A Peaceful Convention
I know Hillary Clinton. She is a friend of mine. I have always respected her — and never more than during the closing days of this campaign, when she displayed a level of grit and determination I have rarely seen in any politician, male or female, Democrat or Republican.
Hillary is many things: smart, strong-willed, disciplined, determined and, yes, ambitious. She wanted to be president; I assume she still does. It's not the sort of ambition that, once you admit to it, get close to it, get a taste of it, is easy to give up.
But one thing she is not: a convention wrecker. She is not going to wreak havoc at Barack Obama's convention. She is not going to turn it into a last-ditch fight for a prize she has already conceded. She is not going to use it as an occasion to challenge Obama's nomination.
Pollyanna I'm not. There are many who would like to see such a fight, especially in light of Obama's failure to open up the commanding lead that many people, both supporters and opponents, as well as media types, thought he would have by now. It would be good for ratings, if nothing else, to see some kind of brawl at the convention. There are many Clinton supporters who would relish such a fight, particularly given what they view as the Obama camp's decided lack of enthusiasm in helping Hillary pay off the debts she owes not to herself and not to her former campaign strategist Mark Penn, but to small vendors across the country whose votes the Obama campaign has every reason to want.
I know many Clinton supporters — delegates, organizers, old friends — who thought the Obama campaign would have reached out to them by now, brought them in, made them feel welcome and wanted, but it hasn't happened. I get plenty of e-mails on this topic. I don't have any answers. The Obama campaign did an event in Washington with 50 top Hillary insiders. Apparently, it went well. But there are plenty of folks outside the Beltway who didn't hold top jobs in the campaign but are key players in their own states, and their phones haven't rung.
Asked on his campaign plane about the Clinton supporters who haven't signed on with Obama, who are still voicing disappointment about how things turned out, Obama responded: "We're not talking to those people, we're talking directly to the Clinton campaign people and staff."
They need to talk to those people. They need their help to win. Many of them are not happy right now.
But they are not going to ruin Obama's convention. They are not looking to walk out. They do not want to make John McCain president. The last thing they want is to be blamed or to have Hillary blamed for Obama's defeat. That would be a disaster all around.
When asked whether placing Hillary's name in nomination and having a roll call vote, which he would then win but (maybe) only narrowly, would be "cathartic" for the party, Obama rightly told reporters "catharsis" is not the purpose of a convention. "I don't think we're looking for catharsis. I think what we're looking for is energy and excitement."
Hillary Clinton ran a historic campaign for president. Obama's was historic, too. Recognizing the historic nature of her effort does not detract from the historic nature of his. This is not a zero-sum game. Or at least it shouldn't be.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
12 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
I'm one of those older voters with a college degree who strongly supported Hillary Clinton. I have been a Demacrat my entire life, but will not vote for Obama in the fall. If he and his supporters had seemed gracious to Hillary after the election, I migt have felt differently. I still cannot fathom why they are so hell bent on making Bill Clinton out to be the bad guy. As I see it, most of the people in Obama's campaign got their start in the Clinton administration. I have been TRULY proud of James Carville. He has not been a Judas as have many of former Clinton supporters. The Washngton bunch such as Kerry, Kennedy and others knew they couldn't control Hillary whereas they have made Obama so obligated to them, he cannot say no. I don't think Obama is a muslim, but I also do not think he could have sat in a church pew for so many years and listened to HATE spewed and not have been influenced by the message. As I see it, we have no choice but to elect a Republican in the fall. I NEVER thought I would even think that, much less say it publically.
Comment: #1
Posted by: ann
Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:45 AM
|
|
|
|
I voted for Hillary Clinton as a senator, but I would never vote for her again. Her lies, her racist pandering and her essential lack of character are traits I can't support in anyone. I fully expect her and her husband to try to spoil the convention, and I expect all of her diehard supporters to revel in that. Why? Because they'd rather the country and the world suffer under another vile regime, then not get what they want. This is the essence of white privilege, and the fire in Hillary's belly-- outsized entitlement. It's no wonder the blacks and Hispanics (rightfully) turned against the Clintons. It's unconscionable and it's wrong. And Susan Estrich? I don't know where you've been, but the woman you described bears no resemblance to the Hillary Clinton this country came to know. Samantha Power was right about her. She is indeed a monster. I'm pretty certain that most of the country is tired of monsters.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Billie
Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Susan, Hillary is not finished with this campaign. Explain the leak of the memos and please do not insult my intelligence by saying the Clinton's had nothing to do with it. The Clinton's will stoop to new lows to get their way. She will not give up her fight for a position she has worked for and sacrificed for to a person who is in this election by default. The democrats never expected him to win this nomination and either did Hillary.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Kathaleen McCausland
Sat Aug 9, 2008 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Susan, if you were a long time friend of Hillary's why would you not want the same respect showed to her as in 1972, the Democratic presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm made history by having her 151.95 delegates entered into the convention record? Why would you not want her to have the same respect received by Kerry, Jackson, and even Howard Dean when their names were placed in nomination? Mrs. Clinton amassed more than 10 times that number. Her achievement deserves an official salute. It appears to me that Hillary cares more about the voices of her voters, super delegates, and the democratic process than you do.
Comment: #4
Posted by: tlatexaspuma
Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:33 AM
|
|
|
|
You're right. Hillary would not want to do anything to split the Democratic Party. However, Nobama has already done so. Despite Hillary's, Bill's, Chelsea's, Reid's, Dean', Pelosi's, Brazile's, and whoever else you choose to name, endorsements, the 2 million members of the Just Say No Deal coalition are NOT going to get in line and vote for him. Count on us trying to sink the Democratic Party because that is the only way it will be remade in the Democratic image . . . as it used to be. Country is more important than Party.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Lynn
Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Concerning all the slander about the Clintons that continues in some of the comments here, why would Hillary not want to take her rightful place in history with the largest primary popular vote and be recognized at the convention. Her opponents are ignorant of the process and tradition of nominations at past Democratic conventions. Let them wail and gnash their teeth in fear that their candidate will be upstaged by the real thing. The whole country is fed up with it.
Comment: #6
Posted by: bigcatlover
Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: ann so you are one of "THOSE PEOPLE". that Senator Obama stated, "I am not talking to them." I am a Hillary supporter too. THOSE PEOPLE=OBAMA DEFEAT IN NOV.
Comment: #7
Posted by: tlatexaspuma
Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Hillary is not a convention-wrecker. However, there's nothing, really, to prevent more delegates to vote for her rather than Obama. How would this be wrecking? It'd simply be a different, but really, just as valid, outcome to the process that is meant to be democratic, is it not?
Indeed, while there'd be a continuation of the never-ceasing slander on this great candidate, I believe that given such a miracle she'd bring a democratic victory in Novemeber. It's pretty clear that Obama is not going to do that.
So, I'll just ask again, what I've been saying since the whole concept of denying HRC the right to a ballot nomination, since the Obama supporting Democratic party has decided to deprive the American people of yet ONE MORE chance at an actually elected nominee...what's the probelm? If they're certain and convinced Obama's the king-to be...it really would behoove them to stop protesting for what is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE during the convention!
Comment: #8
Posted by: Kerri
Mon Aug 11, 2008 4:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Either Hillary has really bad friends or this is another piece of propaganda engineered by the Obama campaign. One thing I have learned in this primary is to not believe anything unless it comes from Hillary herself, and there is a video from last week where Hillary states she thinks it would be beneficial to have her name submitted for nomination. This is NOT Obmas convention. Since he does not have the delegates nec. to secure the nomination, the superdelegates will be deciding this election and they can not vote until the election. Without her name in nomination, it would be a coronation, not an election, and just one more case where the DNC and Obama have subverted democracy. Please see The Denver Group and learn the real facts, not more propaganda by "an ally or insider".
Comment: #9
Posted by: robin
Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:41 PM
|
|
|
|
I am to the point that I don't care if McCain wins the election. I am tired of Clinton supporters demanding that Obama and his supporters continue to genuflect before Hillary. What galls them is that their sense of entitlement was not manifested with victory. I said during the primary after some of the negative bile that spewed forth from the Clinton folks that I would never , ever vote for Hillary even if it meant losing the election to McCain. Let us agree to disagree. We hear how angry Clinton's supporters are , but do you really think that Obama's are listening to this constant denigration of him from Hillary's people and don't have just as much resentment towards them. Is the party divided, hell yes it is and at this point I don't care. I keep hearing about the " 18 million " as if it is alpha and omega of this election. Well there are a few of us who support Obama and we're just as capable of demonstrating and making our voices heard too. You Hillary supporters don't want to support Obama, that is your right, it is your vote. But when Billary runs again ( and they will ) memories are long and slights and disrespect ( as when one older white woman called Obama " an incompetent black man " or " He's not a Muslim ( wait for it ) As far as I know").
Obama shouldn't have to osculate Hillary's behind to get elected." Rather die on my feet ,than live on my knees"
Comment: #10
Posted by: Frank Utley
Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed Susan's column. It was nice for a change to read something positive about
Hillary. For those of us who supported her we get so tired of the bashing. You can't turn on the cable news net works that they are not still bashing her. When Bill Clinton left office this country was in better shape than its been in a long
time. Look whats happened after seven years of George Bush. Thats why I don't understand the bashing of Bill and Hillary. I also don't understand why the Black commentators keep bashing them every chance they get. She has not been treated fairly by the press or the Democrat Party. If these people want party unity they are sure going about it the wrong way. I sometimes wonder if this is not a republican trick, keep Obam'a supporters bashing the Clinton's every
chance you get so Hillary supporters won't vote in the fall. I think its working !
Comment: #11
Posted by: Mimi
Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Ms. Estrich's entitlement-drenched screed is wrong on so many levels, but I'll point out just a few:
1. "Obama's failure to open up the commanding lead." At this point in 1980, Ronald Reagan also had failed to open up a commanding lead on Jimmy Carter (a man for whom I twice voted and for whom I still harbor great admiration). As a result of massive economic woes and the Iran hostage crisis, Reagan won the election by a commanding margin.
2. "The Obama camp's decided lack of enthusiasm in helping Hillary pay off the debts." First, the Obama camp is busy trying to prepare for a huge-stakes election; forgive the members of the camp for not having Clinton's self-inflicted debt burden on their front burner. Second, Sen. Clinton squandered a quarter-of-a-billion dollars, then dipped into her and her husband's 100-plus million dollars in 2007 earnings to continue a lost-cause effort that was more character-assassination-on-steroids than political campaign. For this, the Obama camp should stay up nights worrying?
3. "Many Clinton supporters ... thought the Obama campaign would have reached out to them by now." Obama out-managed and out-organized Sen. Clinton in virtually every phase of the primary campaign. No doubt, the people he has on the ground are capable of running a winning campaign. More important, Clinton supporters who sulk, won't vote or will vote for McCain do so at their own peril, as did the Phil Donahue types who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 - since, obviously, there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush ... right?! Are Clinton supporters really prepared for the possibility of President McCain replacing two - and perhaps even three - of the "progressive" justices on the Supreme Court? It's high time Clinton supporters stopped feeling "disappointed" and followed the sage advice of the late Ann Landers: "Wake up and smell the coffee."
4. "Many of [Clinton's supporters] are not happy now." In case no one has noticed, neither are many of Obama's supporters. They're frustrated that, even after the Clinton campaign's lickspittle fight for "hard-working white Americans" and constant denigration of Obama, his gracious treatment of her during the final weeks of the campaign - when it was obvious she wasn't going to win - has been met only with *more* anger, bitterness and resentment. The Clinton campaign may turn out to be more "historic" than anyone could have imagined: After being subjected to primary-eve sobbing, obvious campaign mismanagement, lack of focus (Clinton "found her voice" at least three different times) and apparently unceasing whining from Clinton supporters, I fear American voters may not give another qualified woman an opportunity at the presidency for years to come.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Jesse Austin
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
