GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Will the Clintons Sink Obama?

by

. . . or maybe it’s the way Obama treated the Clintons which prevents him from rising.

As the Democrats gather in Denver, their presumptive nominee has missed the chance to turn the quadrennial partisan shindig into an event focused on his election.  Instead he has let it become a forum showcasing his party’s divisions, largely because he failed to find an an appropriate means to handle his most tenacious rival from the primary contest and her husband, the only Democrat reelected president since World War II.

When a party controls the White House and the incumbent is not up for reelection, it cedes the first night of the convention (which would be tonight for the Democrats) to that incumbent.  The Democrats should have done the same thing with their party’s most recent Chief Executive.  And since his wife did so well in the primary contest, they could make the night about them, call it a “Tribute to the Clintons.”

To show how much Obama respects his predecessor (as party nominee) and his one-time rival, he would have his own wife serve as Master of Ceremonies for the evening.

After tonight, the convention would then be all about him.  But, instead of concentrating the Clintons one one night, the Democrats are spreading them over three, creating anxiety within his camp:

Many supporters of Mr Obama express private anguish over the prominent role he has conceded to the former president and first lady on three out of the four days of the convention this week.

Hillary speaks Tuesday night, Bill Wednesday.

Maybe Obama could have avoided this had he treated the former First Lady better (via Instapundit) as he went about selecting his Vice-Presidential nominee, perhaps making the motions of considering her–or at least consulting her (and her husband) about whom he could consider.

You don’t dismiss the candidate who came within a whisker of defeating you for your party’s nod, especially when her husband is the most successful politician in your party since FDR.

It’s not just his own arrogance which is sidelining the presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s also the Clintons’ egos.

And then there’s the issue of placing Hillary’s name in nomination Wednesday night.  While she contends she has “an obligation to the people who sent them” to Denver, she could show some class and say such a vote might rain on the parade of her party’s nominee.

This may upset her supporters, but would serve her well for ’12 should (as now appears increasingly likely) Obama lose this fall.  She doesn’t want it to appear she was responsible for division which ensured his defeat.  Her intransigence this week could only serve to harden the opposition of those Democrats who already dislike and/or distrust her to her second bid for their party’s nomination.

Maybe let the roll-call vote proceed to please her diehard supporters, but at  least have her instruct her remaining delegates to vote for Obama.  But, she’s refusing to do even that!

That said, George Stephanopoulos reports that there is some hope for her party as “speculation swirls in Denver that Clinton advisors may be willing to accept no roll-call vote, fearing the blame of disrupting the party’s efforts at unity” (h/t Mitchell Blatt via e-mail).

If Hillary wants her party’s rank-and-file to take her seriously for ’12, she can’t be seen a spoilsport who is not doing what she can to rally her supporters behind the man who bested her in the contest for the Democratic nomination. There are so many signs that her partisans are cool towards (or outright opposed to) their party’s nominee:

No wonder the Republican National Committee (RNC) is running ads targeting the Clinton-Obama rift. By the time of this convention, the presumptive Democratic nominee should have united his party behind him.

It’s clear he has failed to do so primarily because of way he treated his chief rival for the party’s nomination. To be sure, she is not an easy woman to handle. She’s made things more difficult for him than a more gracious loser might. But, he’s the nominee. And he should have faced the challenge posed by the tenacious wife of a former president.

His failure as the presumptive Democratic nominee to diffuse this intra-partisan squabble doesn’t bode well for his ability as President of the United States to handle international crises.

UPDATE: Byron York reports one means of handling the roll-call vote which could make Hillary look good:

One scenario being kicked around would have the roll call continue until it reaches New York. At that point, the leader of the delegation ”some speculate it could be Hillary Clinton herself” would move that the vote be dispensed with and that Obama be declared the nominee by acclamation. If Clinton does it herself, it would be viewed as a big gesture, and undo a little of the damage.

UP-UPDATE: Many Clinton backers reluctant to switch.

Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton rift persists

Comments

  1. a “Tribute to the Clintons”… [with Michelle Obama] as Master of Ceremonies for the evening.

    Just watching them grimace as they all try to “keep countenance” (in the old British phrase) would be worth it.

  4. The good ship Obamapop is held together by a hold full of magnetic ping pong balls. The Clintons can rock it or torpedo it, but the raft will float on. Captain Barack will stand steady at the helm, taking readings from the teleprompter, while wondering where the rudder went.

  5. P.S. I don’t think the Clintons will sink Obama. I think Obama will sink Obama. As Ed Morrissey puts it:

    Barack Obama has no executive experience, no military experience, no private-sector leadership experience, and three undistinguished years in the US Senate. His attempt to run as a reformer got derailed the moment Obama became the first candidate since Watergate to refuse the public-financing system… and… when he added Joe Biden, a DC insider for 35 years, as his running mate. Without his crusade of reform and change, Obama has no qualifications for the job he seeks, and his reaction to the Russo-Georgia war shows how unprepared he is…

    Plus, I would add, he has the most left-wing voting record and the most spectacularly awful judgment in friends of any Presidential candidate in my lifetime.

    But of course, if (or when?) Obama loses, it will be blamed – indeed, it is already being blamed – on the alleged “racism” of the American electorate, rather than the candidate’s extreme weakness.

  6. Obama is more left wing then John Kerry…and if and hopefully that \”if\” becomes a \”when\” Obama loses watch the MSM types blame it on racism rather then Obama being extremely liberal (I would argue down right Marxist and leftist of leftist Socialist), having no experience, trying to win on two phrases (\”Yes we can\” and \”Change you can believe in\”) which Americans will hopefully say \”no you can\’t\” and your change will leave us looking far worse then the Carter years. I may not agree with John McCain on some things but I do agree with him on a sound fiscal budget, cut spending, a strong national defense, strong national security, win in Iraq and Afghanistan, energy independence (except I still do not understand why he is against drilling in Anwhar which we all know can be done safely) and a strict constructionist Supreme Court. I hope he chooses Romney or if he thinks he can gain a large women vote then a Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is extremely capable, as his VP. My guess is he will choose Romney, which makes the most sense given Romney’s executive experience and knowledge of the economy. Romney, since his CPAC speech, has proven to be an excellent campaigner and will do well in the VP debate against Sen. Biden

  7. #6 – Right on, Rocket. Read my comments below to TGC as to why McCain won’t pick KBH – not because she’s a bad politician (she’s my US senator), but because of ticket-balancing and identity politics.

    I also think Romney is the way to go.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  8. Romney? There’s good reason that people didn’t vote for him in the primaries, and those same reason apply to the general election. And many Republicans just won’t vote for Romney, period.

    Better Sen. McCain pick someone who wasn’t through the primary scrum…someone who doesn’t have sound-bites “against” McCain to be used against the 2008-ticket. I’m still touting Pawlenty of Minnesota.

    As for the Dhimmicratic Convention, I’s so-far underwelmed. The high-point was Sen. Kennedy, but the apparent disorganization and lack of any coherent message or image going out in the TV feeds was damning….and just poor showmanship. **Yawn** They’re going to throw it all away……

  9. The problem for Obama is bigger than the Clintons, but Hillary has come to represent more than her own ambitions. With this primary, the democratic guard has fully changed from what began in 2006 and there is a reaction from the democratic voters about it. The Clintons have been apart of the party for over 30 years and have created the last great fortunes for the party. I think most of the reluctance to vote for Obama by these voters is because of his own lack of experience and unknown quaility but also a reluctance to vote in this new coalition. Why would the party of FDR, the party that used to serve the interest of the common man want to now become the party of Daily Kos and increasing liberal fringe.

    Hillary can only do so much to win over these people for Obama, he has to prove himself to them and the rest of the country. I am getting annoyed with all of this Hillary has to do this, has to do that…Obama is the nominee and it is his job to get people to vote for him.

  12. Funny how psuedo-conservatives only believe in freedom of speech when it’s one of their scumbag attack ads that are being questioned.

    [Please provide one example (with links) of mainstream conservatives, particularly these bloggers and our supporters in the comments section who have called for limiting the speech of liberals. Thanks –Dan]

  14. Ted B…why do you say many GOP voters won’t for McCain if Romney is his first choice? .If what you say is true, then how do explain opinion poll results that state that Romney was ranked the first choice for VP amongst Republicans?

    Romney may not have won the primaries, but if you read my post you would have seen that I indicated since his CPAC speech, Romney has done an excellent job campaigning for McCain.

    If we go by your logic, then Reagan wouldn’t have chosen Bush, which helped convince a lot of voters to vote for Reagan.

    I also mentioned that Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be a great VP choice. Pawlenty is a nice guy but not much “there” there and he won’t win his own state whereas Romney would work hard to bring in Michigan into the GOP column and work hard out West where he can help and help raise money for McCain, which he will need and lend substantial credibility on economic issues….and not be afraid to be the attack dog he will need to be compared to Pawlenty who is too nice a guy and appears too inexperienced to me.

  16. For the record: I am neither a pseudo-conservative nor a real conservative. I have never, ever, at any time, claimed to be a conservative; nor a Republican for that matter. Over and over, I have said on this blog (and it is the truth) that I am a social moderate-liberal, a former longtime Democrat and currently a registered Independent.

    Now, what I came to say. Here is another example of liberals seriously attempting to shut down the First Amendent: A mob of barking-hateful moonbats surrounds Michelle Malkin and some call for her execution. The fun starts about 2:30 into the video. Must be seen.

  17. It seems the Clintons may be the least of Obamas problems. He picks a VP, he has 25% of his convention completed, his wife speaks of what a nice guy he is, Michelle “really really” likes America. And his polls go DOWN! It is possible Hills and Bill knew more about BHO than anyone. They seem to be positioning themselves even to the last, to be there if the delegates come running. Now they announce the actual roll call might be from the HOTELS? Talk about scared, talk about a weak candidate. What would the media be saying if this was a Republican convention? I’ve said it before, BHO has no story, no accomplishments to point to. After blather about change, hope and yes we can….now what? Michelle was trying to bring delegates and the media to tears….her most touching story….”Barack drove me and the new baby home from the hospital. ” That’s it? The husband drove you home. He was concerned. WOW I’m blown away. How touching.
    POOF they’re gone. There was nothing there to start with.

  19. Sort of blogging the tape as I watch… They seem extremely concerned to accuse MM of “treason” and being a “bad American”. As if that will make them into good Americans by magic transference, I suppose.

  22. BHO didn’t exercise judgment either when he drove his newborn and wife home at 5 miles per hour on a busy highway in Chicago….which could have gotten them all in a caraccident or worse…so even that example shows the kind of judgment BHO has (stupid and worse then that…down right dangerous!) Heaven help us if he is Commander in Chief and literally the Good Lord will have to for us to survive the judgment of BHO and the messes he will get us in if he is POTUS.

  23. BTW, what are the Messiah’s initials?

    BO == Body odor; coded racism
    BHO == Reminding people about “Hussein”, i.e., coded racism

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. But that’s how these phony “coded racism” games are meant to work.

  24. But of course, if (or when?) Obama loses, it will be blamed – indeed, it is already being blamed – on the alleged “racism” of the American electorate, rather than the candidate’s extreme weakness.

    On that note, then Obama is turning formerly non-racist people into racists because according to the polls, people who were formerly supporting him are now supporting McCain since McCain now leads.

    For the record: I am neither a pseudo-conservative nor a real conservative. I have never, ever, at any time, claimed to be a conservative…I have said on this blog (and it is the truth) that I am a social moderate-liberal

    Liberal? I thought you were a libertarian. Hmm. we need to work on that.

  25. #12: “Funny how psuedo-conservatives only believe in freedom of speech when it’s one of their scumbag attack ads that are being questioned.”

    Has anyone else noticed how Dave loves to use the term “pseudo” with “conservative” and always manages to work it in somewhere as he condemns and criticizes these so-called “pseudo-conservatives?” Am I wrong, or doesn’t this just prove that Dave doesn’t know what the word means? “Pseudo” means inauthentic or fake, as in, “I wish that pseudo-conservative McCain wasn’t our nominee because he has supported amnesty for illegals.” It just means a person or thing that isn’t quite what they claim to be. But the way Dave uses it sounds as if he’s criticizing people because they are not conservative enough. Like the sentence above—sounds like he’s lamenting that only REAL conservatives believe in free speech (unlike those horrible “pseudo-conservatives”).

    Dave, do you even know what “pseudo” means? I don’t think you do.

  27. Well, we know one thing, he can’t spell “pseudo”.

    Perhaps Dave is trying to follow Andrew Sullivan’s example. Queen Andi’s offiicial party line is that, as a staunch supporter of extreme liberal Democrats like Obama and (in 2004) Kerry, she alone is ‘the real conservative’ in American politics today.

  28. I guess in what’s left of Sullivan’s mind, being a conservative means being rhetorically in favor of winning the war against Islamic fascism, being rhetorically imposed to massive government spending, environmental extremism, and government-imposed political correctness… but being willing to throw all that under the bus in exchange for a marriage license.

    Frankly, I don’t know if he even rhetorically opposes statism and left-wing extremism any more.

  31. I don’t completely disagree with the point michael may be ineptly attempting to make. If the Democrats had nominated a competent moderate-centrist instead of a gaffe-prone, hardcore leftist with terrorist associations and delusions of grandeur, McCain would be toast in this election.

    McCain is largely irrelevant. This election is a referendum on whether or not people want Barack Obama to be president.

  33. If the Democrats had nominated a competent moderate-centrist instead of a gaffe-prone, hardcore leftist with terrorist associations and delusions of grandeur, McCain would be toast in this election.

    Agreed.

    But fortunately, the Democrat Party long ago threw out competence in the name of identity politics, and moderate-centrism in the name of pandering to socialist and Marxist groups. Indeed, the blood purge of those remaining Democrat heretics by the gay and lesbian Obama supporters has already begun.