Hillary Clinton has finally announced she is suspending her presidential campaign, and urging her supporters to back Barack Obama in the general election. Yet her speech opened and closed with generous doses of gender politics.
Back in February, when I first noted the similarities between Clinton’s increasingly losing run and those of Jesse Jackson, there were some who did not see the heavy gender angle and grievance politics over the disputed primaries in Florida and Michigan coming.  I claim no great clairvoyance in this regard, any more than I would of a prediction of the sunrise in the East tomorrow.
What I find amusing in this is that for all of the buzz about the secret Obama-Clinton meeting, there has been remarkably little discussion of what Clinton is getting out of her withdrawal. A prime speaking slot at the convention, of course; probably a promise to help pay her campaign debt — but probably not the Veep slot. So what else is Clinton getting? References to the issues aside, she did not put the question, “What does Hillary want?” in her last speech for no reason.
Obama is the political equivalent of a trophy wife. Hillary is living everywoman’s mid life nightmare of the young, pretty, hip replacement for the old faithful spouse that quit work to put her husband through college and grad school, raised the children, did the P.T.A and put on a few pounds and found a few wrinkles. Hillary is going to want what any scorned and cast aside spouse would want…. revenge.
If Obama loses, Hillary gets both revenge and a second chance.
Karl
Check out the O!’s Iraq policy in the 2nd cut
Link
Think she would condescend to take a cabinet post? Maybe become head of the DNC?
– Heh. If that were to happen Inspector, how long do you suppose she’d give Dean to clear out his desk. ‘Course the Obama people are already moving him out none to subtlety. Apparently they feel he wasn’t shuckin’ the super dels hard enough for their tastes. Hell, the DNC all but signed it over to O! just before super Tuesday. Nothing says “arrogance” like “Progressive”.
I dunno. Would YOU take her into the Party’s inner sanctum with the nasty growth still attached to her? Would you really want Bill anywhere near your plans?
think it’s no longer “Stand By Your Man” time in the Clinton home.
Strange that. It’s Clinton who is guilty as charged of the prog. victim-world dumbassery that Obama hate-wingers constantly place at his feet, yet you just can’t take your eyes off the skinny black guy with a funny name. Which is yet another clue to the race-tinged intentionalism of most knuckle-draggers who spew it up on PW.
One of Obama’s offices in Indiana gets spray-painted all nice and pretty with nigger-this and nigger-that and it’s Obama campaign that dictates to its local staff that these incidents should be kept out of the press, yet ya bitterly cling to Obama as race card player. Some deft analysis, my props all around.
Hillary Clinton is the one who’d’a pie’d your faces with all that over-the-top prog crap (shit, her campaign even trotted out uber-cunt-Nazi Gloria Steinem in Texas). Ain’t that right, KK?
Has anyone seen the left blogosphere in the last 12 hours? Talk about a gushy lovefest. The only thing missing is the make-up sex. I am very happy that we at least on the road back to some semblance of shared purpose. Yay!!.
By Thor…
So, I take it that you, like all authoritarian fascist Democrats, would rather just install your newly-radicalized Party with no further political choices? That you, exemplifying the typical pissed-off Democrat, with your leftist goals for our country’s ideological framework (FAR leftist identity-based politics; Marxist economics; morals- and religion-bashing) are so correct on the mere face of it that they should be installed as a shoe-in, with all dissenting discussion revoked? That Karl’s posts should just go away, all opposition quieten, and we who disagree with your anti-American values should simply move aside so you can install this radical retreatist Obama, who is closer to Wright and Farrakhan than Kennedy?
What country do you wake up in? Certainly not the one based on a constitutionally-proportioned representative republic. Because without the element of choice, with at least two disparate parties, you’ll have a single-party system that’s exactly more like that of historic, fascist Italy.
And your leaders also imagine a country without any oppostition…
Scratch a lefty, there’s Mussolini staring back at you.
Serr8d, you hyper-canard, I’m simply more American than you can handle; get over it.
Thor, you want to be a new ‘American’, one that’s redefined to your party’s narrowing leftist worldview. Exclusion completely of the opposing party and their viewpoints isn’t much American. Telling Karl to ‘Leave Obama alone!’ is just left-progg fascism.
I’m American in that broader sense that welcomes political party clashes. And the equilibrium those clashes bring, eventually, to our nation. I’m troubled that your party is so filled with obvious far-left leaders, and threatens to destabilize our political system. And most Democrats don’t even realize how far they are from center!
We should agree on at least that, if you can still see the bigger picture.
Strategicaly speaking, she would be better off in the senate. Her options are open, she can trim her sails to the wind then, and in four years she can say ‘I told you so’ to all of the superdelegates. Anything else – VP or cabinet – is to tie her to Sen. Obama, and she will not do that.
And thor doesn’t actually say anything.
Good job; when you have an argument….I’ll be pleasantly surprised.