Inside Hillary Clinton's decision to quit: The 5 hidden emotional stages
Since it's pretty clear this morning that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is not going to withdraw from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in the face of Sen. Hillary Clinton's admirably annoying tenacity, it falls to the New York senator to adjust to a harsh political reality that a year ago today was absolutely unthinkable: She lost.
Whatever your personal feelings are toward Clinton -- and the Ticket's Comment boards reveal a rude intensity on both sides -- or toward any of the other losers in either party who gave up the electoral marathon weeks or months ago, running for office like this requires a profound commitment by the candidate, his/her family and those around them who invest up to 20-hour days for very little pay over what now spans nearly two years.
This nation's chief executive weeding-out process is brutal, as it should be to force only the most qualified, savvy, lucky, smart to the top.
But we don't have to bring out the violins for any of the....
...White House wannabes to acknowledge that, political theater and personal ambition aside, these campaigns are personally grueling affairs, as energetic and even joyous as the rallies and speeches seem in the bright lights of the TV cameras.
Like pro hockey teams after a tough game, candidates and their entourages spend a good chunk of many nights moving on to the next city, arriving late and rising early to consult the little printed staff
schedules slipped under their hotel door that remind them what city they're starting in for that next 18-20 hour day.
Only two people know for certain how long Hillary Clinton has been dreaming, planning, organizing her presidential bid -- eight years, 10, 16, more? Last year she sure looked like she knew victory was inevitable.
And when it starts to slip away, it's even harder. Walter Mondale has said he knew the moment Ronald Reagan made that famous age quip that his campaign would lose. Yet he campaigned on. Likewise, President Bush I has confided that he knew two weeks before election day in 1992 that his was a hopeless cause.
So when did Hillary Clinton get the first hint? When she kept losing caucuses? When she hadn't wrapped up the super prize by Feb. 5 as envisioned? When the Obama money machine kept churning out millions?
In the last many weeks as Obama's delegate totals moved closer to the magic majority, many have watched in fascination as Clinton seemed to move through the same five stages of grief that Elisabeth Kubler-Ross described in "On Death and Dying." Except it was Clinton's campaign and White House dream that was dying.
The first stage is Denial: This isn't happening. How could this be happening when she was to inherit the political mantle of her once-again popular husband, the only Democratic president elected twice since Franklin Delano Roosevelt? How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials and few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?
The second stage is Anger: "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Remember those angry outbursts a few hours after the kissy we're-all-Democrats-in-this-together-it's-an-honor-to-compete-against-Sen.-Obama stuff at the debates?
The third stage is Bargaining: That's less visible to observers, more internal. If only I work harder, things will work out. No one can doubt her determination and grit despite internal campaign turmoil, overspending and controversies with her overpaid consultant who was working both sides of the Colombian trade deal.
And in recent weeks when so many thought her effort was hopeless, she sure didn't show hopelessness. And her loyalists responded to that fighting spirit with overwhelming victories in crucial places like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
The fourth stage is Depression: This can manifest itself in many ways, possibly in a stubborn refusal to accept the inevitable delegate math. And so often the Clintons' political careers have been saved by last-minute salvations if only they hung on long enough in the face of what others saw as hopeless adversity.
Gennifer Flowers didn't derail Bill in 1992's New Hampshire primary; he only took second, but declared victory and folks remember him winning. How similar that Hillary was holding what looked like a victory rally in Texas while Obama won some more states elsewhere. Or what was an actual victory rally for herself in Florida, after a vote that wasn't supposed to count.
The same could be said of her Tuesday night speech when so many convinced themselves she would concede despite contrary signals from her aides. So many commentators didn't like her tone. No submission. No contrition. No magnanimity.
She said she was going to take a few days to decide her future path. There's a momentum and life force to major national campaigns. You can't turn off the machine and the candidate's adrenalin and emotional commitment like a light switch. It winds down.
The defeat must sink in.
And besides, what's the rush over a few days? Clearly, in a strange way the victorious Obama camp ends up needing the losing Clintonites much more than they need him.
Which brings us to stage 5, Acceptance: That might have come to her over the next week or so. But Wednesday's pre-dawn joint statement by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and who's-its, the West Virginia governor, sped up that process. They set a Friday deadline for uncommitted superdelegates to make their calls, which forces Hillary's hand.
Still, she said nothing about surrender in Wednesday morning staff meetings. It wasn't until her afternoon phone call with Congressional colleagues that she, well, accepted their message that it was over. And needed to end quickly. And she made the decision to pull the plug.
Friday she'll have a celebration with some supporters and word will no doubt leak from there that at another Saturday "celebration" (how did that word get in here?), she'll formally suspend her campaign and endorse Obama, as previously promised.
From St. Paul yesterday afternoon, Matt Burns, communications director for the Republican National Convention, fired off an e-mail to the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reporting they'd received numerous calls from Clinton supporters offering to work for McCain.
With up to 40% of Clinton primary voters vowing to exit-pollsters that they'd opt for the GOP over Obama, that's not too surprising.
Nor would it be surprising if somewhere in the recesses of that mind that now publicly accepts her defeat and will officially do so with an Obama endorsement, there resides a residual pocket of hope about the future.
As Jay Leno said in his monologue earlier this week, "The good news is that the whole voting process ended tonight. It's all over as of tonight. The bad news: The 2012 Democratic primaries start on Thursday."
That's today!
Now, the first stage of grieving is Denial....
--Andrew Malcolm
Photo Credits: AP


Well, in 2012 Hillary will still be younger than McCain is now...
(Like most people.)
Posted by: D Zammit | June 05, 2008 at 02:11 AM
HI Author,
You seem to belong to Hollwood, not LA times.. Or is it LA Times that is so degenerated to carry article like yours. Are you normally cynical, or this is your way of saying that everything in this world is bad. One last thing, you seem to know a lot about this depression cycle, and seem to be in it. Go see a psychologist. Get over it.
Posted by: aa | June 05, 2008 at 02:15 AM
I have to question the author when he makes a statement such as 'How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?'
Few accomplishments?? Maybe you should do a little more research in that particular area, in regards to Clinton, and then compare her so-called 'few accomplishments' to the virtually ZERO accomplishments of Obama.
(I have to tell you that you're reading it backwards. It's Obama who's the senator from Illinois, not Clinton.)
Posted by: KL | June 05, 2008 at 02:17 AM
That’s funny; I thought the delegates ended her campaign when they selected Obama!
All I see is drawn-out drama, last minute muscle flexing, and a lack of graciousness in defeat!
Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!
http://klintons.com
Posted by: Bob | June 05, 2008 at 02:25 AM
RE: (I have to tell you that you're reading it backwards. It's Obama who's the senator from Illinois, not Clinton.)
Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about.
Posted by: KL | June 05, 2008 at 02:35 AM
"reporting they'd received numerous calls from Clinton supporters offering to work for McCain. "
Wow.. what i am surprised is that these people waited until yesterday to do that.
Guess they didnt see it comming... like anything else
Posted by: Kains | June 05, 2008 at 02:37 AM
Whoever wins the world needs a strong America, look around the world and remember that for all our sakes.
Dennis Seager
England
Posted by: Dennis Seager | June 05, 2008 at 02:43 AM
Ummm I think that last person is confused, because that is pretty much what Hillary Clinton thought of Obama, not the author.
I'm glad she lost. The article is well written.
Posted by: Darren | June 05, 2008 at 02:45 AM
Thanks for showing that Hillary doesn't have a monopoly on "hard work".
John Edwards dropped out early despite beating her in Iowa, Romney despite doing quite well, and even the dogged Huckabee ended his campaign and was gracious once it became clear McCain had clinched the nomination.
All of these people "worked hard".
The main difference is that they aren't as narcissistic and destructive to their own party as Hillary has been.
An utterly self-centered woman for whom the memories of living in the White House takes precedence over everything else.
Sorry Clintons - Americans have spoken and, as should have been obvious to you months back, you're not getting back in that white house.
Obama should deny this woman everything she wants.
I do not want my hard-earned money, contributed to Obama, going to bail out a dishonest and more importantly super-rich fool who decided that burning money in a meaningless pursuit of pride was more important than the future of her party and her country.
Posted by: Neil B | June 05, 2008 at 02:49 AM
Clinton:
An 'under the table' republican?
Why not?
Either that, or is it just a simple old case of clinging to power..
It must be very hard indeed, one has to admit, to have to give up,
when the 'game' being played is about being the president of the United States...
Posted by: Boris | June 05, 2008 at 02:52 AM
Obama or McCain would at the end be the same. They would both bow to Rome (Vatican) since the nation is brankrupt. Rome will utlimately triumph only to see its own end when Messiah comes again as the true and ultimate King of Kings. The mafia at the top controls both Republicans and Democrats. They are the same party. Do you really believe there is democracy in the U.S? Wait a litte to see the lamb of two horns ACT as a real dragon.
Posted by: Raul Cervantes | June 05, 2008 at 02:54 AM
That was a nice thrashing. Not overly done. Just right.
Posted by: Brad | June 05, 2008 at 02:54 AM
Funny, why no mention of Bill Clinton in relation to the 5 aspects. He certainly formed a large part of how this all unfolded.
As for Senator Clinton, I am seeing a much more respectable character in how she is now dealing with the loss (acceptance) than I expected.
For the turncoats who would go over to the GOP, well, it shows you what type of people were "helping" Senator Clinton instead of the overall Democratic party and agenda.
When will Americans begin to support the team instead of their star player? Maybe someday we'll grow up and realize we're a nation instead of an "everyone's in it for themselves" bunch of whiners.
Posted by: Robert | June 05, 2008 at 02:54 AM
As you'll answer it, take heed
This Slave commit no Violence upon
Himself. I've been deceiv'd. The Publick Safety
Requires he should be more confin'd; and none,
No not the Princes self, permitted to
Confer with him. I'll quit you to the King.
Vile and ingrate! too late thou shalt repent
The base Injustice thou hast done my Love:
Yes, thou shalt know, spite of thy past Distress,
And all those Ills which thou so long hast mourn'd;
Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.
*****************************************
If those Hillary supporters vote for a new war via McCain cause she lost, that is sad indeed.
Posted by: Tyler | June 05, 2008 at 02:56 AM
When Hillary realizes all that Bill has cost her, including the vice presidency, the fur is going to fly.
Posted by: ericmiami | June 05, 2008 at 03:01 AM
I have no problem with a president who happens to be black or jewish or italian or a woman. But I have a very big problem with a president who is black first, Italian first, Jewish first or woman first with a more narrow view of life and world events. That person would not be qualified in my view to be president. I am a lifelong democrat but I am ready to endure four more years of republican rule if necessary. Be careful Obama!
Posted by: la | June 05, 2008 at 03:01 AM
actually, they have it right when they refer to Hillary as the nobody from Illinois, because that is the state she is from. which brings up an interesting point, the Clinton's have never been elected from a "home" platform.
While I feel Clinton is a political genius, I will oppose her election as long as she is married to the former Mr. President. There is zero excuse for lying under oath. And before you rant and rave, I could care less about whitewater, about paulagate, about any of that.. I supported Kennedy knowing the history of his family.
The ONE thing you do not do is lie under oath. The penalty is he never gets back inside those doors.
But hillary, ooh yes, she was his genius and she is genius on her own.
Has anyone noticed that a suspension is NOT a concession, and that at any moment that which is suspended can be UNSUSPENDED?
Posted by: womyn inthekitchen | June 05, 2008 at 03:04 AM
Not so fast...(1.)..Votes are cast at the convention in August. Super delegates can change their mind any time before then. If this went to an open convention, even pledged delegates would be released from their pledge after the first vote. This does not mean it's going to the convention. It means that until one candidate drops out, there can be no winner because the number of delegates that candidate has can change any time until the convention. Until and unless Hillary Clinton publicly suspends or ends her campaign and concedes that Obama is the nominee, there is no nominee. There is only a statement that if current delegate positions at this moment were frozen in time until August he would be the nominee. If and when Hillary makes that determination, then Obama will be the nominee.
(2.)The conduct of the super delegates is in defiance and repudiation of the Democratic nomination process. The biased pro-Obama media(including Soros’-Move-On.org who said in 2004 it would buy and own the Democratic party) and the DNC in its quest to "make history" interfered in and undermined the Democratic nomination process. Sen. Clinton's campaign was intentionally sabotaged.... I am amazed at how the DNC, Dean, Pelosi, Reid and the super delegates have blindly fast-tracked the process. Obviously, no one cares about Obama's background, character, associates and beliefs. Nobody cares who he really is. To quote Newsweek "unless he is seen vactioning with Louis Farrakhan in Hawaii he has the nomination." After Obama crashes and burns in the GE, maybe, the above will then do some research about “The Chosen One”, but then it will be a little to late. ...
Posted by: 07001 | June 05, 2008 at 03:05 AM
This is now getting beyond ridiculous and all her supporters should be ashamed of her and of themselves. She's lost the Democratic election. She wasting precious Presidential campaign time with all this dillying and dallying. McCain has been on the road much longer and he's making headway. Clinton has not even had the decency to congratulate Obama on his nomination and her supporters continue to follow her. What a bunch of sour losers. Is she trying to hand the Presidency to McCain? Makes you think that just might be her strategy after all.
I'm a woman and i'm embarrased by these tactics from Clinton. I would love to see a American woman president in the future, but Clinton's actions are not helping us. This is exactly why we need a change to a younger forward-thinking generation whose first priority are the american people.
Posted by: Terri | June 05, 2008 at 03:12 AM
To KL, sorry, but I think everyone else probably got that he was talking about Senator Obama D-IL.
No matter what stage Hillary is in, she needs to quickly, strongly and publicly encourage her supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee and not campain nor vote for McCain. I know she finds that ridiculous sentiment good for her ego, but she needs to get past her ego. And she needs to stop trying to force Obama to name her as his running mate. There's a process for choosing a VP as well. Since she's shown such a propensity to allow her supporters to jump republican, I don't think I would choose her. She'd be running for 2012 the moment she's chosen.
Posted by: Sharon-NC | June 05, 2008 at 03:17 AM
Notice she is suspending her campaign, she is not conceding. Could she know something? *wink* I think she does. She's a lot smarter than some of you want to give her credit for.
Posted by: Diana | June 05, 2008 at 03:17 AM
KL:
You seem deranged. Please seek medication and help. Loser.
Posted by: Joko | June 05, 2008 at 03:21 AM
KL, You must not be able to read if you couldn't tell he was taking about Obama!
Posted by: Ed | June 05, 2008 at 03:23 AM
Re: Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about.
Or perhaps you should get off your deluded high horse and invest in basic reading comprehension 101.
Posted by: Ashley | June 05, 2008 at 03:25 AM
problem is not with Obama the problem is Clinton could have rallied the white population sailing away from Bush now that she s out those people will vote for Mc Cain some people are delusional enough to think Obama can be elected well check polls they show exactly the contrary ....
Posted by: bob | June 05, 2008 at 03:25 AM
When will we citizens get respite from Queen Hillary Macbeth and her spiteful tantrums? Why oh why must we always defer to her hurt feelings, her demands, her blackmail? Don't we have a right to our lives as well? Doesn't the party deserve respect? The ONLY thing that can allay her rage is the presidency--it is always all about HER. And her supporters don't get it. She has spent 20 million of her own money to try to buy the office while pretending she is just a working class blue collar stiff. She has voted to send our sons and daughters to death in Iraq then turn around and promised Christmas packages to bring them home. Anything to win. Bosnia sniper fire, that she was anti-NAFTA, putting up with her sex-addicted adulterous husband and public humiliation--just to become President. She HATES Obama and has been stirring her supporters to their passionate rage so they will destroy the party's race in November. And we are supposed to make her VP so she can undermine Obama and subtly assassinate him?
Posted by: lin | June 05, 2008 at 03:26 AM
"How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?"
For those of you who think the author was talking about Hillary with this question.. he was trying to point out that Hillary was asking this question about Obama.
Posted by: ryan | June 05, 2008 at 03:27 AM
Clearly yes the obama camp needs her more than she needs him, but they have not stopped their obtuse denigrating supercilious derision of her as you clearly have not . The stages of grief and loss as you have used them in a satire lose their substance and meaning , because they have a much deeper significance when used in the proper context of loss of a loved one.
But I hope you do more research and fully flesh them out as they will apply to obama in november, so you can expand on this piece as it will appy to him.
I sincerely and deeply hope Hillary will not be his VP, because if she is, he stands a chance of winning. Without her , he will most definitely lose and that will be the best for our country. The republicans won’t be awarding him votes and delegates he didnt legally win via a committee so he can win. There will be no caucuses where his followers can bully people . His true untrustworthy and deeply flawed character will be exposed on a much more national level, and the media will not be trashing John McCain at the level they trashed Hillary in a desperate attempt to preserve their machismo . I cant wait to see him head back to chicago , and then you can help thru these stages , altho given his reaction when he lost W.VA and Kentucky , he seems to linger in denial quite a bit longer than any other stage.
Posted by: Swannie | June 05, 2008 at 03:29 AM
sen obama has nothing to apologize for to any segment of hillary's supporters and i'm sure he will make them as welcome in his quest to provide change as he will any of those who were with him in the beginning. except for those hard core racists and those women who vote with their chromosomes, sen obama will not only win the vast majority of democrats but also the independents and some republicans. isn't it clear that the old dog and pony show can't go on forever? the world, read environment, has changed and will keep changing and america must adapt or we will find out that darwins process of natural selection applies to more than dinosaures. hillary is a machine politician and mccain is a card carrying member of the military industrial complex. these are the folks who have parlayed this once rich and free country into foreclosure where one of the few remaining growth industries is police work or military employment of one kind or another. having taught in a small private new england college i was amazed to see over 35% of the students were majoring in criminal justice, what ever that is. we spend more on the military that all other countries combined, our heath care costs 50% more than other first world counties and we have an insatiable governmental bureaucracy where the federal government is the major employer in philadelphia. in the mid 70's i attended a college seminar where a british diplomat, who had been posted in moscow, told us that the russian empire was not a military threat and was collapsing of it's own weight; their military costs, their inefficient corrupt and endlessly expensive bureaucracy and the millions they had in prison doomed them. there are conditions that no country can withstand. we meet all those conditions and sen obama is the first person who has offered U.S. a possibility for change. certainly no one single president can reverse the disastrous course this country is on and perhaps we are past the point of change being possible, but such positive change will most certainly not come from machine politicians or inter-generational members of the military industrial complex that president Eisenhower warned U.S. of long ago. this is not to say that there is no hope for as geo w bu$h said, "hope springs a turtle." www.saintpeterii.com
Posted by: saint peter II | June 05, 2008 at 03:30 AM
The Wizard of Oz song, "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, the Wicked Witch is Dead", is stuck in my head. I bet old Hillary's toes will curl up when she concedes defeat!
Clicking her heels and repeating; "there's no place like Washington" didn't seem to work, and the yellow brick road didn't lead to the Democratic nomination either!
After Saturday, she'll be saying; "you know Bill, some how I don't think we'll be in the White House anymore"!
George Bush and his flying monkey conservatives were behind all of this!!
Hillary has no heart.
Obama has no courage.
Bush has no brain.
McCain, he's the old guy behind the curtain making lots of noise.
I know I'm voting for Toto!
Posted by: Templeton Scott Green | June 05, 2008 at 03:35 AM
Its to bad Hilary could not stay in at least to the primary elections were over. I don't think our country is ready for a female president, therefore she did not get the super delegate votes that were needed.
I guess we will have another republican in office.
Posted by: kathy | June 05, 2008 at 03:41 AM
Spelling mistake:
"The same could be said of her Tuesday night speech when so many convinced themselves she would concede despite contrary signals from her aides. So many commentators didn't like her tone. No submission. No contrition. No magnamity."
MAGNAMITY???
The word is "magnanimity"
Posted by: Tom Noonan | June 05, 2008 at 03:42 AM
People NEED TO WAKE UP AND HEAR THE MUSIC !! Here's A woman Who stood up to be counted not just by the peers of her age but by the comon people and she has done a GOOD JOB! IF YOU GIVE HER A CHANCE SHE WILL MAKE SURE THE SUPPORT YOU GAVE HER IS HEARD... EVEN IF IT IS TO STAND BEHIND.... SENATOR OBAMA SHE WILL DO IT GRACEFULLY AND WITH THE SAME ZEST SHE DID FOR HERSELF... FOR ME THAT WILL BE THE WINNING TICKET FOR AMERICA AND FOR OUR PEOPLE REMINDING US DEMOCRACY LIVES TRULY!!!!!
Posted by: Rose CoreyCenteno | June 05, 2008 at 03:56 AM
Hillary is a legend in her own mind...reminds me of Bush and company....so in love with themselves...."What she wants".....sounds comparable to W...."I am the decider"
O Bama must distance himself from her....as she is a snake in the pit waiting to strike.
Remember not to long ago we heard over and over again....."all OBama has to offer is a speech back in 2002?"
And Bill calling Dee Myers "a scumbag".....wow Bill I respect all you did for our country....but please lighten up here, my defintion of "scumbag" is one who continually cheats on his wife....Monica,Jennifer Flowers, and who else I forgot.
O Bama is not self centered and is the only hope the USA has.....give him a chance, we are so screwed up as a country....what is there to lose?
Posted by: Jimi J | June 05, 2008 at 04:20 AM
i fell that me cliton was the best one for the president she would have won if it was not for fl she won fl but they would not let her have the vote be couse we voted to earley so now that fl did that to her i will not vote for any one
Posted by: linda gabler | June 05, 2008 at 04:30 AM
'How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?'
I thought the author was referring to Hillary's opinion of Obama..?
Posted by: Christi | June 05, 2008 at 04:39 AM
June:
Try 'Hooked on Phonics'
Maybe you will have better reading comprehension after you finish a basic class of this.
Posted by: PulSamsara | June 05, 2008 at 04:55 AM
Please folks, for the sake of common sense; anyone who cast a vote for Senator Clinton and because she lost, will vote for McCain,is not a true DEM.
It is not just about the candidate; it's the party and your and my future. A Vote for McCain is a vote for the past.
If Senator Obama can build a movement from the ground up and made it this far; I am certain the millions of first time and old time voters will work harder to win in November. You have not seen how fired up these people are. I have been there, in the snow in Rhode Island and I have seen how had it was and how dedicated the people worked. YES! they did not collect one cent but spent the little they had.
I saw people who drove fron Virginia to Rhode island to cacus, made calls and eat junk food while working. I have not heard one person complain.
Posted by: Otto | June 05, 2008 at 04:56 AM
The worst journalism in the World is the LA TIMES and GOOGLE should be ashamed to be displaying this link so prominently on its news page. Blog or no Blog, this article is slanderous, warped, and untrue.
Posted by: julie | June 05, 2008 at 04:58 AM
If folkes would check their emotional, habitual thinking at the door before they vote we all may come out of this alive.
anyone who votes for a "person" and out of an emotional response instead of for a Presidental Leader is too young to viote. If you vote on the premise of "if my candidate does not win I will go to the other side"......you are a part of the sickness that plagues this nation. ........ for heavens sake ..grow up!
Posted by: Lois Hutson | June 05, 2008 at 04:59 AM
Ummm, being as the article is written in the present, I assumed the author was referring to Obama, in the comment about the nobody from Illinois. Being as Clinton, A) resides in New York, and B) the fact that Obama was virtually unknown before this primary, should have made it clear. If you we're confused by that part of the article, you probably need to go back and get your GED/HS Diploma. Focus on english classes.
Posted by: Brian | June 05, 2008 at 05:01 AM
I think we better be careful with the reports of Clinton supporters working for McCain. The Republican party and people like Rush Limbaugh have consistently sought to manipulate the results of the Democratic primaries. Remember the Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" voters for Clinton in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere -- encouraged to prolong the contest and sow divisiveness. Then consider the active recruitment of blogging trolls by the RNC -- perhaps some posing as those Clinton supporters who could never vote for Obama but are moving to McCain. If those people aren't Republican agents, they are missing a pay check.
Posted by: Bruce Johnson | June 05, 2008 at 05:01 AM
KL:
No you need to learn how to read. It is quite clear that he is talking about Obama. Also, it is quite clear that he tried to get so much into Clinton's head he insulted Obama (which your note of "Zero" you should like and maybe he likes). This article had potential but wants to justify Clinton's behavior and perhaps blame others for the cause of grief (and if I recall grief literature, there are some that include a blaming phase, which HC has clearly engaged in) I propose that when talking about grief in other circumstances outside of permanent loss there is another stage... REFLECTION. Death is permanent, the person will never come back. The loss of an election is not. If HC had taken time to REFLECT many times during this election she may have won. If she now takes the opportunity to reflect, she may not have a ruined political career as many predict. She does lack graciousness and this is the fear. She is a fighter, we get that. Does she know how to put the gloves down and think. When tensions are high can she bring the nation to ease. She does not seem to know how to bring calm. I think a once idealistic woman has become jaded and politics and loss her way. I, a once Clinton supporter, am so ashamed of her candidacy. I know her current supporters will get angry at this, but I fought with conservatives for years who beat up on her. I too, didn't listen and reflect and see that who I supported was a sham.
Posted by: Jake | June 05, 2008 at 05:03 AM
The author was quite clear:
the key: 'Golden Tounge' and 'move in'
Remember - it was the Clinton campaign that tried to hang that on Obama... remember... "just a speech in 2002"
Clinton lost because she didn't have the conviction to make that speech in 2002 - and because her main claim to the position was being married to a former popular President.
America is a republican democracy - not a monarchy... Good for us.
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Posted by: PulSamsara | June 05, 2008 at 05:03 AM
why are all we Clinton supporters angry?
Now we have no voice.
We have to sit back and watch our party crash and burn
today's headline...another former friend Rezko, in the limelight for bad reasons...and what does slick Obama say....one of his same old tired lines..." It's not the Rezko I knew."
Same thing he said about right.
Why in heavens name have so many people decided he's what we need when his personal judgement is so flawed.
And oh yeah....how boring this campaign will be now that Clinton has bowed out.
Posted by: laura in kentucky | June 05, 2008 at 05:07 AM
This is a breakdown of WHY Obama won.. This was much bigger than you could ever understand!
http://mosnarcommunications.blogspot.com/2008/06/jesse-jacksons-choice-and-keeping-hope.html
Posted by: Pam | June 05, 2008 at 05:13 AM
"RE: (I have to tell you that you're reading it backwards. It's Obama who's the senator from Illinois, not Clinton.)
Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about."
I think the author is perfectly clear:
Hilary Clinton is a 'person' born and raised in Illinois who happens to be a senator from New York.
Barack is a senator from Illinois.
Where is the confusion in that? Try to read more carefully, please.
Posted by: netjammr71 | June 05, 2008 at 05:13 AM
How can a nobody from Illinois with no accomplshments do it? Ask President Carter.
Posted by: Patricia | June 05, 2008 at 05:13 AM
RE: Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about.
It is really very clear he meant Obama from "Illinois" (he is the junior Senator), "golden-tongued" (he is much praised for his oratory), and the overall context (Hillary's sense of entitltement and the resulting denial that she could be losing).
Please just accept your mistake.
Posted by: TK | June 05, 2008 at 05:18 AM
"I have to question the author when he makes a statement such as 'How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?'
Few accomplishments?? Maybe you should do a little more research in that particular area, in regards to Clinton, and then compare her so-called 'few accomplishments' to the virtually ZERO accomplishments of Obama.
(I have to tell you that you're reading it backwards. It's Obama who's the senator from Illinois, not Clinton.) "
KL,
I have to doubt the commenter when he/she doesn't understand the story. He is talking about Obama in this line...It is implied that clinton is thinking, "'How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?" about Obama.
Posted by: Tim | June 05, 2008 at 05:18 AM
That "photo" of Clinton glaring at Obama is a cheap shot. How juvenile.
Posted by: TASH | June 05, 2008 at 05:19 AM
"RE: (I have to tell you that you're reading it backwards. It's Obama who's the senator from Illinois, not Clinton.)
Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about. "
KL, I thought she was raised in Scranton, Pa. At least that is what she told us in the PA primary. She lived in the woods and shot guns all day long. Or maybe that was another sniper fire type comment.
Posted by: Tim | June 05, 2008 at 05:20 AM
As long as the point spread is within lower than 160 on the delegate count, with over 400 remaining uncommitted, it would have been a fool to give up the U.S. Presidency. Period. You can say you're a quitter, but you'd never make it in politics; perhaps that's why you're forcing pop-psych theory onto adult decision making. And you don't really understand Kubler-Ross, because grief doesn't set in until the crisis. Now that Hillary has quit, she would begin step 1 of the grieving process.
It was apparent to most women and all gays that Barack is no more than another male suit in politics. Same as Bill Clinton and most politicians, Kennedy's included (within their own family ironically), he aligned himself with crooks and fat cash benefactors to begin his career. Then he shed himself of them and their reputations. He is evangelical, even in his church. He is a preacher type with lots of high moral words, little to back it up in tactical plans, or proven negotiation. He calls women reporters, "Sweetie." He promotes gay-hating speakers to pander to his black rallies.
He's a man in politics. That would be something original to write about, not stretching a grief theory into Hillary's successful run to the end of the primaries. She had a successful run, until Barack got the final one delegate vote.
Posted by: Tom Boston | June 05, 2008 at 05:22 AM
The statement, 'How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?' is obviously referring to Obama. While discussing Denial, the article shifts to a possible thought of Clinton's, from her point of view. Therefore, the statement is about Obama.
Posted by: Lucia Sarlo | June 05, 2008 at 05:23 AM
I love the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! Our history,the good the bad the ugly and the beautifull, continues to re-inforce my believe in our country. We DEMOCRATS, are blessed with the AMAZING efforts of that great lady, HILLARY R. CLINTON. Please remember Mrs. Clinton, what you represent as an American Classical Personality, far superseeds any higher office you will achieve in the future, or have achieved in the past. Do not allowe THIS OPPORTUNITY to further solitify your greatnes, be lost.. You are stronger, wiser and more visionary than those around you!
Posted by: DOUGLAS JONES ROMERO,MHS | June 05, 2008 at 05:23 AM
Neither of the Senators from Illinois, (one who is currently residing in New York unfortunately), have accomplished much in their careers. The younger one has even less experience but is gifted with a golden tongue. The kind of tongue that can talk little old lady's into investing their savings into some sort of to good to be true land deal..
Posted by: Gary | June 05, 2008 at 05:23 AM
KL: He *is* describing Obama. Read the sentence again, carefully.
Posted by: Matt | June 05, 2008 at 05:24 AM
This was a thrown election.
There was a hatchet job on 2 states.
She won the majority of votes. DNC over-rode the voters and selected their own choice.
Delegates were intimidated or bribed. (Edwards got a windfall in his charity bank accounts for his early endorsement)
Right wing cable news, like CNN were trying to throw elections. The day of the SD election, they announced Clinton was conceding that night. They then corrected this but said Clinton was trying to be his vice president.
The worst for me was how the key progressive blogs were hijacked. The proprietors were paid off by Obama insiders to let operatives hate monger against Clinton.
Clinton supporters were thrown out, or harassed with profanity until they left.
This gave the media the impression that "the blogosphere was uniformly for Obama" it also brainwashed the young people that Clinton was evil. Because they did not have a chance to read otherwise.
The election was stolen, and there is no healing process.
The democratic party is so corrupt, I am going independent.
Posted by: lute | June 05, 2008 at 05:25 AM
What a garbage pile of excuses. Candidates drop out of races all the time without ridiculously clinging on. Why are you making all these psychoanalytical excuses for Hillary Clinton?
She lost, and she's a clinging shrew, so she can't accept the idea. "How could they not want ME????"
Grieving? Acceptance? God. If she's that thin-skinned and unstable it's a good thing she didn't win.
Posted by: m | June 05, 2008 at 05:26 AM
In a related story, Bill Belicheck will now concede that New York won the Super Bowl.
How do you concede something you've already lost?!?
Posted by: John | June 05, 2008 at 05:26 AM
It is good that Clinton didn’t become the first woman to be a serious contender for the presidency. She in fact doesn’t represent the women. She is not self made. She is just a person who gained popularity because of her name. Obama did the more daring thing: with his skin color and his middle name he dared to put himself a candidate. Clinton didn’t do it 16 years ago. Instead she chose to put forward her husband and to stay in his shadow. She chose the easy path. She went for the presidency at a moment when all the polls were in her favor. This is not the type of woman all these female activists actually want.
I hope when the first woman president is elected her name is not Clinton, or Kennedy, or Obama or Bush.
I hope she will really be a fighter who is not afraid of challenges and doesn’t take the easy road. I hope also that she would dare to go for the big price and not take it easy step by vice step.
Posted by: A Woman | June 05, 2008 at 05:27 AM
> This nation's chief executive weeding-out process is
> brutal, as it should be to force only the most qualified,
> savvy, lucky, smart to the top.
The people that run for office.. and eventually get
elected, are by NO means the smartest, most qualified, or savvy people in the country.
They are, instead "the people that are foolish enough to want the job".
Posted by: Bill | June 05, 2008 at 05:27 AM
What gets me is they talk about "Hillary's" emotions and Obama's race, we don't talk about what leads old white men to run for office or motivate them!
I can't believe how much media buys into sterotypes and frankly not only contributes to them, but encourages them. I beginning to believe the only racists sexists folks left out there are the media.
Posted by: MF Main | June 05, 2008 at 05:30 AM
Excellent article,Andrew Malcolm. I read political articles all the time, and then wade through a lot of the comments, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but it always cracks me up when people are so deep into the forest that they cannot see the trees.
You are describing reality. And someone feels compelled to try and destroy the truth, to tear you down in order to build themselves, and perhaps their candidate up. Fortunately, truth and reason will always prevail in the end.
Personally, I've known since November 10th, after the Iowa J-J Dinner which I attended, that Barack would ultimately prevail. His "movement" is real. His PASSION to become President more heartfelt. We saw it in his speech vs. hers.
She's a great woman but with a lust for power that routinely clouds her thinking. I truly hope that on Saturday, she has Barack Obama come on the "stage", wherever she is giving this concession speech. In fact, I hope she has ALL of the Democratic candidates come on the stage -- every last one.
That's what we need now. The whole group to come out in support of Barack -- not just Hillary, but John, Bill, Joe, Chris, Dennis, and Mike, too! It's time for a "kumbaya moment" which so many seem to despise. That is the primary action that must take place in order for us to win -- or at least to WIN BIG! in November.
It's not about Hillary any more, and truth be known, it's not about Barack, as he so eloquently stated on Tuesday night. It's about America, and that the Democrats have the best plan for America.
Let's embrace that notion for a while and put some of this power lust aside. Supporting Barack is now not only the right thing to do, it's the ONLY thing to do -- if we want to win in November.
Posted by: obiwan1250 | June 05, 2008 at 05:38 AM
Interesting how LA Times can report on lecture anyone about anything, considering they continue to wallow in the midst of their own smog and pollution-filled environment.
Fix the cesspool you call California before you decide to fix elections.
Posted by: tradamerica | June 05, 2008 at 05:41 AM
First off, great article. Very concise, and liklely very true. Not sure why people think it's unclear or overly sarcastic - but then I'm from the East Coast where we mix sarcasm in with our morning coffee. One has to wonder what the Hil has coming up next. Will she try to be governor of New York, will she become a republican, or will she try to force the hand of the DNC and Barack to become the VP candidate?
Posted by: tBuggR | June 05, 2008 at 05:42 AM
KL, commenting without comprehending is worse than the spin the Clintons put out. The "golden tongue", (and Illinois Senator), as the author states, BELONGS to Obama. How could anybody mis-understand that statement?
Posted by: Texas Jim | June 05, 2008 at 05:49 AM
Congratulations to the Republicans that spent much time and money to steer the fools to nominate an empty suit.
McCain 08 Congrats
Posted by: jill | June 05, 2008 at 05:50 AM
Wow, i thought the article was right on point !
I agree with one of the other comments...to quote :
That’s funny; I thought the delegates ended her campaign when they selected Obama!
All I see is drawn-out drama, last minute muscle flexing, and a lack of graciousness in defeat!
Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!
Get over yourself Hilary, it's time to move on and act like a grown up !
Posted by: Tc | June 05, 2008 at 05:51 AM
RE: Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois.
I thought Clinton was born in Scranton, PA?
Posted by: SF | June 05, 2008 at 05:53 AM
Alright people, seriously. Hillary lost, she's finally accepting it...as are her supporters.
There is still a lot of animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters, but you see, it is Barack Obama who NEEDS Clinton supporters if he he expects any chance of winning this election.
What I'm saying is...we've accepted defeat, you accept that you've won and start treating being nice to us.
This was a very well written article which expressed Clinton's stages of acceptance in a very compassionate manner.
Posted by: Jason Morgan | June 05, 2008 at 05:53 AM
It will interesting to witness the degree of sincerity that Hillary extends toward "uniting" with/behind Obama and the Democratic Party.
Should she do so it will be with an ulterior, self-serving motive since the Clinton's have NEVER extended reciprocity to anyone or any thing unless it directly benefited them in the very near future.
For whatever reason, the Clinton's have deluded themselves into believing that THEY are the annointed head of the Democratic Party and that the "lowly minions" (voters) must heed their every word and deedd without question.
That truly was her/their downfall in this process. She/they (Hill/Bill) absolutely believed their percieved regal status (their own opinion and the only one that they believe should be considered) elevated them to the "throne of the Presidency" without opposition.
NOT!
Posted by: dharper | June 05, 2008 at 05:57 AM
The unfortunate thing about Hillary now is that she still remains in the Senate where she can continue to vote for the interests of the bankers and others of the monied class and against the interests of the rest of us. She is likely to continue her warmongering as a NY Senator as well. God help us all.
Posted by: joe subscriber | June 05, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Apparently some Clinton supporters are having trouble reading through their crocodile tears....
......"You seem to belong to Hollwood, not LA times.. Or is it LA Times that is so degenerated to carry article like yours. Are you normally cynical, or this is your way of saying that everything in this world is bad" ......
Umm, it's a blog, not an article. You know, an opinion piece. They've shown up in newspapers, oh, for the past 250 years or so.
......"Few accomplishments?? Maybe you should do a little more research in that particular area, in regards to Clinton, and then compare her so-called 'few accomplishments' to the virtually ZERO accomplishments of Obama."
Hoo boy. I don't think blogger Andrew Malcolm could have made it any clearer that he was referring to Obama. But I guess some people just see what they want to see.
Posted by: E Kent | June 05, 2008 at 06:03 AM
"reporting they'd received numerous calls from Clinton supporters offering to work for McCain. "
What are the odds that this is McCain's camp taking advantage of the "power of suggestion" ploy as a way to recruit unhappy Hillary supporters?
This is about as sad as McCain's orating abilities.
Posted by: Ceebee | June 05, 2008 at 06:03 AM
Heard on the news 2-3 days ago that, over the past 15 years, while "Rev." Wright has been spewing his hate-filled, racist, anti-American, anti-white speeches, and Obama has been "not-hearing" any of that, their "church", which recently gave a Lifetime Achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, has quietly been the recipient of $15,000,000 of our tax dollars! They are probably still getting it!
How'd they arrange to get that much of our tax money, who set that up, do you think? Separation of church and state? Has that been repealed? Do you think anybody should ask Obama if he had anything to do with getting that "church" this money? If he didn't, who did? Shouldn't we know?
Posted by: lightnin | June 05, 2008 at 06:06 AM
"Republican National Convention, fired off an e-mail ...reporting they'd received numerous calls from Clinton supporters offering to work for McCain".
Sore losers and immature. They'd actually shoot themselves over their loss? Obama won it fair and square albeit with a tough game to the very end not unlike basketball with a 2 point win.
What's most amazing is Obama's insurgent surprise, to everyone, worldwide, even our system that is rumored to conspire who gets the top prize. Party crasher? "Look who is coming to dinner". Yes, a black man stole the show because he is a breath of fresh air after all these years.
Posted by: Jaime | June 05, 2008 at 06:13 AM
KL- Are you a retard? The Senator from (INSERT STATE) means the Senator who represents that state. There is no need for the author to be clearer who he is talking about, and you also used "whom" incorrectly. Stop breathing.
Posted by: mike | June 05, 2008 at 06:17 AM
Barack Obama’s internal polling indicated that he was going to lose Michigan by a sizeable margin; this would generate the same headlines as Ohio ended up bringing later on —that Barack Obama cannot win swing states. Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan and then his camp started the bully-boy campaign, asking voters to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for “Uncommitted.” However, Obama was humiliated once again, Clinton beat the entire field of Democrats by actually beating “Uncommitted” all by herself. The Democratic Michigan voters want Hillary Clinton for President. And those VOTES shouldn’t count?!!? That sounds just like Bush v. Gore — wanting to silence the voice of the voters just because it hurts your candidate. The VOTES not counting is not a part of the rules, of the DELELGATES not counting. And the VOTES counting show the most popularly electable Democratic candidate is Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama failed miserably in Michigan, as he has in all swing states. If the DNC is prepared to loose the election let the Super Delegates choose Obama. We will most assuredly have a Republican President. Every single time Barack Obama whines that his name “was not even on the ballot” ask him why, HE took his own name off the ballot, and then turned around and publicly encouraged voters to vote “Uncommitted.”
Barrack H. Obama, echoes every stance Hillary R. Clinton already has fought, believes in and supports (except for the mandate of Universal Healthcare).
• Hillary R. Clinton and her campaign should have been awarded the delegates of Florida and Michigan; all votes/delegates were earned, not stolen. The agreement they signed did not dictate they pull their names off the ballots. Barack Obama and John Edwards directed Voters to vote uncommitted let that portion go to Barack Obama. The rest legitimately belong to Hillary R. Clinton as the voters indicated. In Florida Hillary R. Clinton did not run campaign ads; and she still won the majority vote. However just about every night since Barack Obama ran his ad with CNN it was on my Comcast cable network. Yet Barack Obama sheepishly states he did not know it would run in Florida. Networks run ads in the states for which you pay, the network is not going to run the ads for free (or did they maybe we should look into that)
We the FLORIDA & MICHIGAN voters must have OUR VOTES and OUR DELEGATES recognized and seated PRIOR TO THE NOMINEE BEING ELECTED so the votes will reflect our choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwjnT4eJJvs Audacity of Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC8BE-2T_k&NR=1 Audacity of Barack Obama 2
Posted by: Fran Villa | June 05, 2008 at 06:18 AM
I don't see why people are so critical of this report. I think it is very fair and well balanced reporting. All I can figure is that they are still licking their wounds because their candidate didn't win. I voted for Mike Huckabee. He didn't win either, but I'm not bitter or angry about it. I knew he probably wouldn't, and just moved on. So now, I throw my support behind the next best candidate in my view. I don't do that lightly. My personal belief is that I cannot vote for anyone who is pro-abortion. I strongly believe in the sanctity of human life. There are good things about all the candidates and also some bad. Our choice is to pick the one who is most likely to represent the country in a good manner, and one who has moral qualities we can agree with. I personally have never seen a perfect candidate. I vote independent and cross party lines. I voted for Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, etc. Character is the best attribute of any president. All three candidates showed good character, and all three showed bad character. So let's all vote our conscious. And. this last note, if you sincerely pray, which candidate is best for the nation, I believe you will make the right choice.
Posted by: Jerry | June 05, 2008 at 06:23 AM
The witch is dead! The Witch is dead! Halleluja ... The Witch is dead! Now all we need is two REAL presidential candidates. What we have left is pure liberal crap. An old man beat up by too much war, and a young upstart not beat up at all. Does anyone REALLY believe that either one of them can halt WWIII coming up? What about the price of fuel? Can either one of them stand up to the liberal communist takeover before gas goes to $10 a gal.? Not a chance. Under the Airforce Cadet Base in Colorado we have enough raw sweet crude to supply America's needs for 100 years. WHY ... WHY ... are we letting the energy crooks destroy our economy with our own energy right there? WHY?
Posted by: JR-Spokane | June 05, 2008 at 06:24 AM
Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain never really believe in what Hillary stands for. They will find that the conservatives do not really believe in McCain either. The conservatives actually hate Hillary more than they like McCain. This is why they lost.
Posted by: tony | June 05, 2008 at 06:26 AM
re: the following comment by KL "Senator Clinton was born and raised in Illinois. The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about." I must say that you're just not reading very carefully. This is the voice of Clinton in Denial. It couldn't seem clearer to me as a reader, and to blame your misreading on the writer is rather lazy.
Posted by: Glenn | June 05, 2008 at 06:28 AM
KL, it appears that it is your ignorance, and apparent lack of comprehension shining through. The author was clearly referencing Obama as "the senator from IL...few accomplishments"
I have to say that author is spot on with the commentary, and again, typical of Hillary supporters to be at once defensive and aggressive in attacking the author. Gracious defeat and fervid support of the Democratic nominee should be Clinton (and her supporters) response.
Posted by: Jonathan C | June 05, 2008 at 06:28 AM
"Wow.. what i am surprised is that these people waited until yesterday to do that. Guess they didnt see it comming... like anything else."
It's just that Clinton supporters are not rude -- like Obama supporters. We would not switch our loyalties to McCain until Clinton's withdrawal is official.
Posted by: LiveFromNewYork | June 05, 2008 at 06:28 AM
This is a dumb story. When will you people learn that tenacity is a very valuable -- and rare -- trait.
More fun to toss a very brave candidate under the bus. Shame on the LA Times for printing this sneery piece of spitefulness.
Clinton had a lot of supporters -- many of whom will absolutely not be inherited by Obama, including me.
Posted by: LiveFromNewYork | June 05, 2008 at 06:33 AM
Now is the time, Hillary - iron my shirt!
Posted by: Steve | June 05, 2008 at 06:35 AM
There is no way that "senator from Illinois" could be reasonably be confused as anything but Senator Obama. Senators are referred to all the time by their state seat, not their original home state.
Posted by: Chris C | June 05, 2008 at 06:37 AM
Witty, Andrew.
"With up to 40% of Clinton primary voters vowing to exit-pollsters that they'd opt for the GOP over Obama, that's not too surprising."
I am happy the people are finally conceding to our Republicrat one-party system. Factions yes, true independence, no. March on, you proles. March on.
Clinton was invited/vetted during Bilderberg06/07. Apparently, she dropped the ball big time. Now, we have Jim Johnson, a veteran Bildeberg-er, in-charge of vetting VP, along with the on-going Bilderberg08 in Chantilly, VA, I look forward to seeing whom they will approve to be the VP. With the >$200/barrel oil on the agenda, among other global issues, the selection of Team A will dictate my investment/divestment decisions.
Posted by: Bildeberg08Attendee | June 05, 2008 at 06:41 AM
I hope Hillary's supporters get to acceptance before November. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between what Hillary would do and what Obama will do as president, from stopping the war to appointing Supreme Court justices. Gloating on one side and sulking on the other are luxuries we can't afford.
Posted by: dennis martin | June 05, 2008 at 06:42 AM
Well, I believe Hillary is still in the Bargaining stage and Bill is in the Anger stage. Barack is still pinching himself, "did this really happen to me."
Posted by: Ron | June 05, 2008 at 06:50 AM
Hillary is going to have to get off the reality bending drugs she has been taking and face reality. We hope she regains her bearing and uses her grit and determination for our man Barack Obama
Fellow Obamanots relax the stake was driven through her candidacy June 3rd and that is a solid four days before David Plouffe predicted when I met with him at an event in Miami two months ago.
Hillary displayed her delusional narcissism to the maximum with her lack of grace. She is incapable of admitting a mistake or defeat. She cannot admit the mistake of voting to authorize the war in Iraq or that she was soundly defeated by Barack Obama who deployed superior strategy and stayed on the high road.
Stay focused on the big prize and get ready to rumble with John Mc War and his hit men. They will be coming at us with all sorts of other lies to make us fear Barack Obama being our President.
You know what to expect:
Barack is too young
Barack is a Muslim
Barack will surrender to terrorists
We wont be safe America
Life begins at inception
We know the economy better than Barack
he will talk to bad guys
Blah Blah Blah. they will put up as many boogeymen as Hillary put up lies.
Barack Obama scares the hell out of the status quo because it is their power that will be usurped and ours as the people will be restored. Thank god he has assembled he best political campaign team in the history of our country. Plouffe, Axelrod and the 1.7 million of us out there pounding the pavement and making the calls for change are unstoppable. Rest you won the first battle against the biggest name in politics and we will need the energy between now and November.
God Bless you and God bless the United States of America the only country where all this could happen. We are truly the people we have been waiting for.
Posted by: Joe Bento | June 05, 2008 at 06:50 AM
One of the worst choices the Democratic party could have made when they have a virtual shoe-in for the Presidency. John McCain, even with his midevil views will win the general election. Democrats just can't get it right, ever.
Goddamn America!
Thanks to Obama and his Spritual Mentor!
Posted by: Lauren | June 05, 2008 at 06:52 AM
More woman bashing and stereotypical comments from a male jackass.
Idiots like Andrew Malcolm are the reason Hillary was trashed in the media. If she was black she would of mopped the floor with Obama.
Posted by: not4me | June 05, 2008 at 06:52 AM
Now The Time is here for the Media to Identify the Super-Delegates who didnt vote for Hillary and let them know, Come Election Day The Voters will remember and send them to the unemployment Line, Hopefully Nancy Pelosi will be the First.
Posted by: David | June 05, 2008 at 06:53 AM
I'm not a politician so I don't have to be loyal to any party. But as an American, I have to be loyal to my country. - Actually, even a politician should be loyal to his country first.
Based on above point, I would not vote for Obama in any case since he and his wife don't love this country as much as most of us do. - I simply cannot trust anyone like him to lead our country...
Posted by: Faye | June 05, 2008 at 06:54 AM
If Hillary isn't on the ticket, I'll vote for McCain. If she isn't on the ticket Obama will lose to McCain and the Democrats will get what they deserve for all their ineptness and lack of organization. As for the "party leaders" Dean, Pelosi and Reid, they are the reason for the weak minded democratic party, they have no business telling a woman like Hillary what she should do. Dean should go back to screaming and selling ice cream, Pelosi should go back to California and play with her grandchildren instead of prancing in front of the cameras with a stupid grin on her face and Reid should go find a punching bag and use it.
Posted by: Ed | June 05, 2008 at 06:54 AM
Dear Editor
An interesting article, Here is what a Hillary Clinton Suppoter will say, Clinton won 49% of the race and Obama won 51% of the race. Sadly for the Clinton supporters it all boiled down to "Caucus" failures for Hillary. Why did her campaign management not see the obvious? You cannot ignore Caucuses when the delegates are split. So, it is a strategic error on part of the campaign management that costed Hillary the Presidency. I must say here anyday on Paper or in reality Hillary is a much better candidate but Barrack beat her on strategy. Time only will tell whether the super strategician will turn out to be the outstanding President for America should he win the general election. Meanwhile Hillary and her supporters can keep discussing what went wrong at the water coolers.
Posted by: Prakash Kolluri | June 05, 2008 at 06:55 AM
I am a Hillary Clinton supporter who is not "returning home" for the Presidential contest. I will not vote for the Dems as I dont like how Hillary was treated by people like Richardson, some of the Kennedys and the far left of our party. If that means the Republicans will win in Dec then so be it. Not all Hillary supporters will vote for Barack who is a masterful prepared public speaker with nothing to back up his word with.
Posted by: Don | June 05, 2008 at 06:55 AM
Are you people actually telling me that from this paragraph you could not deciper that the author was "talking" as hillary? Do you people even know how to read an article.. my gawd... no wonder this country is going down the freckin tubes...
Go back to english class and learn how to read an article!!!!
"The first stage is Denial: This isn't happening. How could this be happening when she was to inherit the political mantle of her once-again popular husband, the only Democratic president elected twice since Franklin Delano Roosevelt? How could this Illinois nobody with no credentials, few accomplishments other than a golden tongue move in so easily?"
Posted by: pa-Tom | June 05, 2008 at 06:56 AM
If you call "nobody" someone who came from a humble family and was able to go to one of the highest academic centers of the world; and without going into corporate america or without wealth has been able to obtain a senatorial seat in the most powerful country of the world. The definition of nobody needs to be reevaluated.
He bethroned a wellknown politician, who's been handle a senatorial seat in a state she never even lived in prior to her seating.
What did Senator Clinton do in New York to deserve being its Senator?
If he runs the country the way he organized his campaing, then the USA is hopeful that are future will be brigther.
Posted by: JJJavier | June 05, 2008 at 06:56 AM
"reporting they'd received numerous calls from Clinton supporters offering to work for McCain."
I wonder how many of those callers will be saying "we sure showed that Obama creep" from prison cells after McCain packs the Supreme Court with more right wing nutjobs and gets Roe v. Wade overturned.
Posted by: TIm B | June 05, 2008 at 06:59 AM
If it were Hillary who had won, would the behaviour she now exhibits have been seen as acceptable from Senator Obama? I think not.
And it is she who has constantly played the gender and race cards. Would she rather have grown up as a white woman or a black man? Just a few thoughts from an Australian.
Posted by: An Australian | June 05, 2008 at 07:10 AM
In my heart I feel a great sadness for Hilary Clinton because she in likened to the aging fighter who only begins to admit they are past prime in the face of defeat until it is finally their vanity which is the final damning of their legacy. I am an African-American male and Barack Obama supporter, not because he is of African decent but because I believe he will bring to the table an elegance, intelligence and an apolitical broadmindedness which is a worldwide example of the political sophistication of today’s young voter and the beginning of a new age of enlightenment, that many political pundits are only now becoming aware of. I was not and am not a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton supporter and would never be just because they are black, my criticisms of them are rather lengthy to say the least. The fact that there are so many more black progressives, politician or not, who are better qualified for the office of the president but will never seek office would lead to vote for the best white candidate available, male or female. The women and feminists that still yet want to bludgeon the democratic party into accepting an second in command position for Hilary Clinton only serves as grim reminder of the fringe extremist groups that will always attempt to hijack the DNC, and an insult to the true and honorable feminists who would only accept victory as a consequence of their qualifications of not only possessing the resume to fill the job but also the fortitude to take it on the chin while retaining the integrity and savvy to win the game within the rules.
Curtis Johnson
Posted by: curtis johnson | June 05, 2008 at 07:22 AM
Isn't the political process amazing?
Especially with the internet creating an avenue of quick communication. Candidates are put under a microscope as never before!
Obama is articulate and precise in in his assessment of things.
Hillary tried to represent change, but in the end she came across as the same old "go for the throat" politics"-particularly advanced by Richard Nixon.
Obama is certainly not perfect-he is human as we all are. One of the key elements of his campaign is that his support has massive amounts of small contributors that represent the common individual. This in itself gives him a tool and mandate to stand up to corporate muscle (ie.$) and hopefully bring about some healthy adjustments to our corporate environment. This is, of course, one of many issues he will have to address.
I wish mainstream media would get the "big picture" and spend more time on substance than on third grade nonsense. The "taking heads" on TV are mostly speculation and self interest motivation: "Look at me! I'm and expert... on fart analysis..." Go for it boys (and girls)-all you will do is continue to alienate the average listener who will spend more and more time on the internet seeking alternate views that are more insightful and on target than your petty "he said-she said-yes but" confusion.
America NEEDS the American Media to help bring about constructive change-more than it needs news about hair styles and lipo-suction. As far as the article itself is concerned, maybe it is accurate and maybe it's not-but does it help present and accurate picture of Hillary-or just another piece of speculation that has no real value?
America, more than ever, requires a mandate of change that focus's on being able to live in a healthy environment that covers all aspects of life. You can't peruse happiness, if you don't know what it is....
Happy Trails,
ez4ryder
PS: "I'm not a 20 or 30 something" internet surfer. I was in the military during Viet Nam and have many associates who share my view-think about it.
Posted by: Joseph Ryder | June 05, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Clinton ran a fantastic campaign, with a slew of astonishingly bad advisors. If she had hit her stride sooner, Obama might not have made it. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm thrilled he's made it. But let's stop with the Clinton bashing please. I didn't like all her campaign methods or messages, but she deserves huge respect and admiration. How many years older is she than Obama and yet she seemed to have double the stamina and resilience (no offense to Sen. Obama)? Some will take that as condescending, but in fact I am incredibly impressed by her energy and commitment. I thank her for now withdrawing with grace and dignity.
Posted by: aka | June 05, 2008 at 07:43 AM
It will interesting to witness the degree of sincerity that Hillary extends toward "uniting" with/behind Obama and the Democratic Party.
Should she do so it will be with an ulterior, self-serving motive since the Clinton's have NEVER extended reciprocity to anyone or any thing unless it directly benefited them in the very near future.
For whatever reason, the Clinton's have deluded themselves into believing that THEY are the annointed head of the Democratic Party and that the "lowly minions" (voters) must heed their every word and deedd without question.
That truly was her/their downfall in this process. She/they (Hill/Bill) absolutely believed their percieved regal status (their own opinion and the only one that they believe should be considered) elevated them to the "throne of the Presidency" without opposition.
NOT!
Posted by: dharper | June 05, 2008 at 08:01 AM
I was disgusted by her performance. I think it should eliminate her from serious consideration for high office, for all time. We were spared the two worst faults of the Bush II regime:
Her campaign showed 1) a lack of planning, 2) lack of flexibility and more recently, perhaps for two months, a total lack of comprehension of her place as a member the Democratic party.
The latter point-of-view can be also be stated as 'me-me-me'. "Sociopathic narcissistic demagogue" works too.
Posted by: bruce becker | June 05, 2008 at 08:09 AM
Thanks Neil B. Well said.
Posted by: bruce becker | June 05, 2008 at 08:10 AM
It's a sad statement that the LA Times endorsed Obama without wanting him to win. Articles, such as this one, are indicative of a limited stereotype some people have of African-Americans. They parade as liberals when they're actually racists, however, that term is for the uneducated. So they use Liberal. This writer isn't aware how ignorant he/she is.
Posted by: Tiffany Love | June 05, 2008 at 08:23 AM
If, indeed, some Clinton supporters do, as threatened, vote for McCain, it becomes that much more obvious that Obama was the right choice for the Democratic Party. Apparently Clinton and McCain are interchangeable. Obama stands apart, and gives us hope for a new beginning in America. McCain would give us more of what we've suffered for eight years. The neocons would continue their machinations. More war, more rape of the middle class, more abuse of Executive power. Hillary Clinton would be little different. Don't worry ladies, the right woman will come along. Hillary Clinton was not the right woman, and in your hearts you know it. The "iron my shirt" incident was as phony as the "Bosnian sniper fire" incident. Ah the remnants of Clinton Mistruths, alive and well!
Posted by: D MINER | June 05, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Do not support liars, under oath or otherwise.Ouch,Ouch, gee whiz, just got hit by another darned sniper.
Posted by: woodman | June 05, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Emotional? Don't you mean hormonal? Menopausal? Come on, let it out, release your inner misogynist. Everyone else in the news does.
http://www.PresidentShe.com
Posted by: ladiesfirst | June 05, 2008 at 08:32 AM
Do not support liars, under oath or otherwise.Ouch,Ouch, gee whiz, just got hit by another darned sniper.
Posted by: woodman | June 05, 2008 at 08:37 AM
"The author should be clearer about whom he is talking about." Posted by: KL | June 05, 2008 at 02:35 AM
It WAS obvious who he was talking about. Slow down and stop looking for reasons to fly off the handle. And for others who may be challenged in their reading comprehension, Mr Malcolm was not calling Obama those things. He was merely suggesting in a satirical fashion what might be going through Hillary's mind.
Posted by: David | June 05, 2008 at 08:52 AM
Obama has "ZERO" accomplishments?
Not true.
He's beaten Hillary Clinton.
And he is about to beat Mr. Magoo.
Once he's done with those two has-beens he can focus on the business of saving this spiritually bankrupt nation from itself.
The entire WORLD is pulling for Obama.
Posted by: Denmark Vesey | June 05, 2008 at 09:07 AM
First of all, to those who continuously thrash Senator Hillary Cli