I think Terry McAuliffe might be a self-parody of a self-parody at this point. I used to have a strong dislike for the guy, then I found him funny, now I'm not sure what to think. Introducing Hillary as the next President last night just boggles the mind.

I would drop out.

well, what would you do?

The right thing.

as an extraordinarily intelligent politician who has seen this happen to countless others in my 35 years of public service, I would immediately recognize the reality of the situation, and begin a seamless transition to supporting the nominee and rallying my 18 million-strong supporters to his side, for the good of the party, which is by definition for the good of the country.

anything other than that, and I'd have to say well, I guess I'm just glad we chose the right person.

It's called selfish ego. I don't see her endorsing Obama any time soon. It's too bad because clearly she thinks what is best for the country is Hillary Clinton and not the nominee who won the Democratic Primary according to the rules.

It's easy to understand why she stayed in the race. That does not make it a defensible decision, however.

Whether we, ordinary citizens, would make a bad choice is kind of irrelevant. Leaders ought to be held to a higher standard. Especially when good judgment is one of the qualifications for the office they seek to hold.

I would do the best thing for these supporters that I supposedly cared so much about -- I would drop out to ensure that a D is elected in November.

That makes her sound astonishingly like Bush. There's still a stubborn part of me that wants to give her more credit than that.

Interesting comments. However, this one really caught my eye:
I would do the best thing for these supporters that I supposedly cared so much about -- I would drop out to ensure that a D is elected in November.

This is the ol' "We know what's best for you" attitude even when the individuals are screaming that is not what they want.
When do people have a right to make their own decisiion in your mind? When it furthers your agenda?

This doesn't explain why she is behaving differently from countless other also-rans in other contests. Are her supporters more special than theirs were?

That's BS.

I think James Fallows explained the Clinton behavior the best when he said that Bill and Hil don't think Obama have any chance to win so by definition they can't hurt his chances to win. In the end, every stumble that the Clintons can force Obama into is a favor to the Democratic Party so that hope against hope the Clintons can save the party from another Dukakis or Gore.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/how_hillary_lives_with_herself.php

Ezra, your post needs a link.

I concur that this explanation makes her sound like Bush. Which means, in all likelihood, we've just narrowly avoided another catastrophe.

Shorter me: Hillary Clinton has accepted defeat...Obama's defeat. Now she's acting like Michael J. Fox in 'Back to the Future' trying to save the party by somehow going back in time and winning the nomination. Or something.

Okay, here's a different take.
What if Hillary is giving her supporters time to come to grips with the idea that she lost. Had she conceded last night, just minutes before Obama gave his "presumptive nominee" speech, those die-hard Clinton supporters might have been lost to the party.
If, instead, Hillary takes a few days to let everyone come to terms with the fact that Obama will be(*) the nominee, then hopefully a week from now everyone will be able to both swallow her concession and pivot and turn to focus support on Obama's general campaign.
Too charitable? I hope not. But any other explanation is just too damning for both Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Losing the marathon by a stride still counts as losing. Running another mile after the finish line is just buffoonery. At this date, I deserve the nomination as much as Hillary Clinton.
(*)Technically, Obama is not the nominee until the delegates say so at the convention.

A reality TV remake of Sunset Boulevard is not a campaign strategy.

The reason they won't go away is they owe too much to too many.

Also, the ability to fall into a "different reality" is not a trait I want in a president. I like Hillary, but the last few months have made it pretty clear that she's not the right person for the presidency.

That makes her sound astonishingly like Bush.

Exactly. In the passage above, substitute "Bush" for "Clinton", "Rove" for "McAuliffe" and "Iraq" for "electon" and a few other tweaks, and you've pretty much provided the rationale for why the Iraq War has continued too.

The inability to accept reality combined with the mind-number political spin are eerily similar between Bush and Clinton in some ways.

neurotic people build castles in the sky,
psychotic people live in them.

unfortunately,the truth of the matter is, though we can have sympathy for the clintons, there is something very wrong with both of them.
the blinding and delusional narcissism, lack of boundaries and chimerical aspect of their lives are realities that they would do well to confront, before trying to govern others.
in a fourth grade election, when a child wins by even one vote, in an election, there is the understanding that someone has actually won.
there is also the all-important fourth grade lesson of acknowledging a winner.
if the loser remains in denial, and also expresses thoughts of something happening to the victor that might somehow change the outcome, the school guidance counsellor would be called in.
this the end.
and hillary clinton will not be vice-president.
and terry may be drinking more rum.

This argument made sense months ago, and maybe weeks ago if we're being generous. Now, I don't care how many supporters you have surrounding you, you're no longer ignoring the reality of what inevitably *will* happen, you're ignoring the reality of what *did* happen.

What would I do? I'd take a long drive by myself, take a breath, and step outside the circle that contains me and my devoted followers and our goals and illusions, and try to see it as someone smart living halfway around the world would see it.

And then, I'd drive back and drop out and act like a grownup.

But that's me. I don't know what the hell she does to get a grip on reality, and at this point, I no longer give a shit. She's an embarrassment and is too dense to recognize it.

Govt Skeptic, I'd like to believe this more generous interpretation of Hillary's actions, but she and her campaign have had time to prepare her supporters for what happened last night. Obama's crossing the finish line in delegates was an event that was a long time coming, and could be seen at the very least by last weekend. If, in the past couple weeks, she had stepped down her campaign rhetoric, conceding last night would have been something her supporters would have been prepared for. Instead, she kept fueling the fire of her most zealous supporters with false claims about her leading in the popular vote and attacks on Obama's electability.

At the moment there is zero downside for Clinton continuing and no upside for her conceding. If Obama wants her out he has to give her an incentive or increase the disincentives of her continuing.

The hysterical ravings of nutjobs like jacqueline are completely wrong. Obama's behavioralist economic team would tell you Clinton's actions are coldly rational.

The Clintons didn't seem too concerned with fellow Dems losing elections during the 90s, when Bill was the head of the party and couldn't grasp why his personal peccadilloes and truth impairment would make attractive ammunition for those who wanted to take him and the party down. We lost Congress under Bill Clinton, remember? So why the shock that Hillary Clinton is incapable of doing something that would take the spotlight off of her for the good of the party?

Though I do wonder, as a middle-aged woman, just why the default assumption is that Hillary needs to be handled carefully, lest she and her supporters wilt and die like rare orchids. That very assumption seems a textbook example of misogyny to me -- I would be insulted if someone told me "Oh, we didn't hire you for that job, but we didn't want to tell you right away, because we knew you'd need time to emotionally adjust, being a female and all." She didn't win, even after flouting the rules re: Michigan and Florida and going "kitchen sink." Is she really so special, so vulnerable, that her emotional needs should take precedence over uniting the party and taking back the government?

Oh hell, who am I kidding? To her, of course she's that special! Of course her needs come first! Twas ever thus.

I've been struck over and over again by the pervasiveness and destructiveness of groupthink. Groupthink and its consequences have been on display repeatedly in the Bush White House: it's deliberately designed to promote groupthink, because anyone who doesn't agree with Bush about everything is immediately shown the door. The decision to go to war in Iraq is the most obvious consequence, but I think the failure to anticipate the congressional losses in 2006 is another one. I see this in the dreadful mismanagement of my hometown baseball team, the Seattle Mariners, who, like Bush, won't tolerate the presence of anyone who disagrees with the prevailing (incompetent) zeitgeist. And I think the HRC campaign is another example of the same phenomenon: they're all telling each other that she "really" won, and thus aren't prepared to accept reality.

"ravings of nutjobs like jacqueline are completely wrong"

not ravings the ravings of a nutjob.
just the truth.
if her behavior was coldly rational, she would be acting in her own best political interest.
that is not happening.
her narcissism and lack of boundaries will be her own undoing, as they have been for her husband.

At the moment there is zero downside for Clinton continuing and no upside for her conceding. If Obama wants her out he has to give her an incentive or increase the disincentives of her continuing.

Downside for whom? Actions do happen to somebody/thing, right? So, who benefits from Clinton staying in? The Democrats? Well, if she continues to attack the nominee, then no.

So, it comes down, in part, to demeanor.

Because if she does continue with the anti-Obama rhetoric, she may just find herself Liebermanned (a pariah with a well funded challenger or two). Is that disincentive enough?

Well, I would guess that many people would do what she is doing.

But this is ultimately (again) a test of character; determined of course, by one’s ability and/or moral strength to do what is “right” when doing what is "right" is extremely difficult.

I have heard this explanation (or some would say "excuse") made for Sen. Clinton frequently over the past several months: 1) Well, she thought for sure that she would be the nominee, can you imagine her current shock and denial, or 2) This was her life's ambition, of course it would be difficult to give it up or not fight with any means necessary, no matter how dishonest or disingenuous, to reach that goal.

Yes, on some level, I think that her behavior IS understandable. She is human after all and, as with all of us, flawed.

But I also believe that the past few months have provided a crucial glimpse into the type of leader Sen. Clinton is and would be as President; and I think her actions have revealed a level of character that is average at best (and even that, I think, is generous).

Personally, I’m looking for a leader who has, more often than not, demonstrated a capacity for honesty and transparency.

In other words, I’m looking for a leader whose character is better than average.

And I think that Democrats have (most wisely) chosen this type of leader to be their (presumptive) nominee for President of the United States.

Ted Kennedy would not even shake Carter's hand at the convention and yet his political career turned out okay.

Hillary's treating this like the Special Olympics, where everyone gets a gold medal. It's not.

What happens inside her bunker is irrelevant, because of these things called numbers. They were invented a long time ago, in order to count. She is no longer running just against reason, she is now taking on a method of counting, calculation and measurement we have had since the beginning of mankind.

Mathematics don't stop at the bunker wall.

I don't see what's so bad about living in a bubble. Her goal *is* to make 80% of the country hate her and destroy the Clinton legacy, right?

Why did Gore keep fighting after Bush kicked his arse all over Florida??

Because he had more votes, that's why.

Hillary clearly won the popular vote, Obama was handed the nomination by the DNC who gave him Michigan delegates that didn't vote for him and superdelegates that dragged him across the finish line while he was losing primaries by 30 percent.

I'd have been uncomfortable with the 'bunker' analogy -- particularly with the Downfall parody on YouTube -- except that the Clinton campaign chose, well, the bunker of Baruch College for last night's rally.

(And Baruch College? Weird.)

Gene Robinson examined the mentality last week, and it's completely understandable. The campaign schedule means you live from day to day, have your calendar set for you, don't stop until your head hits the pillow.

Not having a campaign schedule in the days to come will, I think, allow reality to break through the bubble.

The groupthink dynamic described is exactly why it's so important for the candidate to take control and let his or her supporters down as easily as possible. Most of the losing campaign stories I've ever read portray the candidate as the one who realizes it's over, while the staff keeps on thinking victory is assured.

Bill and Hillary and smart, hard working and I believe they do want to do good things...but they are not emotionally healthy people.

Mike

"Bill and Hillary and smart, hard working and I believe they do want to do good things...but they are not emotionally healthy people."

Credentials please.
Words matter.

well, what would you do?


Pull my head out.

Talk about groupthink! It's all over the left blogosphere, where HRC is concerned. Everybody says the same things over and over again, no matter what post they're responding to. It's depressing.

I don't support HRC and didn't vote for her in the primary. But she's a politician, not the antichrist. And it's really, really time for people to move on and start focusing on things that matter.

Unfortunately, mary, Clinton-hating is the new mall.

It is not enough to support Obama but you also must hate Clinton. It is the McCarthy-Kennedy split forty years later. Maybe it will work out better this time.

"Hillary clearly won the popular vote, Obama was handed the nomination by the DNC who gave him Michigan delegates that didn't vote for him and superdelegates that dragged him across the finish line while he was losing primaries by 30 percent."

Really? You think she would have gotten 100% of the Michigan delegates if Obama's name had been on the ballot?

He played by the rules they agreed to, and she got her hand slapped. Not very hard, I might add, since she didn't walk away empty handed.

At least he's been consistent.

and she got her hand slapped?
ugh

Clinton violated no rules during this campaign. Neither did Obama though he came close with his ads in FL but he gamed Michigan. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Interesting that you should frame it as a 'bunker mentality', given the venue for her non-concession speech last night. Evidently there was no wireless or phone service in the Baruch Bunker, which explains the shift in reality they were experiencing.

What would I have done? Stepped down, with class and dignity befitting a former first lady and US Senator.

You really believe that people come up to her and say the things she says? Come on, she's such a fabulist, who knows. And what about tha poor little boy who sold his bike? Why didn't this near billionaire reimburse him? She's in it because she can't stop. Dreams die hard.

"and what about the poor little boy who sold his bike?"

too bad we dont have his address...
we could send him money for a new bike.

do you get paid by the comment

Mara, you deluding yourself into believing 'a slap on the hand' is a sexist remark?

At some point, you're just a loon who thinks it's ALWAYS sexist to ever say anything bad about any individual woman. Last time I checked, the assertion that all women had to be saints was considered a fairly classic form of sexism.

News flash: Women can be bad people too. You could very easily say a man got his hand slapped too. Get the hell over it and stop making everything into an insult against all female-kind.

Well I'm not a lunatic with no class so I'd drop out when I knew that I lost.

I am not conviced that Hillary is hurting Obama by staying in. The electorate has shown that they are ignorant politics.

I am shocked at how many people think that Obama is muslem and the other crazy reasons for voting the way that they vote.

And, that is exactly what her Presidency would have been like. Most Presidents are in office at least 2 years before the Bubble descends. Hillary would have brought her own Bubble, to 1600 PA Ave.

I don't know any person with a university degree who agrees with the propaganda that Hillary won the popular vote, or, that any modern, western society would treat the Michigan result as anything other than a failed poll--thus making it wholly irrational to count MI votes only for Hillary, let alone anyone.

I mean a university education should count for something, should it not?

Im sure your description about being inside the bunker is most likely fairly accurate. Unfortunately it also shows the force of willful delusion.

Maybe its not willful delusion however, perhaps she really cant see outside the walls of encouragement they've built up around her. Which makes choosing another candidate even more important.

If shes really so daft that she cant divine that shed lost this race weeks if not monthes ago she isn't the political goddess she was made out to be. Its critical that we not have another self-involved president surrounded with nothing but yes-men like mclellan.

To have that for the Right or the Left would be just as wrong.

Well Carolyn since matriculation is highly correlated with family income (degree completion even more so) a college degree most likely signifies the recipient came from a wealthier than average home. Statistically speaking your degree is a tribute to your parents income. I am sure they are proud of all their hard work.

Since these studies are readily available I am a bit concerned about the quality of the education you received. I blame the significant reduction in state support for their universities and the increasing enrollments brought about by the echo boom.

"Get the hell over it and stop making everything into an insult against all female-kind."

Nope. The good thing about this campaign is that it has brought light to the sexist ways in which we insult one another.

Clinton's exit from the race doesn't turn that light. Get used to it.

I hope to God, now that Hillary is going to concede on Saturday, that both supporters can come together and realize that the MOST important thing in November is BEATING JOHN McCAIN. Any more dwelling on the past is unnecessary. The past few months of comment posts on this blog and others have been almost unbearable. I hope we can all realize that our common goal of getting a Democrat in the White House is best served through unity.

Clinton supporters, remember the most important thing:

Democratic control of the White House will give us the appointment power over the entire Executive branch, the federal courts, and the regulatory agencies.

Who do you think is going to appoint more women (and progressive women) to these essential jobs? We know who McCain will appoint - the same old frat boy Republicans.

Let's get behind our candidate and win!

mara - a constant willingness to seek out insult in every comment is a destructive reflex, not a healthy one. It makes enemies out of allies and associates feminism with a host of unpleasant Puritanical overtones.

PC was a total disaster for liberals. Some of us were around long enough ago to appreciate just how much harm the "thought police" cadre did. The popularity of Reagan among young people didn't spring out of a vacuum; it was fueled by humorless twits quick to accuse people of various isms triggered by the least charitable possible interpretation of their words. A lot of folks decided that there were conservatives if this was required for being a liberal. The only community that never got the memo, like a remote New Guinea tribe, was a subset of academic feminists. And the current season has demonstrated that the golden oldies haven't improved with age.

Though I do wonder, as a middle-aged woman, just why the default assumption is that Hillary needs to be handled carefully, lest she and her supporters wilt and die like rare orchids. That very assumption seems a textbook example of misogyny to me -- I would be insulted if someone told me "Oh, we didn't hire you for that job, but we didn't want to tell you right away, because we knew you'd need time to emotionally adjust, being a female and all." She didn't win, even after flouting the rules re: Michigan and Florida and going "kitchen sink." Is she really so special, so vulnerable, that her emotional needs should take precedence over uniting the party and taking back the government?

Thank you for saying this. Not only is it sexist, it contradicts everything Clinton and her supporters have been maintaining-- she's tough! she can take a hit!

Maturity is not a male concept. Class is not a male concept. Accepting reality is not a male concept.

McAuliffe was seriously disturbing on the Daily Show. If he weren't being paid to spin for her, I'd think he was mentally ill.

White lace and promises. Wow, Marc, you're gonna be fun!

I very well remember those faboo times of yesteryear of Reagan and the young folks over which you wax nostalgic. They were my classmates in a traditional Catholic college (where I'd no clue of feminism, trust me), and they were amoral idiots, mostly accounting majors obsessed with getting rich and having "real" jobs. The term, "Thought Police," did not start on the left (methinks, by your embrace of it you were a Reaganite, no? helping to defeat Mondale in 84?)

PC-bashing, then and now, is the bashing of decent values, of treating everyone fairly. Let's not pretend there was a dearth of PC-speak in this campaign regarding racism either. That double-standard will no longer stand.

To say that Clinton got a slap on the wrist is to diminish her to the level of a child. That crap has got to and will be called out.
What woul the "charitable" interpretation of "slap on the wrist" be? Thanks.

If you're not a feminist, you're not a progressive.

Mara, you don't actually get to decide when people are and are not feminist. Can you explain to us all what actually makes 'slap on the wrist' sexist? What gender bias's does it reinforce? In what way does it invoke traditional gender-tropes? How does it advance patriarchy? What coded terms does it contain?

You NEVER bother to explain why you think something is sexist. You just declare that it is, and refuse to make an argument supporting your declarations.

'Sexism' isn't just saying something bad about a woman, it's about doing so in a gender-coded way. It's making an argument about someone's supposed 'feminine' qualities or lack thereof. It is NOT using a general phrase for 'This person has been bad and should be punished'. If a statement can easily be made about a man, and is not an attempt to 'feminize' him, it is not sexist.

"The good thing about this campaign is that it has brought light to the sexist ways in which we insult one another.

Clinton's exit from the race doesn't turn that light. Get used to it."

There are posters more provocative and annoying than mara, but none more tiresome.

uh, as I spelled out in the post above yours (?), Soullite, I was talking about the language used, and in fact, how it denigrates women in general not just Hillary Clinton. In this case, "and she got her hand slapped" his problematic for a couple of reasons, the main one being that Clinton was due for some punishment (but she got off easy, goes the logic) for having the nerve to remain in the race. No one said the same of Kennedy or Jackson. Why the need to punish this candidate for doing what others have done before her with much less?

Also, "slap?"
"This just in. James Carville slapped Bill Richardson's hand today." Yeah. Not going to happen.

If you look closely, Soullite, none of my comments here were even anti-Obama, just anti-sexism. Your problem is that you can't admit that Clinton was a target of sexism this campaign because you want to believe this election was won on a fair playing field.

My points above were merely that discussions of sexism aren't going away because they inconvenience you or others who refuse to listen and or learn. I can vote for Obama in the fall and still maintain that position. From what I know, and like, of Obama, he'd more than allow that; he'd encourage it.

Have another brew, man.

"Have another brew, man."

Have another heaping helping of aggrievement, mara. Sounds like you enjoy it alot more than I like beer.

Nahh, brewman. I'm cheerfully content in my new vocation here.

You're the Mr. Crankypants.