Are You Glad Hillary Is Gone?

Nick Gillespie | June 9, 2008

From an AP account of the end of the line for Hillary Clinton's White House bid:

There was also an overwhelming need for closure, odd for a very close race even in the context of recent history, when Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy took losing nomination fights to the summer conventions. As one veteran political reporter wondered recently: why would journalists seem so eager to see the best story of their life end?

"I've always felt that it was not the job of reporters to be like `The Gong Show' and hoot candidates off the stage," said John Harris, editor in chief of the Politico Web site.

Between the fascination of many reporters with Obama and constant counting of his slow march toward the required number of delegates for the nomination, the Clinton campaign has some legitimate gripes about the way they were covered, he said.

What say you, Hit & Run readers?

More here.

reason on Hillary Clinton.

Comments

|6.9.08 @ 8:06AM|#

Gone? I hope she's really gone and not gone like Jason in the "Friday the 13th" movies.

|6.9.08 @ 8:13AM|#

"Other factors inevitably drove the coverage, said Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism."

I suppose the "Project for Journalistic Awesomeness" name was already taken...

JohnD|6.9.08 @ 8:21AM|#

As much as I dispise the Clintons, I would much rather see her as the Democratic nominee then Obama.

The man is a lying racist who has zero acomplishments as a US Senator

|6.9.08 @ 8:24AM|#

I'm glad she is gone. In fact, since Obama was man enough to get rid of them, I'm willing to give him my vote in exchange.

Then, when he picks her for Vice, I'll go back to being on the fence.

Taktix&#174|6.9.08 @ 8:25AM|#

The AP would be just as good if they wrote their stories by throwing a bunch of darts at an eye-vision chart.

I see a long, painful end for the Clinton cabal, including a bitter, failed run for governor of NY, a loss of a senate seat, and a public meltdown.

Just calling it, officially.

Taktix&#174|6.9.08 @ 8:28AM|#

The man is a lying racist who has zero acomplishments[sic] as a US Senator.

Looks like the stupid train has come into the station.

I still don't understand why, with someone like Obama, that has plenty of publicly-stated bad ideas, people have to resort to total bullshit to get their point across.

Obama has plenty of faults (as does McCain), but shouting random insults doesn't address any of said faults.

|6.9.08 @ 8:31AM|#

The GOP was licking its chops at the prospect of Hillary being the nominee. I think that the left knew it and was happy to help Hillary exit the stage.

But that was before we all got to know Obama's preacher.

The GOP is in a tight spot, but perhaps with Obama as the nominee their chop-licking is not done quite so openly.

Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 8:35AM|#

the Clinton campaign has some legitimate gripes about the way they were covered

Boo hoo. They once had the benefit of being media darlings and the fickle media changed its mind. Sucks when the media likes somebody else, huh? Too bad; get used to it.

|6.9.08 @ 8:36AM|#

Am I glad she's gone? Yes.

Do I think her replacement is just as bad? Yes.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

|6.9.08 @ 8:39AM|#

What say you, Hit & Run readers?

I say that one month after you ran a cover story about the inflation of the presidency's importance, and the resulting threat to freedom, you still act way too interested in the presidential race over here.

Loupeznik|6.9.08 @ 8:47AM|#

I dispise the dynasty angle of another Clinton. Now what can be done about the kennedys?

|6.9.08 @ 8:47AM|#

Nah, I liked her better than Obama. But then that's not saying much, because I just see him as a big contrived blow up doll put together by the dems as the only way they would get the White House back.

His shit is starting to show too.

|6.9.08 @ 8:51AM|#

"Sucks when the media likes somebody else, huh? Too bad; get used to it."

In other words, Clinton did not get a fair shake in the media, but its justified.

Mad Max|6.9.08 @ 8:53AM|#

I'm not exactly a Hillary supporter, but I'm fascinated by the way in which the MTUTBMASFTII (Media That Used To Be Mainstream And Still Fantasizes That It Is) unfairly insulted Hillary for failing to conform to its narrative - Obama's inevitable victory. I suspect that many of the superdelegates were influenced by the MTUTBMASFTII's incessant "Hillary lost already" drumbeat.

Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 8:56AM|#

In other words, Clinton did not get a fair shake in the media, but its justified.

Did I say that? The media is inherently unfair, as they are human and have biases. The Clintons loved it when it worked in their favor but whine when it doesn't. Sorry if I don't shed a tear for their hypocrisy.

First Little Pig|6.9.08 @ 9:04AM|#

I am glad that the Dem race is over if only because it was an entirely substance-less snooze fest that sucked all the oxygen out of the room. While I don't expect much more from the Obama/McCain race, at least some policy differences should be aired, and at least the stakes will be a bit more meaningful.

And as to Clinton v Obama I think Clinton is merely power-hungry and ego-maniacal while there might -- just might -- be something more to Obama. In any event Obama might change the tone of politics for a few weeks after taking office.

But I have no intention to vote and give my consent to whomever my next overlord will be. (I usually vote Libertarian, but I remain unconvinced that Barr is anything but a Republican in a Libertarian Suit.

Elemenope|6.9.08 @ 9:04AM|#

MTUTBMASFTII (Media That Used To Be Mainstream And Still Fantasizes That It Is)

That acronym is full of fail, my friend.

Full of fail.

Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 9:06AM|#

Full of fail = FOF

|6.9.08 @ 9:13AM|#

I was really looking forward to a bloody slugfest at the convention, complete with the forcible (and shamefully misogynistic) removal of a weeping, cursing, Hillary from the podium.

I'm crestfallen.

|6.9.08 @ 9:13AM|#

No, I wish she had stayed on and into the convention. The more the Dems bloody themselves the better.

Once Hucklebee got knocked out there was no way I would vote for a Democrat. However, in January I saw Obama as the lesser of two evils. I was shocked with myself that by the time Ohio came around that I, a Clinton hater, was rooting for Clinton. I am just very amazed at the lack of substance of anything Obama says. What a total empty suit! Jesus Christ on a bike, Obama makes Edwards and Mayor effing Omalley look like they are leaders.

Elemenope|6.9.08 @ 9:14AM|#

Episiarch shows how it's done. Short, punchy, with quirky but strangely onomatopoetic pronunciation.

That's an acronym, boys and girls.

|6.9.08 @ 9:26AM|#

As one veteran political reporter wondered recently: why would journalists seem so eager to see the best story of their life end?

Because then they get to write analysis pieces for months about why the campaign failed, postulating very creative theories about Clinton fatigue, electoral misogyny, and primary vs. caucus strategery....without mentioning the fact that the biggest difference-maker was back in 2002 when she voted for the Iraq AUMF.

ed|6.9.08 @ 9:26AM|#

the Clinton campaign has some legitimate gripes about the way they were covered

Americans have a legitimate gripe about the way this election is being covered. The cable news networks have abdicated their responsibilities and are treating this story as entertainment. Every week we see another "star" pundit sprout up with his own copycat show and stable of personalities reminiscent of The Hollywood Squares. Respected industry stalwarts like Tim Russert spend endless hours engaged in vital and riveting issues such as: Do Obama and Hillary like each other? Will she be his running mate? Will he ask? What does Hillary want?

I've been watching politics for a few decades now and I honestly cannot recall a more shallow and flippant treatment of a crucial election. Are the journalists at the top so totally ignorant of economics, philosophy and history...or do they think we are?

Elemenope|6.9.08 @ 9:31AM|#

Are the journalists at the top so totally ignorant of economics, philosophy and history...or do they think we are?

Yes, and yes. I am continually surprised just how little of history, especially, supposedly educated people know as a general rule.

|6.9.08 @ 9:33AM|#

The press wasn't pushing Hillary Clinton out of the race. They were having a blast, reporting on the Obama supporters, and then after last Tuesday the Democratic Party as a whole, pushing her out of the race.

Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 9:34AM|#

Are the journalists at the top so totally ignorant of economics, philosophy and history...or do they think we are?

Journalists are far stupider than they seem. When you get your ass handed to you in terms of coverage by a comedian pretending to be a right-wing pundit (Colbert), you fucking suck.

Elemenope|6.9.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Journalists are far stupider than they seem. When you get your ass handed to you in terms of coverage by a comedian pretending to be a right-wing pundit (Colbert), you fucking suck.

True 'nuff, but I put a fair heaping of blame onto the editorial staff, generally a little more than the field journalists.

The anchors can go fuck themselves, and then perhaps watch some Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers for a clue about how to fucking interview.

jorgen|6.9.08 @ 9:40AM|#

Seriously, there were a bunch of stories about how she lost already because she had lost already. And while others have taken their fights to the convention, I would be surprised if there weren't stories about how Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy had lost already too.

|6.9.08 @ 9:41AM|#

Episiarch,

It's both funny and vaguely disturbing how many of these "breaking news" internet-only articles, especially on weekends and evenings, are riddled with misspellings and invalid grammar. Without copy-editors, the supposed professionals are terrible writers in addition to being awful journalists in general.

Episiarch|6.9.08 @ 9:47AM|#

then perhaps watch some Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers for a clue about how to fucking interview

No, no. James Lipton, dude.

D.A. Ridgely |6.9.08 @ 9:56AM|#

... the Clinton campaign has some legitimate gripes about the way they were covered, he said.

Inasmuch as the press covered Clinton as though she were Obama's Republican opponent, such coverage was entirely fair. As we all know, the press covers Democratic and Republican candidates exactly the same.

|6.9.08 @ 10:01AM|#

That's nonsense, DA.

Any Democrat in American would bend over backwards to be treated the way John McCain (R-AZ) is by his self-described "base," the national media.

|6.9.08 @ 10:07AM|#

joe,

That's because McCain isn't a real Republican. Most of the grousing you hear about him is coming from right wing pundits like Glen Beck and his ilk.

|6.9.08 @ 10:14AM|#

Was George Bush a "real Republican" between September 11, 2001 and January 2005?

Wicks Cherrycoke|6.9.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Please. John McCain was a "maverick" to the national media and got favorable coverage as long as he was opposing Bush, voting against his own party, and considering being Kerry's running mate. Now that he is the GOP nominee, watch how quickly the national media buys into Obama's line about McCain being the third Bush term.

On another issue...reading the post mortems this week about the Hilliary campaign, I am taken by how the mainstream media sounded an awful lot like the people that the mainstream media used to summarily dismiss as "Hilliary haters." I am also taken by the number of women who accuse Obama of running a "sexist" campaign, apparently the fact that he was a male who defeated a woman being prima facie proof of "sexism."

|6.9.08 @ 10:24AM|#

I must confess that I have at times been a little impressed by Hillary's speechifying. But she has at other times come across poorly. Her claims of "experience" have always seemed a little thin when compared to the facts.

I suspect the Clinton dynasty is finished as far as elective office is concerned. Picking Hillary as VP would be a mistake as near as I can tell. I can't see what votes she can deliver that Obama doesn't own already. The grumblers that are saying they won't vote for Obama will come around the more they look at McNasty I think (although some may stay home, to be sure). And Hillary has negatives that alienate a lot of swing voters.

No, if Obama wants to win, he needs to follow the advice of that old Democrat, Horace Greeley, in seeking a running mate.

Now what can be done about the kennedys?

Wow, I don't know when you fell asleep Rip van Winkle, but there hasn't been a Kennedy in contention for national office in over twenty-five years. Teddy is the last who will have any influence on national policy and it looks like he's not going to last much longer. They will probably continue to infest Mass for some time though.

|6.9.08 @ 10:29AM|#

I suspect the Clinton dynasty is finished as far as elective office is concerned.

Really? Did you see Hillary's margin of victory in her last NY Senate race?

She could be a Byrd/Thurmond Institution if she wanted to be.

D.A. Ridgely |6.9.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Oh, but joe, the press doesn't know he's a Republican yet. Give it time!

Elemenope|6.9.08 @ 10:32AM|#

No, no. James Lipton, dude.

Fucking LOL.

Nigel Watt|6.9.08 @ 10:36AM|#

MTUTBMASFTII

Newspapers are now hiring African dance groups to try and get people to buy their crap?

|6.9.08 @ 10:40AM|#

The press really did fuck over Hillary Clinton.

It happens once in a while to every pol.

For instance, even though everything George W. Bush touches goes to shit (except, alas, election campaigns) Hurricane Katrina really WASN'T his fault.

He done got fucked. By the "neutral" media.

One day it'll happen to President Obama, too.

|6.9.08 @ 10:49AM|#

One day it'll happen to President Obama, too.

But probably not until his wife runs for President.

|6.9.08 @ 10:57AM|#

She could be a Byrd/Thurmond Institution if she wanted to be.

Oh, to be sure. And you might have added Ted Kennedy as well. NY might as well not waste money on Senate elections for that seat for another thirty years. But an institution is not the same as a dynasty.

She unlikely to ever get the "promotion" she wants. And given her ambitions I wonder how long she will stay interested in the Senate. There was some discussion on one of the Sunday talking head shows of how low down in Senate seniority she is. It will be a long time before she even makes Committee chair. (I suppose one can't discount a "Hillary exception" happening though).

Hillary will be the last of this two person/one generation "dynasty".

|6.9.08 @ 11:00AM|#

Oh, and joe, I might add, that I meant that it is unlikely you will see any more Clintons getting elected.

But I suppose I could have worded it better.

ed|6.9.08 @ 11:01AM|#

I laugh when the cable news ringmaster du jour says, "We only have 30 seconds left..." Right. They're on 24/7, have all kinds of time, and instead of maybe scratching the surface of this story and delving into actual political philosophy they endlessly recycle the same glib "observations." When did Jerry Seinfeld buy CNN? Russert and Williams and Matthews and Olbermann and all the others should look in the mirror one day and ask themselves how this state of affairs came to pass. They're betraying the very public they self-righteously claim to serve.

D.A. Ridgely |6.9.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Hillary will be the last of this two person/one generation "dynasty".

OMG! You mean Chelsea is going to have to work for a living?!?

|6.9.08 @ 11:12AM|#

Really? Did you see Hillary's margin of victory in her last NY Senate race?

That's because the NY GOP is a basket case and makes stupid nomination decisions. I'm eligible to run against her in 2012. Perhaps then we'll see what she's made of...

|6.9.08 @ 11:14AM|#

Plus, if Obama loses and she gets the presidential nom in 2012, I think state law prohibits her from running for reelection in the Senate at the same time.

|6.9.08 @ 11:36AM|#

"Did I say that? The media is inherently unfair, as they are human and have biases. The Clintons loved it when it worked in their favor but whine when it doesn't. Sorry if I don't shed a tear for their hypocrisy."

YES! You basically are saying that the Clinton's got screwed, but (1) that's just how the system works, and (2) they cannot whine about the obvious media bias because they benefited from media bias in the past.

|6.9.08 @ 11:49AM|#

Are You Glad Hillary Is Gone?

Yes.

Between the fascination of many reporters with Obama and constant counting of his slow march toward the required number of delegates for the nomination, the Clinton campaign has some legitimate gripes about the way they were covered, he said.

What say you, Hit & Run readers?

She has recieved treatment by the press that is no worse than Richard M. Nixon received.
Unfair? Certainly.
Unusual? Definitely not.

|6.9.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Gotcha, Isaac.

I thought "this" in your comment refered to her Presidential run, not her career.

I can see Chelsea running for office at some point, and the name recognition would probably help her, but nothing like Hillary's in 2000, or the Kennedys in the 60s-80s.

|6.9.08 @ 12:11PM|#

"Gone? I hope she's really gone and not gone like Jason in the "Friday the 13th" movies"

Really can't say it any better.

Franklin Harris|6.9.08 @ 12:26PM|#

It's simple: If you don't want to be portrayed as a loser, don't lose. Clinton's campaign could have done the math like Obama's did and fought for delegates instead of votes. It didn't because Clinton thought the nomination (and the presidency, too) was hers by divine right. She thought it would be easy. Now she knows better, and she and her vile, narcissistic husband can both shut the hell up.

|6.9.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Picking Hillary as VP would be a mistake as near as I can tell. I can't see what votes she can deliver that Obama doesn't own already.

It might help with turnout amongst the base, by mollifying the "Its Hillary's Turn" crowd. Although, it might do even more to turn off the "[Unspecified]Change You Can Believe In" and "New Kind of Politics (Honest!)" crowd.

And it would certainly help the Republican "Anybody But Hillary" turnout. Has anyone seen any recent polling on Hillary's negatives? I recall they used to be right at 50%. If they are still anywhere near that number, she probably shouldn't be on the ticket.

lunchstealer|6.9.08 @ 12:37PM|#

I'm glad to see the back of her. She was an astute enough political operative that she might have actually accomplished something in the White House. McCain's bipartisanism strikes me the same way.

I'm voting for Obama for two reasons: He's a major-party candidate with a chance of winning who actually opposed the Iraq war ahead of time, and at least didn't cast a vote in favor of the Magna Carta Blanche that Hillary and McCain voted for. Also, he talks a big bipartisan game, but hasn't really reached across the aisle. He's got limited executive experience and no big backlog of political strings to pull. He'll be largely ineffective as a President, and that's OK by me.

|6.9.08 @ 12:50PM|#

lunchstealer,

He's going to have huge Dem majorities in both houses. He's not going to need to reach across the aisle that much. His dearth of experience is more likely to result in him being led around by the nose by the OldGuard Dems, giving them everything they want, rather than preventing anything from getting done.

|6.9.08 @ 1:42PM|#

His dearth of experience is more likely to result in him being led around by the nose by the OldGuard Dems, giving them everything they want

Them, and every two-bit dictator he meets with.

|6.9.08 @ 1:53PM|#

It might help with turnout amongst the base, by mollifying the "Its Hillary's Turn" crowd.

R C, I opine that BO already owns that vote. They may be angry now, but except for an insignificant number of diehards, those who voted for Hillary in the primaries will come over to the Obama camp. I mean, seriously, are any of them going to vote for McCain?

(Snicker) I just noticed what Obama's initials are (snicker) I can't believe I never notice before. Maybe the Republicans will dust off that old fifties soap ad jingle.

As to a running mate, while I think Jim Webb may work to knock the big city pol, Harvard elitist, gungrabbing edges off, I still think that to get some of those blue-collar plus farmer/rancher votes that will be essential he should look west.

eck|6.9.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Thank god I no longer have to look at her smugness plastered all over my TV. Hillary farts! Smell em while they're hot!

Not to mention that if you look at long enough, you'll see pure evil. Horns don't have to come out of the top of one's head to be horns. Cheekbones work too.

|6.9.08 @ 4:39PM|#

The media has had enough of the Clintons. Years and years of having to sacrifice credibility to protect the party created the resentment that finally got us accurate, and fair, reporting on the couple. I want to thank all of the forces that prolonged the fight, I bet $1,000 against Hillary, and I got more gambling value per minute than any bet I've ever placed.

Peggy McGilligan|6.9.08 @ 4:58PM|#

People of all stripes were sick to death of the Clintons before 2000. In 2008, Hillary played a true to life Dick Nixon, wearing a pantsuit. She was a fringe candidate at best. But in the words of California Senator Dianne Feinstein: "No one brings to a ticket what Hillary brings." Ditto that: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Russ 2000|6.10.08 @ 11:18AM|#

Are You Glad Hillary Is Gone?

I am.

One down, two to go.

|6.10.08 @ 1:48PM|#

YES, YHES YES YES YES YES

|6.10.08 @ 1:56PM|#

JohnD

YOU ARE NOT OF THIS WORLD JOHN D, YOU SOUND LIKE A MAD MAN, AND YOU CERTAINLY ARE THE SCUM OF THIS WORLD

|6.16.08 @ 6:56AM|#

Please take no offense but its either you Hillary supporters are in denial or you are republican. Hillary was never a great candidate. She had name recognition. She also ran an extremely negative and dirty campaign. The media was on her side but the voters were not. That is why she got so much media attention for the smaller number of states she did win. The truth is Obama had won the popular vote, delegate and now super delegate. I like him because he will stand up to the status quo power establishment and represent people. He's going to be a great leader.