they stand by Ms. Hillary.
After seeing a comment somewhere that that was just a way to try to get more money, I signed on with a bogus email stating my real perspective, even if the form didn’t allow me to actually speak it. I did this bc wanted to see if it was true that the form led right to the give money page. It did.
Another thing about that form. It only required email address and zip code. It had fields for names but these were not required.
It didn’t care if people gave names. Didn’t require it. All it required was email addresses and zip codes to mine for future $ asks.
IMO that whole thing was a big scam and the numbers don’t mean s*** as far as I’m concerned. I would take this with a grain of salt. Someone needs to VET this claim.
Also: this? The key, Ms. McCaskill said, is approaching Mrs. Clinton’s supporters with utmost humility.
IMO, they want deference. That is what Black people are supposed to give. Maybe they will prove me wrong on this.
PS No seriously this new DSL thing we have here in my house is fast!
B-Serious
This is Obama’s party now. As such, it is Obama’s responsibility to demonstrate strength and focus leading up to and through the general election.
Obama needs to make it clear that he will not be forced to do anything against his will. He’s calling the shots now.
He will pick whomever he chooses to be his veep. And, yes, that includes the possibility of picking someone like Gov. Sebelius if he wants. This idea that Hillary’s the ONLY woman he can choose is rediculous. Gender has nothing to do with why Obama probably won’t pick Hillary. It has everything to do with chemistry and TRUST. . . two traits that he could surely find in another woman who is qualified for the job.
Rachel Maddow had a really good point the other day. She actually thinks that these “angry Clinton supporters” are a lot smaller in number than people think. She thinks that number will shrink dramatically in the coming months. Let’s not forget that Obama got over 18 million votes as well. And I’m willing to bet that at least 60% of all Clinton supporter will have no problem backing Obama in the fall. That 60% will increase dramatically over the next few months. The world is bigger than the Harriet Christians of the world. Obama shouldn’t waste much time on people like her. . . extend the olive branch; cut your losses and move forward.
Again, this is OBAMA’s party now. Think about it. All of those surrogates and Democratic pundits will have no choice but to pivot to the general election to attack McCain and DEFEND Obama. To the victor go the spoils.
This is not about Hillary anymore. And her former surrogates will have a VERY difficult time justifying anything less than the utmost respect and support for their party’s nominee, Senator Obama.
Likewise, Hillary will have a lot of explaining to do once the Republicans start using her words against Obama (in fact they’ve already started). So when the Republicans use the “Commander in Chief” test or 3:00AM ad, guess where all eyes are gonna turn??? That’s right. . . they’re gonna turn right towards Senator Clinton. She’s gonna have to eat a lot of crow this summer. Her political future depends on it.
Finally, I think it’d be a big mistake if Obama made a major speech on gender/sexism. Hillary started talking about sexism in late May when it was clear that she was gonna lose. It was one of her many attempts to deligitimize Obama’s victory. A major speech on sexism would basically concede the point . . . “Hillary lost because of sexism” which is the same as saying, “I only won because of sexism” which is the same as saying, “My victory is not legitimate.”
I hate to give the following guy credit, but he’s right on this one point: Dick Morris always says that the one thing a president has is the ability to set the news cycle. As far as I see it, that same privilege extends to the party nominees. From here on out, Obama (not Clinton) sets the news cycle. . .he sets the direction for the party.
This is on Obama now. He needs to send the talking point that this was a fair process. He needs to make sure that his surrogates (including former Clinton surrogates) exonerate him from any anger her supporters had against the media.
That’s ALL surrogates, whether they’re long time Obama supporters like Claire McCaskill or former Clinton supporters like Ed Rendell. As of yesterday, they ALL became Obama surrogates. He needs to use them accordingly.
s
What about dems who consider themselves to be moderate? Socially center-left, fiscally conservative and strong on national defense, strong supporters of Israel? DLC supporters and those who voted for the Blue Dog Democrats?
Is there room for moderates in the Daily Kos/moveon/code pink party?
Not if you listen to the far-left wing of the party who think they own the party lock, stock and barrel, and who will kick out members of their own party who do not tow their line.
Joe Leiberman was handed his hat and kicked out the door by anti-war activists. Do you think he is alone in his thinking and positions on the war and foreign policy? Now he has announced the creation of “Citizens for McCain,” hoping bring moderates to McCain.
Women who voted for Hillary primarily to advance the feminist cause, will vote Obama.
But what about moderate Democrats?
When compared to Obama, is McCain such an unacceptable choice?
Plantsmantx
You could ask the same question about Clinton, given her published positions. When compared to Clinton, is McClain such an unacceptable choice to these people? If so, why did so many of those moderate Dems only begin considering McCain’s acceptability when it began to look as if Clinton was going to lose?
Pingback: NFL picks
Pingback: Free VLC Player Download

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell, Keith Owens, Anson Asaka, Barbara Moore, Deborah Small, Lisa Coffman, Michael Patton

Special Contributors: Rashad Robinson, Marvin Randolph, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Adam Luna

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats

Jack & Jill Politics