Many in the Obama camp, having outfoxed the apparently not-so-formidable Clinton machine, can't seem to get the hang of winning gracefully. They feel a need to drive a stake in Hillary Clinton's reputation, then dance. If they were smart, they'd heap praise on Clinton and let her finish out the race, however she chooses to do so.
That's sage advice, even though offered by Republican mastermind-turned-pundit Karl Rove. Treat Clinton shabbily, he says, and many of her supporters "will remember it by November."
Nonetheless, Obamacans are throwing victory parties over the impending defeat of a fellow Democrat who has thus far pulled in over 47 percent of their party's primary and caucus participants. Some take a more direct approach. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers holding signs for Clinton.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, unable to contain himself, administered one last kick to Clinton's dignity by opining that the New York senator lacks the "real leadership" needed for the job of vice president. He said that Obama should pick someone who is "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people."
So much for the nobility of aspirations held by his own state's Democratic primary voters, who preferred Clinton over Obama by 15 percentage points. Next door in Rhode Island, Rep. Patrick Kennedy dittoes Dad as an unwavering super-delegate for Obama — this despite Clinton's 18-point win in that state's primary. It's as if the voters are invisible.
Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Last week's enemy was working-class white people. The Democrats can win without a majority of white voters — as Obama strategists undiplomatically note — but they can't win without a strong showing among them.
So Obama partisans do not help their cause by willfully misrepresenting Clinton's reference to "hard-working Americans, white Americans" as racist rather than as a poorly worded observation made in a state of utter exhaustion.
The fervor of their outrage suggests that some regard the mere consideration of white people, particularly white men, as a demographic needing a special message is an act of bigotry. (That's as opposed to a thousand other racial and socio-economic groups that politicos routinely slice and dice.)
We now hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public.
Weirdly, Obamacan triumphalism seems to be merging with the festivities on the Republican side. You can understand why the right would welcome what it prays is "the end of the Clinton era." Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign?
By the way, Clinton's continued sparring with Obama does not hurt the Illinois senator's chances in November. It only crowds out Republican efforts along that line. Believe me, you'd rather have the Clinton version.
Obama can't beat John McCain without large chunks of Clinton's core constituency: women, Hispanics and the white working class. Dumping on their candidate is one step removed from dumping on them — and some of the Obama people don't even bother with that step. Rove must be enjoying the show.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
You must be living in some alternate universe where up is down, where red is green, etc. For the level of vitriol coming from Obama supporters pales in comparison to what the American people have witnessed throughout this primary season from the Clinton camp. If Obama had reciprocated what Clinton has been flinging at him, he would be generally demonized as ungentlemanly, and he would never have overtaken her in every legitimate measure to date, including, ahem, superdelegates. Whatever scorn Clinton is receiving these days, she brings upon herself by ignoring the will of the majority, sinking to racial pandering, and mismanaging her campaign (-$20M!!). How wonderful it would be to have someone in the Oval Office who's ready to obliterate Iran, run the economy further into the ground, and criminalize self-payers in the healthcare system. No thanks. You baby boomers have blown it, and it's time for some new, fresh leadership with global perspective. Clearly, the majority of Democrats in Rhode Island and Massachusetts to whom you pander have successfully brainwashed you into thinking that a mixed race president is just "too risky." I lived in Boston for nine years, and I know how a large portion of Democrats think. By-and=large, eastern MA and RI are provincial, fear-oriented, overly defensive populations, and they just can't seem to fathom a person of color in a position of national power-- I hear them now: Governer? maybe. President? No way!
Comment: #1
Posted by: wsholar
Tue May 13, 2008 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Ms. Harrop,
With all due respect, your unwavering support for Hillary Clinton is wearing very thin.
Senator Obama has pulled off a jaw-dropping upset and we're all being forced to confront that the Empress has no clothes on and didn't really have any on to begin with. She's a weak candidate with absolutely 0% charisma and 100% of her husband's baggage. Perhaps we here in the Democratic base (remember us?) are no longer willing to settle for a milquetoast centrist with nothing resembling personality or passion.
Many women I know have said quite prominently and openly: "It's time for a woman to be President, but not this woman."
I find that Clinton supporters are not nearly as energized as Obama supporters and for good reason. Clinton is not an inspiring figure. She is wooden on the stump and appears coldly calculating in every move she makes. I trust Obama. I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Period. I am not alone in that sentiment. She's merely the continuation of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Michael Dukakis. All three of which, I probably don't need to remind you, lost in the general election. Quite simply, we're tired of losing to the GOP. Can you blame us, really?
When a woman candidate runs for President who people can trust, then I and many other people will vote for her.
You can't deny that racism is an impact on this election cycle. You are calling for restraint when your candidate has done nothing but play the gender card to her own advantage. That's rather hypocritical of you, ma'am.
We love to dance around the issue and not call it out, 'cause God forbid we ever hit a problem head on and deal with it. That would just be too easy, wouldn't it? It's time for an honest discussion and forum on race AND gender. I openly encourage that.
You sound as much like a sore loser as she does, Ms. Harrop. Perhaps you're being forced to eat your own sour grapes?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Comrade Kevin
Tue May 13, 2008 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
An old sage once said: ‘Don't take unkind words personally. They are not because of you. They are because of the one who utters them.' Kennedy's remark regarding Hillary's leadership may be about himself. Obama is far behind McCain in the swing states of which 2 out of 3 are needed for victory. While his supporters are celebrating, McCain seems to be polishing his dancing shoes for the ball.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Rita Watson
Tue May 13, 2008 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Harrop's article points up the fact that the Obama camp aren't too bright despite their vaunted "education." In that regard, neither Ted Kennedy nor college students are noted for having good judgment.
As to Clinton supporters, of which I am one, we've long since become accustomed to the crassness and ignorance exhibited by Obama supporters and much of the media, and we give it the attention it deserves. We know Clinton's the best-qualified candidate, and we trust her and are confident that the DNC and the party can accept that she's the candidate best able to win in the general election, and that they'll then act accordingly, including seating Florida and Michigan delegates, etc.
If, lemming-like, they choose a nominee who probably cannot win and lacks the experience and judgment needed for the job and responsibilities of leading our country wisely, we wouldn't vote for that nominee because he isn't qualified and could lead us to disaster. Our decision isn't based on race or gender but on a judicious assessment of qualifications, history, basic philosophy, inexperience, associations, and demonstrated immaturity.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Patrick Knif
Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|