Well said, bslev.

The rest of us are going to try to defeat McCain.

Why relive Obama vs. Hillary debates now? Why initiate debates between Obama supporters like me who want conciliation and victory and Obama supporters who refuse to move on?

Both Obama and Hillary want unity now. Where is the benefit in energizing old divisions and creating new ones? You appear to be practicing the old politics Obama wants to leave behind, but with nothing to gain.

Does the pleasure of recycling personal vitriol outweigh the importance of electing Obama now that he's the nominee?

Posted at June 9, 2008 1:25 PM in response to Thank God, Hillary's dead.

We can debate whether it's more important to have "real" reconciliation or to win the election.

Let me address the charge of using peer pressure. I don't think it's exerting peer pressure to take the view that words sometimes have a price. There can be honest disagreements about which words exact what price, and what price is too much to pay.

Take an analogy from the private realm. My limited but checkered experience in relationships leads me to believe that only one side has to be offended for the whole thing to collapse. The same experience leaves me in no doubt that honesty is at times destructive. For example, you can end up in divorce court for making the true point that your wife has spent more money on a home renovation than you had to spend, and that you face serious financial consequences. Your wife's reply may be in these exact words: "But it's our home!" Shortly thereafter, you face a choice between a) continuing an objective discussion of your family's financial distress and who is to blame, and b) deciding you love your wife and want to stay married even if her carelessness in not adding up the cost of change orders she signed, in her enthusiasm for creating the perfect home, happens to leave you in dire financial straits - something that was not her intention. She is at fault, but do you really want a divorce? You would in some sense be justified in saying, "We're getting a divorce. We'll sell the house to pay off our debts. It's all your fault. You'll never do this to me again." Then you'll both be living in reduced circumstances but, by God, you were right!

I'm assuming as we move back to politics that the goal is not to ensure that the division of the Democratic Party lasts through the November election - that we want reconciliation, not a divorce judge's certification that one party was very, very, very wrong.

It comes down to weighing the virtues of certain types of discussions per se, and the reality that your words actually affect the way other people feel and think and, ultimately, the way they act. Like you, I believe that objectivity in discussion has value. However, so does objectivity about the emotional, practical and very real consequences of saying certain things, however true, in certain situations.

Is it peer pressure to make such an analogy from personal experience to the political?

Posted at June 8, 2008 8:12 PM in response to A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House

Very puzzling.

Is it blackmail to suggest that post-concession attacks on the defeated candidate and those who want conciliation with the defeated candidate may cost us the White House?

What does my blackmail threaten? What does it demand? From whom?

Please clarify the reason you're demanding money from me for my freedom to criticize. Are you assuming I'm an Obama supporter, and claiming I'm obligated to help retire Hillary's debt because Obama defeated her? Or are you assuming I'm a Hillary supporter, and claiming I'm obligated to help retire her debt because I supported her? Why is helping retire the debts of a wealthy woman the price of my freedom to suggest Democrat-on-Democrat attacks may cost Democrats the presidency?

Why is my concern about the effects of attacks on Hillary a crime in your universe? Do the attacks promote some higher moral good that outweighs the animosity they inspire?

Posted at June 8, 2008 7:24 PM in response to A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the White House

Obama will choose the vice presidential candidate. Campaigning to keep Hillary off the ticket only serves to make some other Democrats mad.

How will those 18m voters feel when they see the endless regurgitation from other Democrats of Hillary's mistakes and failings after Hillary's defeat?

She will either manage to redeem herself or she won't. She will either be able to bring her most devoted followers into the Democratic fold or she won't. That's her responsibility.

Ours is to preserve a Democratic fold they'll want to return to.

Posted at June 8, 2008 6:10 PM in response to Thank God, Hillary's dead.

What's done is done. Unfortunately, Hillary gave McCain lots of ammunition. We all cringed each time she did it and we all regret it now.

The question is how best to address the situation we as Democrats face in the general election against McCain. One thing that does not help is recriminations against Hillary and her supporters. Hillary started trying to make amends yesterday. It's a good start.

There are all these expressions of regret about how McCain and the 527s will use the words of Democrats criticizing Democrats and the theme of Democratic division, female against male, white against black, etc. We would be well advised not to write more copy for them.

Judge Hillary by how much of the damage she tries to undo and succeeds in undoing in the course of the campaign. Judge her in November. Attacking her now will not undo the primaries and will reduce the chances of putting Obama in the White House.

It's not about kumbaya. It's about winning the most important presidential election in decades.

Posted at June 8, 2008 5:51 PM in response to Thank God, Hillary's dead.

Kash, you say you want a Dem in the White House.

Act like it.

Posted at June 8, 2008 2:25 PM in response to Thank God, Hillary's dead.

I'm not kidding, Kash. She's clearly an extremely gifted politician. We don't know what the future holds.

To win the Democratic nomination on any future scenario, she will have to do one of two things: a) convince Democrats like me that she truly is what she seemed to be yesterday or b) maintain a long-term bravura performance that continues to dupe innocents like me. I'm not stupid enough to ignore it if the selfish, ruthless Hillary goes public again.

I do think this is a moment for generosity of spirit, not sarcasm, regardless of personal feelings on this. This is true both for reasons of common courtesy and, if that holds no charms for you, political expediency. Mean-spiritedness by Obama supporters toward Hillary after yesterday's speech is a great way to start an exodus from the Democratic Party.

There's no harm in implying I'm a fool for responding to yesterday's speech as I did - I'm an Obama supporter. But trashing Hillary directly or by implication will infuriate Hillary's followers and hurt Obama's chances. Which faction of the party does that help? What's the point?

If your point is that Hillary will never have another chance because Obama will serve two terms as president and time will pass her by, I think that's far from clear. The next president will have to govern a country with problems as severe as at any time since the Great Depression. Millions of people need help and yet the national debt is part of the problem. Entrenched interests in oil and healthcare remain powerful. Whoever is elected this time around has a better than 50-50 chance of being voted out after one term, perhaps for simply trying to do what is best for the country.

On reflection, there is a third possibility for Hillary's future that can't be ruled out: perhaps the selfish, ruthless Hillary this time around was the real thing, but Hillary is capable of learning and change.

For now, give her a break.

Posted at June 8, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Belated Praise for Hillary's Outstanding Speech

I agree Hillary's speech could have been a bravura performance successfully concealing a typical ruthless, devious politician. That is not the feeling I got.

As you say, the coming months will show which Hillary is real. I hope my feeling is correct that the Hillary who from deep moral conviction sincerely values universal healthcare is the prevailing spirit, not a Hillary for whom all issues are simply tools for gaining personal power. If the latter is the case, she is just a typical politician, like thousands of male politicians before her, but happens to be a woman and happens to be particularly good at it. We will have to watch what she does. Based on yesterday's speech, I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

Posted at June 8, 2008 1:46 PM in response to Belated Praise for Hillary's Outstanding Speech

Marquis,

Thanks for this very informative historical review. It's wonderful to let a few facts creep into our discussions now and then.

Do you have an opinion of the extent to which Republican dominance in recent presidential lections traces to wrapping up their nominations earlier? At a glance, Republicans seem to have almost always settled things sooner and gotten behind the nominee. They've certainly won more often. I've tended to think their stomach-turning tactics are responsible for their victories. Now I wonder if earlier resolution of primary fights is more important.

As an aside, it's interesting that Harold Ickes was involved in Ted Kennedy's campaign against Jimmy Carter, which tried to get pledged delegates to the 1980 convention to abandon their commitments to the nominee. Ickes seemed to want to do it all over again this year with Hillary's campaign, perhaps making of John McCain a second coming of Ronald Reagan - a landslide winner thanks in part to Democratic disarray and hard feelings. Perhaps learning wasn't one of the benefits Ickes seeks from his vast experience.

Do you have a personal opinion about whether Hillary's concession, assuming she truly concedes tomorrow, will come in time?

This is asking a lot, but did you take a look at the grace or lack thereof in conceding the nomination each time around? Did that play a role in the wins and losses you listed, or was it all about the timing? Do you know if there's a precedent for an intense nonconcession speech followed the same week by a concession speech? If so, did the latter make an impression or was the damage done?

Thanks again very much for grounding our understanding of this election in recent historical fact.

Posted at June 6, 2008 4:16 PM in response to The History of Devisive and Decisive Primary Elections

Louisville, these comments are unfair and unfortunate. They do not accurately characterize the views Carol has stated about Hillary Clinton. Carol is critical of Hillary but not in anything like the terms you suggest.

We can go through competing recollections of how the campaign unfolded yet again. However, it might be helpful to get clarification on one general point first: in your view, is there any criticism of any aspect of Hillary's career or campaign, her votes, her statements, especially her behavior in 2008, that could possibly be characterized as flawed in any way? Is anyone permitted to express regret or puzzlement about any aspect or after effect of the Clinton candidacy?

Certainly Obama has made mistakes and will make more. He'll have to learn on the job like any other presidential candidate or, if elected, any other new president. We can talk about whether we do or don't like what he thinks is the most attainable approach to improving the healthcare system. We can debate whether he needs more national and international experience, whether some of the votes he cast in the Senate were wise or not, and whether his strategy for extricating us from Iraq is the best way to protect the nation's interests. We can debate whether his appeal to our better selves was sincere or a political ploy. We can debate whether those of us who responded to that appeal are fools. However, examining Hillary's actions and statements seems to be, by definition, hatemongering.

Funny thing about this hatemongering. It is tinged with deep regret about the way Hillary chose to proceed. This hatemongering was preceded by heartfelt pleas not to continue down a destructive path that appeared certain to place Democratic hopes and the nation's prospects in jeopardy. There were desperate appeals not to use race, gender and class as wedge issues in a Democratic primary.

Some of us Obama supporters sent dozens of emails to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, private emails, begging for a halt to Hillary's destructive tactics - begging for somebody monitoring the Clinton campaign's website to get the message to Hillary herself. Those private, increasingly desperate pleas came before any public criticism of Hillary Clinton by some of us, whether on TPM or anywhere else. They begged her to spare us a situation like the one we now find ourselves in. Those private pleas went unanswered. We got nothing but automated requests for donations. Later, when our pleas and many others went public, they were instantly dismissed as unfair criticisms of Hillary and we heard, directly from Hillary and Bill, the litany of saddle up, this is the fun part, get out of the kitchen. To some of us naive former Clinton enthusiasts, it was heartbreaking. The night Obama won the nomination, we groaned when Hillary argued that he hadn't. We felt that made things even worse. It certainly felt like genuine regret about Hillary's chosen path. But I guess this is more hatemongering.

In this discussion, many of us have wondered why the aggressor in this campaign is demanding an apology and claiming she's the one who has been treated with disrespect by an opponent that we think has made every effort to show respect throughout the campaign and to apologize for any missteps, even by distant associates. We have wondered why the aggressor has worked to make her followers feel wronged. Will mentioning this go down as more hatemongering?

And as for Obama, how could he possibly make things right? Is there anything he could do, or is that another naive dream?

Even now, should Obama ask Hillary to allow him to serve as her vice presidential nominee? Is he still under an obligation to withdraw from the race? Or is Obama's sin original, inherent, ineradicable? Is he beyond salvation? Must he go down in history as Barack the Usurper?

As for those of us saddened by the current state of affairs, those of us who think it could easily have been avoided, those of us who give way to frustration and anger because the current divisions didn't have to be made so painful and deep, do you consider this part of some nasty, gratuitous strategy, conjured unprovoked from our own evil minds, to make Hillary look bad?

Please, tell us in plain language what we've been missing. How should we understand the current situation?

Posted at June 6, 2008 12:36 PM in response to Hillary's female supporters and feminism