As the polls closed last night in South Dakota, where she garnered her final 2008 presidential primary victory, Hillary Clinton spoke to supporters in New York. (video; text)
Thank you, and thanks so much to South Dakota. You had the last word in this primary season, and it was worth the wait.
I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run.
Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved. And our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So we are grateful.
And it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And, tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished.
By suggesting that South Dakota had the “last word” in the primary season, she ignored Montana, where the polls had yet to close and where she did not win. And, by congratulating Barack Obama and his supporters on the race, their inspiration of new voters and their undefined accomplishments, she ignored their signal accomplishment: victory in the race. It seems unfortunate to me that she didn’t take the final step. Even if she is as yet unwilling to release her delegates, a bit of graciousness in defeat (see Al Gore, 2000) would have gone a long way toward starting the process of uniting the Democratic party for the general election campaign. And it would have cost her nothing.
I have ambivalent feelings about Senator Clinton. Although I supported Barack Obama even before the campaign began in 2007, I started out with considerable respect for her, based more on her performance in the Senate than on her previous resume. I retain some respect for her, and choose (probably naively) to believe that she is “better” than her campaign has made it seem. Further, my mother is strongly in favor of her candidacy and I empathize with Hillary’s more avid supporters, even though I can’t empathize at all with the antipathy many of them hold for Obama.
In an ideal world, Senator Obama should have a day or two to revel in his campaign’s accomplishment; he has, after all, come from outside of the boundaries of the national political scene to become the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate after a grueling 15-month campaign. But the world is not ideal, and it appears to me that there are at least as many headlines referencing Clinton as there are concerning Obama. From Matthew Yglesias to John Cole at Balloon Juice to Michael Tomasky in the Guardian in England, much of the reaction in the blogosphere to her non-concession has been negative. And these folks aren’t nearly as vituperative as many.
This morning, both Clinton and Obama spoke at AIPAC. Watching her on MSNBC I noted her saying, “I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.” Certainly this was gracious and appropriate. But although she spoke directly after Obama, she passed by another opportunity to address or refer to him as the “presumptive nominee” or the “future President.”
I understand that her supporters are upset; I’ve experienced that many times over the years, as my preferred candidates have usually been defeated. I understand why Obama is treating her with kid gloves; he loses nothing by waiting a few more days, whereas he risks much by provoking her supporters. I even understand why other politicians and party regulars appear to be afraid of her; although her power within the party may be reduced, no one believes the Clintons are politically toothless. And after all, they do want her supporters to vote for them and for the party. But I do not understand why the national media continues to feature storylines like, “Give her space,” “She’s earned consideration,” “Be gracious to her,” “Let her leave the race on her own terms.”
It’s over. The primaries are finished and enough superdelegates have spoken. Sure, a comet could obliterate part of the country next month and the situation might therefore change. That could be said about any presidential campaign between the time the candidate wins the title “presumptive nominee” and the convention. But I do not recall any losing candidate being given (or having earned) “space.” Yes, occasionally a losing candidate can extract some terms from the winner, and that may be the case here. But treating Clinton as if she requires more space, grace and consideration than anyone else whose been disappointed in their ambitions (say, Mike Huckabee, for example, who the press freely ridiculed for not dropping out when the math became implausible) seems as if they’re “pampering” someone too sensitive for reality. It seems sexist to me, frankly. (Someone said recently that sexism is in the eye of the beholder…) I suppose my love-hate relationship with the media will continue unresolved. sigh…..
In any case, I wish Hillary Clinton well. I also fervently hope that she concedes within the next day or two, and that she energetically and sincerely works for Obama’s election this fall. I believe that it is in her self-interest for her to do so, as well as the interests of women, of Obama and of the Democratic party.
