The Art of the Possible

[autographedcat]

I really haven't talked about politics much in the last few years. I admit to being pretty dispirited about the subject, and getting too worked up about things I have no direct control over does bad things for my depression issues. Besides, other people are covering the politics much better than I would.

Also, honestly, I'm not as passionate about politics as many of my friends. I'm less a moderate than I am a pragmatist. I believe that politics is about compromise, and that both sides of most issues have at least some merit. This doesn't tend to make for a very compelling position for debate, and generally only succeeds in getting both sides mad at me.

But it's an election season, and I do have a strong interest in the outcome. So I'm starting to pay closer attention, now that the conventions are underway. Last night, Hilary Clinton gave her address to the Democratic convention, calling for unity in the party and throwing her full support to Barack Obama. Today, reading responses to her excellent speech, I've noticed a nearly universal sentiment being expressed.

"Boy, that really had to be hard for her." "That must have really stuck in her craw." "I can't imagine how much it hurt for her to have to get up there and give that speech." "Boy, she really managed to choke down her resentment and support the ticket."

Do you have any idea how insulting that is to Hilary Clinton? To presume that everything she stands for, everything she ran on, every issue that she promoted in her campaign is ultimately secondary to her own personal ambition, that it must have been painful to her to support her party's nominee? I'm sure she is disappointed she didn't win the nomination. But to suggest that she would really rather thumb her nose at everyone but is instead putting on a brave face for the sake of expedience is to suggest that she's really interested in nothing more than her own self-interest.

I have issues with the way Clinton ran her campaign. At one time, I'd have been happy with her as the nominee, even though she wasn't my first choice, but by the end I was rather put out by her. But I don't believe she is so shallow and superficial that she doesn't have a strong interest in seeing Obama heading up the next administration. And you shouldn't either, if you have even a bit of respect for her and what she's accomplished in her career.

Comments

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

Do you have any idea how insulting that is to Hilary Clinton?

How so? She put years of her life and tens of millions of dollars into trying to do the one thing that she has wanted more than anything else, and she failed, and now she had to get up with the world watching and be gracious and cheerful about it.

I would think that would be excruciating for anyone, not just her.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

But she doesn't have to be gracious and cheerful about her loss[1]. She has to be gracious and cheerful about a good man leading a party she loves. That it would be hard, that there'd be some bitterness in her heart, sure, but that it would be excruciating? Why assume that?

[1] I don't consider it a failure to lose to someone who was better than you were, when you did extremely well yourself.

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

Why assume that?

Because I know politicians and I've worked on political campaigns, so I know the ego you have to have to run in the first place. If you were able to say "Oh, I lost to someone better than I was," you wouldn't have been running in the first place.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I asked "why do you assume it would be excruciating to be gracious and cheerful about a good man leading a party she loves?" You answered a different question.

Her speech had nothing to do with her loss. Mature people can put personal pains aside to speak well about something.

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

I asked "why do you assume it would be excruciating to be gracious and cheerful about a good man leading a party she loves?" You answered a different question.

Because your question has nothing to do with anything I've been saying. I never said anything about her feelings "about a good man leading a party she loves."

I posted in my LJ that I thought that had to be an excruciating speech for Clinton to give. I still believe that, because she's in the position of having to be the supportive, gracious loser in a race that she thought she should have won.

Her speech had nothing to do with her loss.

In what sense? If she hadn't run and lost, she wouldn't have been giving the speech in the first place. A large portion of the speech was about her campaign.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Because your question has nothing to do with anything I've been saying. I never said anything about her feelings "about a good man leading a party she loves."

Which is why I brought it up, and asked my question based upon that perspective.

In what sense? If she hadn't run and lost, she wouldn't have been giving the speech in the first place. A large portion of the speech was about her campaign.

Lots of people lost the Democratic nomination. Only one of them was giving a speech. So, it's not running and losing" that got her giving a speech.

Her speech was about her campaign... but her campaign was more than "her loss".

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I'm not suggesting that she wasn't disappointed, or upset, or hurt. But I keep seeing people who suggest that Hilary should torpedo Obama and deliver the country to McCain sot hat she can run again in 2012, and when she failed to do that, suggesting that she's supporting the party ticket against her will, or under duress, or against her better judgement. Not everyone who made the comments I was mentioning has that attitude, of course, but enough of them do that it infects the tone of the idea, even in people who didn't mean anything by it.

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

But I keep seeing people who suggest that Hilary should torpedo Obama and deliver the country to McCain sot hat she can run again in 2012, and when she failed to do that, suggesting that she's supporting the party ticket against her will, or under duress, or against her better judgement.

None of which I believe - I think she was completely sincere last night. I was only referring to her feelings about being the one giving the Tuesday night speech instead of the one giving the Thursday night speech.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I know. I acknowledged that not everyone saying those things believes those things. And if you were the only person I saw making that statement, I wouldn't have thought twice about it.

It was the drumbeat of that idea in many many places that started to gnaw on me.