The New Republic

Why has it never occurred to any of you Obama supporters that some people might be voting for Hillary because they think she is the best candidate for the job?

And, no, I don't work for Hillary. My candidate of choice has always been Kucinich. Were I a Nevada resident, I probably would have voted for Edwards.

But I do want you to know that the incredibly biased coverage of the campaign - as near as I can tell, about 99% of the media have been actively campaigning (in the guise of political reporting) for Obama - has pushed me way over the edge when it comes to him.  He will not be getting my vote.

- TaleofGenji

January 19, 2008 at 5:48pm

The turnout in Nevada was enormous. According to WashingtonPost.com, their reporting and polling indicates that culinary workers were resentful of their union for efforts to suppress their votes if they were for Hillary. Despite the media circus against the Clintons, culinary union voters felt that it was the Obama forces who were suppressing their votes--as Bill Clinton had argued in the face of attacks by the press.

I have never seen a more unfairly reported campaign, and 51% of the nation, in a CBS/NYTimes poll thinks the media have been unfair in their reporting about Hillary. (Only 12% think the same about Obama.) It is about time for TNR and other press to report in a more neutral and disinterested fashion. They have become advocates and public relations flaks more than reporters or analysts.

People are voting for Hillary because they are enthusiastic about Hillary. Get over it.

- Eos

January 19, 2008 at 6:03pm

Do you remember the 90s?  A Clinton nomination is going to carry the vitriol and sleaziness that followed Bill.

- mschol17

January 19, 2008 at 6:08pm

Meh

Clinton gets 13 delegates out of Nevada. Obama gets 12. It's not the stunning victory for Clinton that people expected and the vote difference is almost exactly what the most recent polls predicted. It's neither surprising nor very large. Any attempt to portray it as either surprising or decisive is an acceptance of the Clinton campaign's spin. (See NH, where the vote was closer than polls a week before would have predicted and both candidates got teh same number of delegates).

- miceelf

January 19, 2008 at 6:25pm

TaleofGenji: "Why has it never occurred to any of you Obama supporters that some people might be voting for Hillary because they think she is the best candidate for the job?"

Oh, it's occurred to us. We just think that there will never be very many of you, because she has a real talent for pissing people off. And we're tired of the Democratic party shooting itself in the foot with unelectable candidates like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry.

- huntlib

January 19, 2008 at 6:38pm

Somebody better save Hillary Clinton from her supporters...

- cspencef

January 19, 2008 at 6:41pm

I wonder if the "Unions = the mafia" rhetoric will hurt Hillary with unions later down the line in the Feb 5th states?

- virginiacentrist

January 19, 2008 at 6:49pm

cspencef, yeah right. I was lectured here once at TNR at how my own dislike of Hillary is based on some kind of fault on my own part, which is sure as hell not the way to win my vote. Oh well, Hillary supporters will feel all selfrighteous until November, when she will be crushed in the general, and they will go around muttering "what happened, we had the issues, the Republicans just gave us the worst president ever, how did we lose another election?" UM, she has a 47% negative rating now, and has very little support of independents. But Dem women sure love her. Hooray, she will lose with a very enthusiastic 45%

PS I am still waiting for any Hillary supporter to tell me what her position is on social security.

- blackton

January 19, 2008 at 7:32pm

OBAMA WINS MOST NEVADA DELEGATES...

www.thenation.com/.../campaignmatters

Obama will trounce Hillary in South Carolina, and throw a bucket of water on that cackling old hag melting the populist façade of the wicked witch of the right-leaning moderate pseudo-iberal West, reducing her to a watery puddle that will ooze down the drain of history.

- AaronBBrown

January 19, 2008 at 7:47pm

"But Dem women sure love her. Hooray, she will lose with a very enthusiastic 45%"

Or, most likely, with a very enthusiastic 22.5%, and another 22.5% that trudges along to the polls, wearily doing their duty to keep the GOP wolves at bay.

On the other hand, maybe all her fantastic qualifications and experience will ignite a groundswell of popular support, unify the country, and provide the foundation for a lasting Democratic hegemony. Anything is possible.

- huntlib

January 19, 2008 at 7:47pm

The press really has been unbelievable in their unfairness to Hillary. Even when she wins, bloggers twist their comments to favor Obama. Every story is spun against her, when there is often a reasonable narrative available that would be more fair and even-handed. Believe it or not, Olbermann on msnbc is actually trying, against the disbelieving smiles of his interviewees, to spin Nevada as a tie for Obama!!! As though the popular vote doesn't count. Is that how he felt about the 2000 presidential election?

But there is something especially misogynistic in the vituperativeness and personal focus of the attacks on Hillary at TNR and elsewhere on the net. See the trash written above. Is it that so much of the blogosphere is dominated by 20-something males who are anxious about women?

- Eos

January 19, 2008 at 8:35pm

TaleofGenji, has it never occurred to you that we Obama supporters assume that anyone who votes for Clinton thinks that she is a better candidate and that the question we are interested in is why are those voters so badly mistaken?

- seanwright

January 19, 2008 at 9:04pm

What does it matter?  All the caucus-goers were Republicans!

- kerouac9

January 19, 2008 at 9:05pm

Looks like McCain is going to eke out a win in South Carolina.  Thompson is finished, and this is clearly a huge blow to Huckabee, who, it seems, been thinking a bit about VP.  He's done nothing to hurt McCain, and the two worked together marvelously to take out Romney)..  I don't see how McCain's stoppable now.  He's already ahead in Florida.

Even though I've been saying that the structural advantages favoring the Democratic nominee are enormous, a McCain/Huckabee ticket would be formidable.  

- bhunziker

January 19, 2008 at 9:16pm

pccostello, so all of the negativity against Hillary shown her by the press and large segment of the Democratic party is now all the more reason to vote for her? Hmmm...very curious rationale. Her, and your, resentment will not bring the country together, and will not get her elected. So maybe you are right, I should just get over the Democrats losing another! general election because we nominate another in a string of noncharismatic duds. I got news for you, winning the Dem base is not going to win the election. We need a candidate who can reach out to independents.

- blackton

January 19, 2008 at 9:17pm

I dunno, blackton.  She does pretty well in head-to-heads against the whole GOP field, with the exception of McCain, where it's tight.  Considering how much animosity the GOP base has for McCain (at least to hear Rush tell it), I don't see us losing in November.  Maybe I'm an optimist, but I really think it's too early to just give it all up for lost, and I find that sentiment very frustrating.

- drdannyu

January 19, 2008 at 9:26pm

bhunziker, damn right. I simply can't vote for Hillary ever and will vote for McCain-Huckabee. The question Dems have to ask themselves is just how many Dems like me there are. The Hillary true believers are just happy to win the nomination. That will show the Obama supporters! If she can't win, no other Dem will either and Bill can rest assured he will be the last Dem president for another 4 years.

I love this logic "The press really has been unbelievable in their unfairness to Hillary." so lets nominate her, another collective f.u. from the Dem base to Republicans, independents, and the press. Yeah, that is the ticket. Resentment is just so inspiring.

For the record I have my doubts about Obama as well, but a McCain-Obama general is one I could go to sleep election night. But McCain will eat Hillary alive. Oh well, we can always hope we lose in Iraq before November because Hillary has been so consistent about Iraq.

- blackton

January 19, 2008 at 9:35pm

Why on earth would you vote for a ticket that includes Mike Huckabee?  The man is on record as saying that he would amend the Constitution, given his druthers, to fit his religious beliefs.  He supports an utterly nonsensical tax plan.  His foreign policy knowledge is zilch.  And he would be Veep to a 72-year-old man.  Why would your hatred for Hillary (which is based on what, exactly?) cause you to choose to vote thusly?  Why not abstain, if you dislike her so much?

- drdannyu

January 19, 2008 at 9:41pm

drdanny. I just have this feeling like I am watching a bus stall on the train tracks and a train coming around the bend bearing down on it. I think all of my resentment against Hillary is because I think she is doomed to fail, and if she were to win the general will not be able to govern effectively. Unlike Bill who inherited an economy coming out of a recession, Hillary would be inheriting one that will nosedive. No middle class tax breaks, no health care plan, an Iraq situation that will continue to deteriorate. The Republicans will be pointing fingers at her, and she can't expect the Chinese to bail us out either. The fundamentals just ain't right for a Hillary Presidency. In 2012 maybe. Believe it or not I thought she would have made a good VP candidate for Mark Warner.

Long term if McCain wins I am more optimistic. He will be a one termer and the Dems will rack up some seriously healthy margins in Congress priming us for a true Dem revolution in 2012.

- blackton

January 19, 2008 at 9:55pm

drdanny, you posted as I was writing. I know it might sound ridiculous, but I am prepared to lose this battle to win the war. Hillary is an incrementalist who will spend all of her time putting out fires. She just doesn't have the political capital to do what needs to be done. I think if the Repugs win now, they will inherit this mess and won't be able to point fingers at anyone but themselves. 2012 can be something approaching FDR status for Dems. Universal Health care for starters. A true progressive era. And if Hillary wins the nomination but loses the general Obama will be primed to lead this era. A Hillary win now would just muddy the waters since she would lose in 2012.

Anyway, this is my halfbaked theory (or completely baked if you prefer, from the Oaxacan sun)

- blackton

January 19, 2008 at 10:07pm

Well...it's risky, risky strategy, is all I can say.  But it would leave me praying hard for the collective health of John McCain, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Whatever power she may or may not end up having in the White House, I trust Hillary a hell of a lot more with Supreme Court appointments than that theocrat from her husband's home town.

- drdannyu

January 19, 2008 at 10:18pm

Why will I vote against Senator Clinton?  For the (probably to a great many completely unfair) reason that I am sick to death of only two families sitting in the big chair.  Bush I (4 years), Clinton I (8 years), Bush II (eight years), Clinton II (4-8 years).  24-28 years of the same two families running this country?  Is this positive?  Are you kidding?  

How can Senator Clinton hope to change the tone in Washington when she is a part of the two family hammerlock on Presidential power?

Even if she gets elected, she will not be able to govern, because every Republican will be duty bound to thwart her every plan.  Simply out of instinctive reaction.

Is this unfair to Senator Clinton?  Perhaps.  I simply don't care.  We don't do dynasties.  

I want fresh thinking.  I want a different crop of advisors.  I want a different world view.  I want folks who are not going to simply try to restore the 'golden age', regardless of when it happened.  I am sick to death of the same fights, the same arguments, the same stale solutions, the same foolish storylines, the same skeletons, the same baby-boomer generational pissing match between two sides that cannot figure out that sometimes they actually need to work together.

This has nothing to gender, it has to do with bloodlines.

Irrational?  No more irrational than one's blind support of Senator Clinton because they think that she will be the second coming of Bill Clinton, whose Presidency now takes on the gauzy haze of the good old days simply because Bush has been such an absolute failure.  

No, I will not vote for the imperial presidency to handed back off to the Clinton family.  

Then again, my choice decided not to run, so I may simply be bitter.  Is it too late to convince Senator Feingold to get into the race?

- kgrant1054

January 19, 2008 at 11:05pm

The idea that the press has been "unfair" to Hillary is such a ridiculous notion that it's downright laughable. The media coronation of Hillary has been  a year in the making and it wasn't until Obama's poll numbers started to surge and she got caught speaking in a lie at one the debates that she started to get any genuine scrutiny, and even that barely scratched the surface. With the Clintons, everyone else is to blame.

- BHLnyc

January 19, 2008 at 11:48pm

I'm not with some of the anti-Hillary rationales around here.  If I believed in her and her policies, I'd support her, period.  I don't think her chances of getting elected are significantly worse than Barack's anyway, given what I imagine will be unleashed by the Republicans if he is nominated.  Either one of them will serve as a rich vein for the opposition, and both of them would be still likely to win.  But while I believe in many of her policies,  I have no trust in her.  She proves herself to be undeserving of trust over and over again, but sadly I think there are many Democrats who, just like many Republicans,  believe that you win by doing whatever you have to do, Rove-style if necessary.  If she fights the dirtiest and is sucessful doing it, then she will  take that same fight to the Republicans - yeah!   So we're going to have a replay of the last seven sick years, except our team will be the side lying, parsing, evading, and smearing?  And this is ok with what appears to be the majority of Democratic women?  That's the real divide no one talks about.  I will try to state this fairly: the division is between those who believe that it is more important to win and therefore to be able to implement policies they believe in than it is to be ethical in the gaining and weilding of power, and those of us who believe  that the lack of ethics historically shown by the Clinton's is simply a deal-breaker.  Of course, maybe there's some Democrats out there that do care about our party not adding to the corruption, deceit and cynicism in government who believe that Hillary is no worse than the other candidates who've been in the running.  Really?  If you believe that, then you'll deserve what you get.  

- mcfife

January 20, 2008 at 5:27am

FWIW, the first sign I saw of identity politics in the Dem race was Chris Rock at an Obama fundraiser.  And Obama supporters who raise the 1990's have to stop doing it selectively and acknowledge that included a brave and seminal budget deal and a largely successful and -- with the significant exception of Rwanda -- humane foreign policy.  You are asking voters to abandon a track record of 8 years of peace and prosperity for a candidate whose foreign policy braintrust includes Zbigniew Brzezinski.  

Corruption?  Barrack Obama helped defeat reform in arguably the most corrupt local government in America.  Do you people have a clue about Mayor Richard Daley?  Cook County Commissioner Todd Stroger?  State Senate leader Emil Jones and his ally Governor Blagojevich (I'm probably misspelling that).  The Tony Rezko thing was small potatoes (though there was indeed a quid pro quo, if tiny), but Obama's refusal to back reformers over the corrupt incumbants he supported belies your great disparity with the Clintons.  

Another thing: stop treating American voters like imbecilles -- if and when they don' t want a Bush or a Clinton, they will elect someone else.  Zeesh, I could hear you folks in 1932 "We've had a Roosevelt already!

- Lymon1

January 20, 2008 at 9:51am

Vis a Vis Roosevelt:  FDR came from a different side of the Roosevelt family (Eleanor was TR's Niece, FDR was only his fifth cousin).  TR had been dead for more than a decade, and had no longer been President for 24.  He hadn't been on the national political scene since his defeat in 1912.  Furthermore, FDR had served two terms as Governor of New York, had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy for eight years under Wilson, and was the 1920 Democratic Nominee for Vice President.  Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he had a vast amount of experience of his own merit, came much later than Theodore, and was not nearly as close to him.  Most certainly, he was not TR's spouse.  Simply put, as much as Bill might want to sell Hillary as Franklin to his Teddy, this is simply not the case.

- Crock1701

January 20, 2008 at 3:14pm

"But I do want you to know that the incredibly biased coverage of the campaign - as near as I can tell, about 99% of the media have been actively campaigning (in the guise of political reporting) for Obama - has pushed me way over the edge when it comes to him.  He will not be getting my vote."

Wait, so you're not voting for Obama because reporters like him?  I have heard people voice some wacky and irrelevant justifications for disliking a given candidate, but that takes the cake.

- Androscoggin

January 20, 2008 at 4:13pm

pccostello:  TNR is not the New York Times.  It's an opinion magazine.  It has no obligation to remain neutral between two candidates -- especially when one (i.e., Obama) is self-evidently preferable to the other (sorry, couldn't help myself).  And it's not as though TNR's reporting on Clinton has been particularly harsh.

Only somewhat related:  The fact that TNR staffers seem to prefer Obama isn't surprising.  If there's any demographic group where you're unlikely to find Hillary supporters, it's highly-educated professionals -- and particularly men -- in their twenties and thirties.  (Of course, that doesn't really say anything about the merits of the candidates.)

- Androscoggin

January 20, 2008 at 4:22pm

"I don't think her chances of getting elected are significantly worse than Barack's anyway, given what I imagine will be unleashed by the Republicans if he is nominated"

Electability doesn't seem to be an issue this year. People seem to feel the same way you feel. But people are DEAD WRONG.

Presidential politics is about personalities. Hillary's personality will allow attacks to stick. Obama's likable personality keeps attacks from sticking.

It's really as simple as that. 1+1=2. Aside from his middle name, Obama is a general election slam dunk...only the Democrats could piss away a gimme election by nominating such a loser like Hillary...

- virginiacentrist

January 20, 2008 at 10:55pm