Thursday, June 12, 2008

Hillary Clinton and the GOP: Absorbing Loss

"A sign of wisdom is
learning how
to absorb your losses

without feeling defeated."

-Hoyt Wilhelm

The Permanent Concession of H.R.C.

I'm fed up to here with recriminations against Hillary Clinton's concession. Was it not quite the right tone? Was it two days too late? Two weeks late? Was it too much about her and not enough about the now non-presumptive Democratic nominee? Balderdash!

No one takes a loss harder than a political candidate, especially at the presidential level. Reference the testimony of McGovern and Mondale, for example: the sadness of what might have been lingers for decades. Not to mention candidates' guilt and remorse towards their supporters all those
hours of organizing, fund-raising, contributing, and pandering suddenly comes to nothing. At one pivotal moment - the fish-or-cut-bait moment - the candidate recognizes that the untold sacrifice of others, in terms of hours and dollars, is being flushed down her political toilet.

She feels responsible for the fate of her supporters. And, in turn, it is her supporters who, especially, have ill-prepared her for this moment. They have been her most sustaining advocates. They have been the wind beneath her wings. They have promised her that victory is just ahead, in the next round of primaries. The psychology of political campaigns and candidates requires this obeisance to optimism. Toujours l'audace! As the precipice approaches, her cadre knows, but none dare speak of it. The candidate -- having been protected and shielded by her surrogates for so long and from so much of the 'negatives'-- is the last to realize that the loss is hers to bear. Great is the fall from expecting first place to accepting last place.

Because there is no second place. Let's forgive her for hoping for that one, too. Serving as vice-president is, or was, Hillary's only remaining path to reach the White House. In four or eight more years she will be just one more prominent senator with a deal-breaking track record. There are many well-seasoned senators who might make good presidents, but they certainly don't make successful candidates. The carnage of defeated senatorial aspirants for the White House abounds.

So Hillary, as burnt toast, is busted and disgusted. She gets my sympathy, not out of need, but because she has earned it.

The Temporary Concession of the G.O.P.

The king-makers of the Republican Party have thrown in the towel. As the Party of Busheney, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Bernie Kerik, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Halliburton, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, (The litany goes on.) They are burnt (French) toast. The veteran party financiers see the writing on the wall and smell the smoke in the air. Contributions are limited because they want to keep their powder dry. Why else do you think Lieberman is taking so long to switch his party alignment? Because the stench and the slime of formally being Republican is too much, even for him. (He's biding his time for a year or two.)

As far as the GOP is concerned, all their primary was about was which stiff were they going to stand up to 'take one for the team'. And, as it turned out, it was to be the stiffest of the stiffs - John McCain. This guy is practically embalmed.

This year's nomination is very much in character with the party's choice in 1996. Bob Dole was not a credible candidate against a popular Bill Clinton. Like McCain today, Dole was just a decorated Grand Ol' Patriot whom the Grand Old Party could stand up and perform as a flag-bearer for its base. McCain, like Dole before him, is basically a flag pole. (Think of the Alamo.) When McCain, like Dole before him, manages to complete a sentence, he cannot remember how he started the sentence.

But there is an ominous quality to John McCain's deliberately inept candidacy. The inner circles of the GOP's power brokers and financiers are well aware that McCain wears a 'kick-me' sign on the seat of his pants. They approve of his candidacy because not only is he Bob Dole II, but because he can also be George Bush III. It's okay with these in-the-know insiders that McCain can't keep Shiia straight from the Sunnis or al-Qaeda separate from the Hezbolla. It's not a problem for them that this old bubble head talks about vetoing beer instead of bills. Whether he's full of Schlitz or Coors, it's immaterial for these oligarchs. McCain has accepted and internalized the hand dealt to him.
I'd rather lose an election than lose a war.
All they care about is that he goes down with guns blazing, chanting bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. As a standard bearer, the flag he's expected to carry is Busheney's coat-of-arms. That's one with the three III's:
Israel, Iraq, Iran
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
McCain is wearing a bullseye on his back. Why else would he still be pitching to 'the base' after he has clinched the nomination? The Party elders are confident McCain will give them all they ask: Johnny Mac will leave his mark as a defeated, always-faithful, stay-the-course, under-tax and over-spend kind of guy. Why?

Because if the Neo-Con pyramid can hold its place in the sand, unchanged for another 222 days, than the party symbolized by the elephant can return in four or eight short years and pick a reasonably younger, more articulate and charismatic candidate who can ask, "Who lost Iraq?" It will be the future version of a very old Republican template who lost China. It's a variation of the even older der Dolchstosslegende.

That's the whole point in this election year for Republicans. It's not to win it. It's to play it out. It's street theater. The clips from their cell phones will be collected and aggregated in a couple of years for the next cycle. These Republican PNAC types have the long term in mind.

That's the difference between The Hillary Clinton and John McCain campaigns: Hillary wanted the brass ring and expected to win it; Johnny Mac doesn't expect to win it and is just enjoying the ride.

What are the implications? In this immediate time frame, the most critically important judgment that a presidential nominee can make is exercising his choice of a running mate. Historically, this has most frequently shown a need to 'balance' the ticket. What I am saying, is that, going forward, Obama should ask himself who can best help him govern. If he chooses well, voters will find his ticket to be exquisitely in balance.

35 Moderated Comments:

Blogger Bob Keller said...

vigilante, This is a long, absorbing and interesting read. You were clearly on a roll when you wrote it!!

I'm disappointed in your assessment of John McCain, his motives, his abilities and his candidacy. I disagree substantially. But I will leave my in depth analysis of the two candidates to my blog where I will have the benefit of time and space to articulate properly.

But, rest assured, I greatly respect your opinion and will weigh all your comments and observations carefully.

I still believe it doesn't matter because Barack Obama will most certainly win the election!!

The key will be "How will he govern?" I have great hope that he will accomplish all you envision and your "progressive" agenda will become a reality.

6/12/2008 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

Vigilante, you haven't exactly built a house of cards with this scenario, but only because not all of the cards have been turned over. A couple of face cards, "The Media" and "The Press" have not yet been turned. Remember these two cards trumped Al 'Inventor of the Internet' Gore in 2000?

Those two cards are still in the deck. Gove Vidal mentions them in a discussion of the fate of Dennis Kucinich's 35 Articles of Impeachment:

Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment.

But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for a clear report of what has been going on in Congress. We all know how the self-described “war hero,” Mr. John McCain, likes to snigger at France, while the notion that he is a hero of any kind is what we should be sniggering at. It is only Le Monde, a French newspaper, that told the story the next day hardly touched by The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or, in fact, any other major American media outlet ....

And so on. An incompetent, pliable and subservient press is still with us, unreconstituted.

6/13/2008 05:36:00 AM  
Blogger Indicted Plagiarist said...

Obama's camp has created website to fight rumors embedded in the media by Faux News and other conservative ducts. The website,, will be used to draw notice to untruths about him, his background, religion, and family and prove them false. Obama's decision to counterattack reflects a determination not to be defined by political opponents, as past Democratic nominees have - in 2004 when Senator John F. Kerry was "swift boated" by critics who attacked his war record, and Al Gore was in 2000 as mentioned above.

6/13/2008 05:53:00 AM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...


Wow... finally someone saying what I was saying regarding all the flap about how and when she "suspended" her campaign.

I am so interested in your ideas about McCain. Do you really think he is just in it for the ride? If polls have McCain and Obama only 6-8 points apart, do you really think its in the bag for Obama?

I totally agree with you that he needs to pick who could help him govern best and I still argue that is Hillary Clinton. There are many others who could help him govern as well, but she should undoubtedly be on the list.

Thank you for the time and heart you spent on this post!

6/13/2008 08:18:00 AM  
Blogger Kentucky Rain said...

Well Vigil you outdid yourself with this one and I happen to agree with what you say with the possible exception of your claim that McBush is just along for the ride. I don't believe that for a minute. I think he is exhibiting as much passion as he can possibly muster. He wants to win, and sadly I do not believe Obama is a sure thing, as much as I want to believe that. America is filled with hate and there will be millions of people who will vote against interest simply because Obama is black. There is much work to be done by the democrats and I think Hillary on the ticket is the first step in the right direction.

6/13/2008 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...

Well said, Mike.

6/13/2008 04:18:00 PM  
Blogger J McKiernan said...


NICE. Pretty much right on target. Love what you say about Hillary's concession...I was so tired of hearing from virtually everyone, be it in the blogosphere, from die-hard Obamites, or even on MSNBC, that even as she was bringing her campaign to a close that she was doing it completely, utterly WRONG. Pissed me off.

As far as Obama's VP, I think picking Hillary could be a tremendous boost for him...but I sort of doubt he will do it. If he picks her, I think the election is a big a landslide as you already do. If he doesn't, I'm not sure it will matter...but he still needs to choose wisely. The vice presidential candidate needs to be smart and outspoken and willing to call McBush and the right-wing cronies on their bullshit. Hillary would do that...I think Wes Clark would do that, too, but he would have to be pulled from the Hillary camp. Not that he wouldn't vote for Obama now that Hillary has bowed out, but after spending several months campaigning against Obama, to suddenly jump on as his VP would surprise me...but if Hillary could jump on the Obama ticket, I suppose Wesley Clark certainly could.

People could say you are being too harsh on McCain, but I tend to agree with you. I have said before, and will take great pride in saying it again, that McCain is like Bob Dole version 2.0...the Older Model. The OLDEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY...already going can that even happen?!?!

I, like you, Wizard, and many others, am predicting an Obama victory...McCain seems like such a lame duck...and an even LAMER speaker and campaigner. He won't have the Rove machine to steal it for him like the even worse Dubya did. But I agree with Mike when he says it certainly isn't in the bag. A McCain victory will have nothing to do with will have everything to do with a few too many American voters voting on fear YET again...fear of "whimpy democrats," fear of "the war on terror," fear of Obama's "inexperience," and, finally, very sadly, and this time without any quotation marks, fear of black people. A lot of that is completely intangible and cannot be polled prior to the nationwide vote in November. A lot of voters who make last-minute decisions may vote McCain. That is what's scary...that, and disenfranchised Hillary voters either staying home or voting McCain because of the ridiculous notion that he is truly "centrist" and that he more closely resembles their "values." That is the biggest way in which Hillary would be a smart VP choice...

I find myself ranting on and on when I respond to your posts. I usually like my writing to flow nicely, but can't always seem to make all my thoughts gel on your site. You should take that as a compliment...

So, in absence of a formal conclusion to bring all my thoughts together, I will simply say well done on this post, Vig.

6/13/2008 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...

I love my husband and what he says here is almost entirely true, save one thing. This Obama and McCain race is not just "not in the bag," its far far from "in the bag."

No one should underestimate stupid people. Nor should they underestimate how the Repugnants will get ruthlessly vicious and tear poor, sweet Obama in two.

Its not a lock. It should be a lock. People should be really sick and tired of Republicans.

However, the sooner people stop acting like it is a lock and stop acting like McCain is just a "senile old man" the sooner we can look forward to November victory. We are a conservative nation sadly... and so many of us lap up whatever we are fed.

We need to play smart and I believe inviting Hillary aboard is way, way smart.

6/13/2008 05:00:00 PM  
Blogger Boris said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6/13/2008 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Boris said...

Hillary's only remaining path to the White House is to hold out her thumb to John McCain. He needs a truly vetted vice-president. She won't have to wait four years, betcha'. McCain won't make it out of his 1st term! People will call her Hillieberman, but that won't stop her, not when she smells that 'brass ring'. Besides McCain and Hill are already bosom friends. Yeah, it's not in the bag, folks! Not while Hillary and Bill are still in the game. If Joe can do it to Ned, you can bet Hill can do it to Barry. That's my not-to-rosy scenario.....

6/13/2008 05:44:00 PM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...


If you think she is so formidable... if you think she is so ruthlessly tenacious that she could go to McCain and win it for him... then why for fuck's sake would you not just realize Obama should choose her if he wants it "in the bag."

You haters cannot have it both ways. She is either brilliant (even if in your mind deviously so), tenacious, and indestructible or she is not. You cannot have it both ways.

If she is truly vetted, then why on earth would Obama not pick her? I am becoming increasingly torn as people continue to discount and hate on her. Do I want McCain, HELLLLLL no. I am about as liberal/progressive as they come (Kucinich is my political leaning match). But.... BUT, if Obama is willing to make such a critically monumental mistake... if he is willing to slap her and 18 million+ in the face...

Well, I cannot finish... I may regret it.

6/14/2008 07:11:00 AM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

This is your boozing heart speaking, Boris. When you sober up, you'll acknowledge the Republicans hate the Clintons even more than you do. And, in keeping with Vigil's scenario, they don't want to win this year enough to sleep with the enemy. All they can do, is revert to their negativity and run against Michelle Obama. I guess their hope is that they can provoke the Obama's to implode. This is the slimy crowd that's scratching around for a new Vince Foster myth. This is their only hope: candidate implosion.

6/14/2008 07:24:00 AM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

McKiernan, the way I see it is that the Obama-Clark ticket is a ticket-balancing overture toward the Clinton camp because the General is very definitely a Clinton insider. Always has been.

6/14/2008 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger Petrosexual said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6/14/2008 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger LTE said...

I've never said anything nice about Clinton before; nonetheless, she ran a hard race in a field dominated by men, not unlike the great filly Eight Belles, which pounded across the finish line in second place on, apparently, two broken ankles at this year's Kentucky Derby. Eight Belles went into the history books after being euthanized; Clinton is sharing a page of history but still standing and chomping at the bit. My hat's off to her.

But by not showing human grace and conceding defeat, Clinton further inflamed her die-hard supporters, continued to split the party while silently threatening Obama with unnamed, unsaid demands. That form of politics is so yesterday -- one among many reasons Obama upset the Clinton juggernaut.

Like Hillary, McKiernan, seems like a sore loser.

6/14/2008 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger Boris said...

A 'slap in the face for 18 million +' ?

Come on!

6/14/2008 08:16:00 AM  
Blogger Utah Savage said...

This is a great piece Vig.

6/14/2008 08:31:00 AM  
Blogger Yellow Dog said...

As some one who voted for Hillary and has backed her in web discussions, I have to say McKiernan's "slap in 18,000,000 faces" is a little overbearing, over-stated and over-the-top. It's a very presumptive statement. Does he/she presume to speak for these 18 millions?

Secondly, I do see the wisdom put forth in this column: the election we have to worry about is the 2012 election, when the GOP comes back. Barack had better chose his VP on the basis of who he think is going help him the most governing for the next four years. And I have to admit that those who think Bill Clinton as vice-vice-president would be a loose cannon.

6/14/2008 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger J McKiernan said...


"He/she"? I don't think I ever said anything about a "slap in the face." That was the "she." I did say disenfranchised Clinton voters could switch based on misconceptions, which is a fear, though hopefully not a likelihood.

And by "slap in the face," I think the "she" means those disenfranchised voters could either switch or not show up. It is a legitimate fear.

6/14/2008 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...

Thank you, Yellow Dog, for giving me the opportunity to be more clear.

What I meant by a slap in the face to the 18 million + is that to NOT consider her seriously (and so many of the original Obama supporters have written at great lengths that its "insane" or "criminal" to even consider her. And in my opinion (I thought it humble, I am sorry if it came across overbearing), to not seriously consider her is not only jeopardizing the bid, but it sorta shits on all those who chose her.

This is the closest primary in history.... in HISTORY. She needs considered for that reason alone let alone because of her fervent supporters.

I will, because it seems I need to, be very clear and concise on this point. I will vote for Obama and part of me will relish it. However, if he does not choose Hillary Clinton, part of me will resent it. I am not alone. Do all 18 million plus agree with me... Oh, I never intended to express they were (I feel alone in my feelings most of the time), however, we need this win. We NEED the changes Obama will make. I want him to win, and therefore, I want him to TRULY reach out to the aforementioned mass and let us all fight for him.

Hope I settled some things. I have always appreciated your support of my candidate of choice.

6/14/2008 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...


Very true. I think highly of Clark. I wonder with all his Clinton praising and Obama "criticisms" if he can successfully negotiate such a shift? I would venture to guess that if Hillary "let him go" so to speak, that it would work. However, he has so much loyalty to her, that it would take her "freeing" him. An admirable, honorable sort, Wes Clark.

Thanks for the support with Boris.

6/14/2008 09:56:00 AM  
Blogger K McKiernan said...

Sorry, Vig, I have to respond to one more person, especially someone who it seems posted here without really ready YOUR fantastic post.


How is it that you can write how you admire Clinton's tenacity yet then you go down the same ole diatribe road that Vigilante so astutely tore up? You say that she did not show enough grace and did not "concede defeat"... did you read Vigilante's whole piece? In YOUR mind, based on YOUR presumptions and media constructions, it was "time" for her to do what "you" wanted her to do, but she had millions of supporters and volunteers and plenty of issues to be contemplating and be mindful of.

To rush to a "concession" without taking days to gather thoughts and write a moving, gracious tribute and backing of Obama, would have been suicide, to her political future and to all those who hate her and expected "perfection" in her support of Obama.

Funny... it was not that long ago that when the Republicans feared losing in Florida that they called Gore a "sore loser".... what are you trying to distract from?

Why frame the debate with such hideously loaded words... at her... at me... unless, you have something larger you fear?

6/14/2008 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger J McKiernan said...

By the way, Ite, you can call Hillary a sore loser or her supporters sore losers all you want, but at the end of the day, doing so isn't going to accomplish much for Obama, and it certainly doesn't show an impressive amount of clarity on your part.

All this endless chatter about how "graceless" she was or how she "took too long to concede" or that she is "splitting the party" by not quite conceding in the precise manner you or several other Obama supporters wanted her to...that kind of anger is quite indicative of being...a sore winner.

It's over...get over it...she endorsed Obama, as well she should have. Onto the general election. Maybe he'll pick her as VP...or maybe not. Whatever the case, perhaps the Hillary bashing can end and we can move on to what really matters?

6/14/2008 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger T.C. said...

I predicted that Croatia was going to be a dark horse at Euro 2008 and that the Netherlands was going to surprise in Group C. Italy will rise once again too.

So why not offer one here about the election? McCain will make it close and perhaps even win. You'll have an embalmed President. McCain seems like a decent feller.

Nice post.

Dodgers suck.

6/14/2008 06:44:00 PM  
Blogger Beach Bum said...

Hillary's only remaining path to reach the White House. In four or eight more years she will be just one more prominent senator with a deal-breaking track record.

Okay, I know I'm going against the spirit of the post with slinging more mud at Hillary but I just got back from vacation, so what the heck. I know we all have to band together for the November election because a President Obama is far from a slam dunk and McCain is going more loony every passing day. But I feel I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Hillary's senate career has been a fine example to weather vanes across the nation. If Obama should (heaven please forbid) be defeated in November Hillary will do what she does best, stick her finger in the wind and position herself for 2012.

6/15/2008 05:26:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Let me reiterate the theme of this thread, because I feel its importance.

The election is not in the bag. It's very much Obama's and the Democrats' to lose. It can be lost.

BUT: McCain and his perpetual occupation is a losing hand. In 2008 it's a loser. In 2012 maybe it's a snake bite.

At this point, leading up to the Democratic convention, the most important decision facing Obama is making the optimal choice for a vice-president. I'm saying it ought not to be for a "ticket-balancing" "running-mate", because the situation is not nearly that desperate. The decision ought to be for a working VPOTUS who will help Obama govern for the next four years. That certainly involves helping him clean up the Busheney mess. That certainly involves contending with the inevitable Republican Dolchstosslegende which is in store for us in 2012.

Some say that would be Hillary Clinton. I'm saying, he ought not pick Hillary Clinton to balance the ticket. If he picks her, it should be because she'll help him govern as a loyal political ally. For reasons which have been mentioned, I think she's flawed as that kind of a candidate. Others disagree. It's an honest disagreement.

I'm just saying, she ought not be selected be selected to help Obama get elected. McCain is doing enough on that quarter.

6/16/2008 06:07:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Excellent commentary in defence of Hillary, Vigil!

Whatever her detractors say, Hillary fought a good campaign -- it is worth noting that her own candidacy greatly aided Mr Obama's own efforts at bringing his own talents and core values to stand out.

Now that the Democratic Party playing field has been leveled, Hillbloggers are happy to join our US relatives and friends in supporting Senator Obama for president of the United States.

6/16/2008 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

Here's my theory of an Early McCain Implosion:

The GOP's only hope is that McCain will drop out or pick a veep who can be President on day one:

At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party's nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who's seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he's about to keel over. And anyone who's been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man ....

The reasons are simple. He can't win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- the polls all show that McCain's pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base.

If they don't sub McCain out it's only because the Republicans are planning to let him lose and 'sit this one out' so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass.

6/16/2008 06:27:00 AM  
Blogger Kentucky Rain said...

JMcK writes:

.....McCain is like Bob Dole version 2.0...the Older Model.

Fanfuckingtastic! I couldn't have said that better myself:-)

6/16/2008 02:22:00 PM  
Blogger J McKiernan said...

Haha...thanks, Mike. I have been proud of that one, and will most likely--very shamelessly--pull it out of my old bag of tricks again sometime during this election. ;)

Soros' Proxy, what an interesting theory, and great link to the HuffPo piece by Steve Rosenbaum. I think it is very valid and very intriguing. And if it does happen so late in the game like Rosenbaum theorizes, it would be a way for the Republicans to sort of claim that Obama would win the election "by default," and use that as their campaign slogan in 2012. Or in the reverse, McCain could pick a bulldog VP nom who would take over and try to ram into the Obama camp with a wrecking ball.

The scenario reminds me of the 2000 NY Senate race between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. It was a tight race, but Rudy bowed out to fight his cancer, and in stepped Rick "The Mugging Idiot" Lazio to get steamrolled by Hillary in November.

If McCain were to step aside--be it in October or even earlier--it would all depend on his VP selection. Say he picks Mitt Romney...that guy is dangerous. Good-looking, genius politician, a guy who could steal this thing right out from under Obama. Or even Mike Huckabee...not good-looking or a political wunderkind by any stretch, but a loony religio-con who could ignite the lunatic fringe in a way McCain is simply unable.

But most likely, changing horses in mid-stream would not work well for the Repubs, setting up the Lazio-esque scenario mentioned above.

The key here is to steamroll McCain NOW so we can hand his ass to him whether he drops out or not.

6/16/2008 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger DB Cooper said...

Why did Gore pick Lieberman in 2000? To balance the ticket or help him govern?

6/16/2008 05:04:00 PM  
Blogger Stella by Starlight said...

You know, DB, that is one of the best VP questions I've heard.

6/16/2008 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

In 2000, Gore chose Lieberman to balance the ticket (to the center) not to help him govern.

What was most unusual was the Republican response to Lieberman, which was also extremely positive. William Bennett, Reagan's former secretary of education declared that even "conservatives acknowledged that the vice president had made a wise choice by picking a man of principle, intelligence and civility." Republicans immediately noted that the Connecticut Senator was ideologically closer on many issues to Texas Governor George W. Bush than to Gore.

After a modest career as a state senator and Connecticut's state attorney general, Lieberman stunned the political establishment by upsetting liberal Republican Lowell Weicker for the Senate in 1988. Weicker was generally a progressive voice on civil rights, and had even been arrested in 1985 for demonstrating against Reagan's policies favoring apartheid South Africa. Lieberman defeated Weicker in part by attacking him from the right, on such issues as the Republican incumbent's call to normalize relations with Cuba.

6/17/2008 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Boris said...

Here's a message for the McKiernans.

6/17/2008 07:36:00 AM  
Blogger J McKiernan said...


As usual, your smug "messages" mean nothing to me. I read the piece, and it is an interesting bit of news. I never expected Hillary to be picked as the VP...when did I ever say that? For that matter, when did K ever say that? We both saw some clear positives in selecting her as VP, K moreso than I. But I think it's pretty common knowledge that she would not be picked. I knew Obama would go in a different direction weeks before Hillary's concession. So your "message" is a confirmation of what I expected all along. Sadly for you, you are not twisting the knife as you so clearly intended.

I am now an Obama voter. I don't quite know what your problem is.

When are you get on board with the whole "unifying the party to win in November" thing??? Most of us already have.

6/17/2008 09:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home