Posted on 06/04/2008 3:11:55 AM PDT by billorites
OPE. CHANGE. Hope and change. Hope 'n' change. Say the words often enough and they begin to take hold, attaching themselves lichen-like to the psyche.
Soon they take on a life of their own and assume human form. He is the one Democrats have been waiting for -- the agent, the beacon, the Everyman who can change the culture of Washington and restore hope to the disenfranchised.
He even comes from Hope. Arkansas, that is.
Or was.
How quickly time passes, how urgently things stay the same.
Not so long ago, Bill Clinton was the man of the moment, the one who was going to put Democrats back in power and baby boomers in charge. His defeat of George H.W. Bush with 43 percent of the vote wasn't just a changing of the guard. It was a baton passing from one generation to the next.
The rest you know: the triangulating, the interning, the squandering.
Then came Hillary's turn. And then, apparently, it went.
The primaries finally are over, and Hillary Clinton seems to have missed her date with destiny.
And she missed it in no small part because of that man from Hope.
Contrary to the braying of the wounded sisterhood, Clinton's defeat hasn't been the result of misogyny. She was defeated by her husband, by her own party and, definitively last weekend, by the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Because she's a woman? No, because she's a Clinton.
And because the Obama campaign plainly outmaneuvered the Clintons.
Despite Hillary having high-powered friends on the committee, including campaign adviser Harold Ickes, as well as a 13-8 edge in committed members going in, a team of lesser-known members "ate their lunch," as one committee member and Obama supporter put it to me. "They (the Clintons) still have the arrogance of privilege and they underestimated us." "Privilege" is a far cry from the Clintons' own hope-and-change message from the early 1990s. After decades of winning, they had every expectation of yet another easy victory. But something went terribly wrong.
Hillary's once greatest asset -- Bill -- became her greatest liability.
The man who once could woo a mannequin suddenly couldn't get his lines right. In some cases, he couldn't even get anyone to listen.
In Charlotte, N.C., a few weeks ago, he was scheduled to speak at an invitation-only event at a VFW post. About 80 seats were set up in the small room, half of them reserved for invited veterans and their families, the rest cordoned off for media. During an hour wait, while Clinton consumed burgers and watched basketball at a downtown restaurant, campaign workers scouted neighboring shops and eateries for people willing to fill the empty chairs.
The sax-blowing, cheeseburger-eating, barbecue boy -- first "black President" and talker-in-chief -- is today a gaunt ghost haunted by his own past. Can't a guy get no respect around here?
Once full-throated in courting and defending minorities, Clinton now grows hoarse explaining what he really meant to say, while African-Americans flock to Obama. It's become a trend. Bill misspeaks; Hillary corrects; Bill clarifies; Hillary apologizes; Bill breaks from the trail for a few days.
The latest was Bill's eruption in response to a blistering Vanity Fair profile in which rumors of old behaviors were floated amid insinuations of cognitive disruption possibly stemming from Clinton's heart problems. Bill hurled "scumbag" at the author, Todd Purdum, who happens to be married to Clinton's former press secretary, Dee Dee Myers. Hillary scolded Bill; he said he was sorry.
And so it has gone for months now, while the next generation of hopers and changers throws money at Obama's feet.
Clinton critics used to say, "There's something about Hillary." Now they say, "There's something about Bill." There always was something about both of them -- the narcissism, the grandiosity, the raw ambition. All those aspects are well-known, but they've been on vivid display as the campaign has advanced.
People tend to expose their truest selves when under pressure. Some balk, some excel, some unravel. The narcissist never performs well when the image he expects to see reflected back is not delivered. When one's very identity is tied to the approval of others, defeat feels like an existential crisis.
Thus, the rage we see in Bill Clinton's frequently crimson face is one familiar to parents -- the infant denied.
Democrats apparently recognized it, too.
Hillary lost because party activists like Obama so he won all the caucus states and thus racked up 10 or 11 victories in row putting her in a delegate hole she couldn’t climb out of.
No. Hillary lost because she is NOT a Margaret Thatcher; she is not an Indira Ghandi, nor a Golda Meir. She does not have the character, the integrity, and the humility possessed by those great leaders. It is that simple.
The sad thing....Neither is qualified...The Dems have no candidate. It was like watching voting for the king and queen of the Senior Prom....a mere “brainless” popularity contest.
Will the man of “HOPE” be a “DOPE” and give the Hilldabeast the VP slot? Inquiring minds want to know. Time will tell.
Exactly. A good strategy for a party that doesn't believe in states rights and winner take all contests. However, winning the electoral college is going to be a different matter entirely.
Conservatives are in the same boat!
She simply did not consider Obama as an opponent. She was after all..the wife of the first black president. It was a huge base...and it’s gone.
I agree that Slick didn’t cost Hillary the nomination. Most of the media was simply in the tank for Obama, exaggerating any Clinton misstep all out of proportion and ignoring a long string of gaffs and just plain dumb statements from both the Obamas.
Strange to be taking up for the Clintons, but the media and, most of all, white guilt and the black bloc vote gave the nomination to Obama.
Can't you just hear Michele Obama?
"If you put that blankety-blank b**** on the ticket, I'm outta here."
No way does Michele want Hillary around.
Hillary and Bill would suck so much oxygen out of the campaign, Obama would look like he just dropped by instead of the nominee.
ask the Obama voters what is change ands they answer DUH, you might get some who say well he’ll change Washington but then ask how , how long and when the same answer will come back DUR.
Of course all this after a 5min rant against Bush which had nothing to do with the conversation
The Clinton’s have not changed.
Their supporters lost the rose colored glasses.
Not back in the VA primary when I voted for him. Back then, Hillary was a fait accompli, not loved by the media, but not hated either. It took a bunch of crossovers to save Obama's bacon.
Risky strategy? Absolutely. But worth it not to be guaranteed not to see Bill any more.
You have a short memory, Obama was not peddled until he started winning.
Hillary lost? because the propagandists didn’t want to damage their credibility /sarcasm futher. It’s much easier to promote Barack to bus driver. Whitey can have a seat in the back and maybe be backup driver unless we have to throw her under, also. /sarcasm
I should have clarified
The media were out for Obama as soon as they saw him win the first couple of elections.
When they saw him and realised they loved him they went all out and the famous clintons were dropped from a great height.
Hillary lost because the party calculated it would be better to snub the feminists over snubbing the blacks.
Black will always trump female for donks.
Should be a lesson learned by many in their party.
“Not back in the VA primary when I voted for him.”
I think most of the national, MSM was always in the tank for him. Going months of the campaign and gushing over his cotton candy speeches and never seriously questioning his qualifications, or pressing for more details about just what sort of change he advocated.
And the Reverend Wright information had always been around, but largely ignored. I know I heard Sean Hannity mention it for many months before it finally began showing up in the MSM.
They’ve covering for him since that speech at the DNC in 2004. What they don’t report or ask about can be just as helpful, or more helpful, than what they do report about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.