My
April 17th piece urging Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race generated a huge number of angry responses (which we reprint at the bottom of this article.) It was far from my first op-ed criticizing her candidacy, and it wasn’t the first time that I asked her to call it quits. Something has truly set off her campaign’s “true believers” – and last week’s much-criticized debate on ABC may have been the trigger. Many letters I received said that Barack Obama is unelectable, and some said they will vote for John McCain in the general election. Many argued that the debate was fair – even lauding Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos – and said a Democratic candidate should be asked such “character” questions that rehash right-wing talking points. Many accused me of being sexist, because I said that Clinton owes every feminist who supported her an apology. That statement was unduly provocative, but I stand by my point.
Whenever Beyond Chron gets flooded with e-mails over a particular article, it’s often because the piece was put on the front page of Google News, Daily Kos or another high-traffic website. But I couldn’t find anywhere on the Internet where my article was linked or published. Nor did Beyond Chron experience a sudden spike in hits on the day where the vast majority of the e-mails were sent. What does this mean? Not a lot of people read my piece, but it really angered the Hillary Clinton supporters who read it - and sent us e-mails from across the country.
Many e-mails I received insisted that Barack Obama was unelectable because – presumably – we are a conservative country, and so Clinton was the only hope for Democrats. “Obama is so far left that I am seeing why the Republicans disliked the Democrats so much,” said Linda Plemons of Texas. “Obama’s wife Michelle needs to learn to love America.” A lot said they were lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain in the general election, but their reasons for disliking Obama sounded more like what you'd expect from the Fox News-watching, Limbaugh-listening crowd.
For months, Clinton has argued that she’s the only candidate who has been “fully vetted” by the right-wing noise machine – and can survive their vicious attacks. Never has her campaign denounced this level of meanness in presidential politics, instead simply accepting it as the reality of running as a Democrat. Which is why the e-mails I received often praised last week’s ABC News debate – where the moderators took up the first hour to ask Obama about Reverend Wright, the Weather Underground and why he doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin.
“Kudos to George [Stephanopoulos] and Charlie [Gibson] for asking the questions that get to the heart of this man’s character,” said one reader. “[Obama] is not fit to hold the highest office in the land – much less a seat in the senate.” Ironically, my piece never mentioned the ABC debate – which was roundly condemned by most viewers for dwelling on Joe McCarthy “guilt-by-association” tactics. While Beyond Chron published my piece on the following morning, I wrote it the night before – when the debate had not yet aired on television.
Which is why I believe that the ABC debate was a real turning point in this campaign – because it took Hillary Clinton’s campaign argument to its logical conclusion. When voters saw what kind of “vetting” that she wanted Obama to be subject to, most were appalled. And it left Clinton’s most dedicated supporters – her “true believers” – with the task of defending a corrupt media discourse replete with character assassinations.
A lot of female readers accused me of being sexist – because of one statement that I made at the end of my piece: “Clinton owes every feminist who poured their heart into her campaign to elect the first woman president a deep and sincere apology.” Many said that I’m the one who should apologize, and some said that I “must have a problem” with women in public office. I'll admit that I made a pretty harsh statement, but I stand by my point that her vicious campaign tactics demean those who supported her as a means of advancing the rights of women.
Notice that I did not say that she owes “every woman” an apology, but “every feminist.” Some women are not feminists, and some men are. And I know a lot of feminists – good people who share my progressive values – who have worked hard on Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did so because they believe strongly that we need a woman president, and poured their heart and soul into that effort to accomplish that goal. What Clinton’s campaign has become is appalling to such values, which is why I believe that she owes them a sincere apology.
For the benefit of our readers, I have included most of these e-mails at the bottom of this article. Take a look at them yourself, and send us your feedback about what it means.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
The right wing noise machine doesn't need Hillary Clinton to take down Barack Obama in the general election; they will be able to do that alone. Trust me, I live in Ohio ... Obama cannot win here and he can't win in Florida. The media's Golden Boy will be back in the Senate and John McCain will be conducting war in Iraq for at least four more years come November. I do not like the way Clinton's campaign has been run, but she is the only candidate who I feel could lead our country back to the prosperity we had in the 90's. – Bobbi
Many things have annoyed me in this primary season, but few things have made my blood boil. Paul Hogarth's article urging Hillary Clinton to drop out made my blood boil. Who does this man think he is? Hogarth's candidate blew himself up in the ABC-News debate and it's Clinton's fault? Who couldn't give direct answers to questions he had to know were out there? Who fumbled his way through legitimate questions of his judgment and character? Who's response to criticism is to put on "how dare these people criticize me" airs? Obama. Obama. Obama.
Hogarth seems to think that if it doesn't come out in the primary, it will miraculously disappear not to be seen in the general election. Hmmm ... Funny we didn't hear much about Swift Boats in the primaries and it killed John Kerry in the general. Obama tried to hide him but Jeremiah Wright came not because of Clinton, it was discovered by the media. "Bitter/Clinging' was disclosed by an Obama SUPPORTER. And so on.
Instead of telling Clinton to quit, why doesn't he write a piece that tells Obama to actually WIN the nomination, something he has been continually failing to do since before Texas/Ohio. Why should Obama have it gifted to him? Neither candidate can win the nomination outright and Democratic primary voters have been registering and voting in record numbers demanding their say.
Hillary Clinton is a strong, ambitious woman who has EARNED everything she's accomplished and I am a feminist proud to support her. Clinton does not owe me an apology but I DEMAND one from Paul Hogarth.
Caroline Lovelace
Hillary Clinton should stay in the race because she is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Has the Democratic Party learned nothing? It lost the 2000 and 2004 elections because it ran candidates who cannot identify with the issues of the working class American. If they choose Barack Obama as the candidate, we will surely loose to Senator McCain.
Religious faith and gun ownership are important issues to the working and middle class Americans. Gun ownership, and the right to own guns, goes back to the days of the American Revolution itself. When British troops began seizing the guns of the colonists, the Revolution began in earnest. That is why this right to own guns was included in the Bill of Rights.
Unlike Obama, Hillary Clinton understands patriotism and pride in simple, working class American values. She is the candidate that has prevailed with the working class Democratic voters throughout this campaign. She will continue to do so.
If the Democratic Party chooses Obama, those working class American voters will be forced to vote for John McCain, just as many of them voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004.
The personal success of Senator Clinton, and her husband, President Clinton, is an American success story. It is also living proof that the Clintons know who to handle finances. That is a skill much needed in our country with the largest deficit in history, and an economy falling apart.
Brian McKee
McConnelsville, Ohio
Hillary is not giving the election to John McCain, Obama is. Because if this bigot and not to mention Hussein is nominated for the Democrat party, I and millions like me who love America and the flag which stands for it, will vote for McCain. A patriotic American. At least we know who we are getting with Clinton and McCain. Obama has too many skeletons in his closet. He is the antichrist and is fooling even the very elect.
Mary Roark
Would you quit if you were this close in the Presidential Race, with a few more states that you knew you were going to win? Oh yes, and what about the people of Michigan and Florida ... this would put you on top. It's not over yet, and I resent your unfairness and bias toward Barack Obama.
By the way, Obama did run ads in Florida and his name was on the ballot. HE chose not to keep his name on the Michigan ballot, bad judgment once again!
Every American should have a right to vote and a voice. If you declare Obama the winner now, then the voices in Pennsylvania don't matter!
Hillary is definitely the stronger Politician, and she will serve our Country well. Obama and his wife would be an embarrassment to us all (not because of race, but because of their lack of discernment that has been shown in several speeches.)
Deloris Cunningham
Georgia
Both of the Democratic candidates have been slinging mud ... but Obama is the angel who is never accurately portrayed by the media. What about his weather underground connections ... there are more of these to come as well.
Give me a break ... this is not even close to what will happen in November if he is the Democratic nominee. If he cannot handle the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen!
Dawn Hartwick
Paul Hogarth has richly exposed his animosity toward the Clinton campaign in his recent essay, "Beyond Chron: Clinton's Nasty Train Wreck" (This title says it all.) So I want him to take a serious stab at the following question:
When Obama spouted the "they" word in his bitterness statement, to whom was he referring? Can you answer that Paul Hogarth? Can you explain such a statement by a man who is famous (also) for saying "We-are-all-in-this-world-together?" If you cannot answer the question, then perhaps you also come up short in your assessment of the political situation.
Nancy Hess Hummer
Central PA Resident
I'm one of those feminists, and Hillary does not owe me an apology nor should she drop out. You must have been drinking the kool-aid or are you on his paylist. He has been negative since before the SC primary. He and his camp went racist then and he has been nonstop since, even telling lie upon lie. Right now with his ad in Pennsylvania telling he doesn't take oil and gas money or money from lobbyist that's a blatant lie.
From the Center for Responsive Politics he accepted $160,000 from major oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. Two of his top bundlers George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar are CEO's for major oil companies. Last month, Obama accepted another $8400 from ExxonMobile, $12,370 from Chevron and $6500 from British Petroleum.
He has done nothing but lie. He is a phoney. Ask him about all the characters in his life, not just Biil Ayers, the terrorist or Tony Rezko, but Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Nadhim Auchi, these are all pro palestinian activists. But we are not supposed to question the great one. Do yourself a favor and try investigative reporting.
Jackie Hyman
Waxhaw, N.C.
We learn something new about Obama every week-all bad. And look at the last half of the debate; Senator Clinton is sharp, crisp, knowledgeable and right while Obama is floundering. We don't need another Dukakis (or Kerry, or Gore, or Hart or even Carter). When will the Democrats quit the foot shooting? Unfortunately, probably never, but it's more important now than ever.
Regards,
Roger Thomas
This is just bullshit ... You Obama supporters are doing exactly what you are accusing Hillary and her campaign. You have been slinging mud at her right from the get-go and now that Obama by his own doing has screwed up so bad by his comments that you are trying to once again put the blame on Clinton. Obama has done enough pandering by his gutterballs, cheese eating etc.
Hillary is the only candidate who can actually bring this country around just like Clinton did. I was very happy and prosperous in Clinton era and I have absolutely nothing to do with other things that media enjoyed broadcasting during Clinton years.
As far as how slimy Obama, his campaign, Democratic Party leaders who support him are ... I have seen their corruption upclose and personal at the caucus here in Texas. If people ever find out what Obama capamign does to win caucus states they will cringe if they have even an iota of respect for the rules and fairness.
Stop covering up for Obama, enough is enough already. He needs to own up to his mistakes like a man instead of blaming others for it. But he won't because he is a child which is demonstrated today by his disgusting gesture of giving Clinton a birdy at the speech. His pastor gyrates and he gives fingers. What a low class guy? I knew that is what he was since Hillary won NH. Attacking her while talking about new kind of Politics. I am still amazed people can't see through him for what he is.
Sonali Dave
Plano, TX
I believe you are incorrect in your statement. I am from Northeastern PA and took offense to Sen. Obama's statement about clinging to guns and religion, I see this as frustration in Mr. Obama. And I believe in Sen. Hillary Clinton and fee she should take this to the convention and let people speak.
No one is asking Mr. Obama to step out of the race I believe this is due to the fact that they fear being labeled a racist. I believe that Sen. Clinton has the knowledge the experience and know-how to clean up the mess that the Bush Administration has us in at this time, sadly that will take many years to do.
I do not see KAMIKAZE TACTICS IN THE CLINTON CAMP. I feel you owe ALL HILLARY SUPPORTS AN APOLOGY. From your statement about feminists, I would tend to think that you have a problem with any women holding public office. In history there have been 46 women whom were elected Presidents or Prime Ministers. It is sad that the United States is not on that list.
Deborah Williams
I'm not sure what election you are watching but in this one between Clinton and Obama NEITHER candidate will have enough delegates to win the nomination. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Why would she drop out? She is the most qualified candidate. We all know Obama is unelectable in the general election. Why should she drop? Perhaps you should find another career because you are definitely not a very good journalist.
Toni Alves
San Francisco
Thank goodness Paul Hogarth's "trainwreck" article is opinion. And from a man. How surprising that he assumes to speak for women. I think it is he who owes American women an apology.
Susan
New Jersey
What makes you think it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win? She is not that far behind and the only reason she is, is because Michigan and Florida have not been seated. Had they been, you would not be calling Obama the winner. These states will be seated, whether the Obama camp likes it or not. It is still possible for her to win, so don't cling to a candidate only because you're afraid of big, bad, Hillary. If you Obama people can't handle her, I don't think you're the right choice to handle Ahmadinajhad, or Osama Bin Laden. You wouldn't be so afraid of her if she were nothing.
Chris
Greensburg, PA
We New Yorkers don't give up until the fat lady sings.
Belle Linda
It is really poor analysis from this article that Senator Clinton is using “Republican-style tactics.”
For one, Obama is attacking Clinton personally and on policy just as much as Clinton is attacking Obama. It has been like this between them since 2007. To now write that all negative attacks are coming from Clinton to Obama is pure idiocy. And, I’ll add this: Clinton might challenge Obama directly on many issues — even supposed silly-season politics — but Obama retreats behind the negative machinations of his campaign and David Axelrod. It is a ploy to look clean on the surface and use your underlings to do the dirty work for you.
Second, Obama and his campaign have done everything possible to keep questionable material hidden from the public for as long as possible, because they ARE smart, and they know that there are many questionable moments in Obama’s history that beg for answers, answers that Obama either refuses to give or cannot give. These questions, whether posed by voting Americans or by news journalists, show be answered with respect and attention by Obama, every time we ask him! As President, he will not be excused from hard hitting questions nor explaining himself to the America people. If he wants to be at all unlike George W. Bush, he should learn to understand this.
Third, Obama and his supporters should get used to the fact that Obama is no Wonder Boy, Golden Child or specially privileged with forgiveness when he gaffes. Obama’s campaign spends plenty of man hours inventing spin to make him look picture perfect, but the fact remains that Obama himself could not win this Dem. nomination outright, and therefore Senator Clinton is entitled to challenge Obama AT EVERY LEVEL.
To demand, suggest or assume differently is simply ignorant to how politics works. And, I’ll guarantee you that Obama is not going to magically change the politics in Washington. That is about an much as a false promise as his recent statements that he won’t raise taxes on those making lower than $200,000 a year.
If Obama loses to the Repubs. in November, it will no ones fault but his own…except maybe David Axelrod.
Steven Robert Barich
Did you write about all of the times Hillary Clinton has been denigrated by the media and the Barack Obama camp? I would really like to know. I suppose I could go back and look at all of the editorials you have put out in the last year, but I doubt if it would be fruitful.
HRC has been repeatedly beaten up on by the MSM and Obama camp. She has suffered indignation after indignation ranging from anything from her hairstyle, laugh, facial expressions, teary eyes, to how she handled a crisis in her marriage. I meet people who are ready to toss her under the bus, but when I question them why, they cannot for their lives give me one good reason why. They sometimes want to drag up Vince Foster or other crap that is just so much Soros or Murdoch bullsh*t.
Rarely does the trashing actually have anything to do with her stance on issues. The slanted media coverage has definitely played into the inflated perspective of Obama's supporters. If you never see someone vetted, appropriately, and never see any positive coverage of the opponent, it is easy to see how BO has been given the support he has garnered.
So, now you are going to defend BO against remarks that are only a fraction of what he will come up against in a general election. I am sorry, but I don't see how calling him on these questions, now, instead of allowing the GOP drag it out all shiny and new later in the late summer months, should he be the nominee, is a negative. This will render it all old news and round out the edges of any future damage being inflicted as long as he can effectively respond. I have to surmise from all of this protesting that it is more to denigrate HRC than to protect BO.
Watching as BO struggled during the debate, recently, I felt more and more convinced in my belief that he is just not ready. I am still not sure he ever will be with his ever unfolding story. I, like others, would like to believe that he will mature into a wonderful potential candidate for president, someday, but he is definitely not ready now.
On this "bittergate" stuff; I have been a party to that type of group of wealthy, well educated, high minded, "more evolved thinking" individuals that BO was speaking to in SF. I can hear it all play in my head. There is a specter of elitism, if you want to call it that. I really hate that word, but I, also, hate the condescending attitudes of those same people.
Don't get me wrong; I know people who fall into the karmicly evolved, peace promoting, vegan (this is usually applicable), nonjudgmental, care for the people of the world, group. I happen to consider myself somewhere on the ladder, but some are just wealthy self-righteous posers rather than true believers. I do truly believe BO meant exactly what he seemed to be saying to the SF group. I think he was pandering in what is the most disingenuous way.
It is very unsettling. He constantly seeks to insinuate himself into such a more highly evolved status when he is really no more evolved at all. If he were, he would have insinuated himself more effectively,
at the very moment of hearing, into the climate of the remarks of Rev. Wright. To do so only when called on to, demonstrates a lack of sincerity, honesty AND the leadership we desperately need to move our country in the right direction.
HRC is much more ready and suited to be our next president. She is strong, tenacious, yet, compassionate and committed. She is incredibly versed on all of the issues that she will face. On the unknown ones that may present themselves, I fully trust her to deal with, successfully - much more so than BO could over the next 8 years.
Bunny Hudson
As President, Hillary will take on the insurance, oil, credit card and student loan companies. Hillary will provide quality health care, create clean energy jobs, help families get out of debt and make college affordable. In my family, these are real issues that affect us everyday. I have one daughter in college and I don't want her burdened after finishing a degree with re-paying outrageously high interest college student loans. I want her to be able to join the workforce and contribute to society just as I did when I finished college. We need a President who is looking after the future of this country by helping the next generation of its workers. Hillary Clinton is that President.
Marie Johnson
Obetz, OH
Senator Clinton is the Next President of USA. Obama needs to GET OUT NOW! Total fraud, LOSER! He is pathetic and so are you!
Deanne Pierce
You are not honest to yourself and the readers. You turn my stomach! Are you selling your articles to the "boy" who is selling his dream?
Jesse Price
The irony of your bitterness in your vicious attack ad is priceless. Clinton is Tonya Harding? You write with a desperate string of attacks on Clinton. Your writing serves no purpose except to disenfranchise every one of Clinton's supporters.
Hillary Clinton ABSOLUTELY owes no woman an apology for her campaign. My friends and I in Texas wonder about a man who after a couple of years in the Illinois Senate decides that he deserves to be President. And then he goes forth using Rezko and other shady characters to start advancing his campaign. The Republicans are going to tear him to pieces.
Half of the United States voters would like her to win the presidency when you count Michigan and Florida. Unfortunately, writers like you ignore their existence. Please give us a chance to make our own decisions without using your column as a bully pulpit.
Jan Doering
Garland, TX
Dear Mr. Hogarth,
I’m offended by your negative commentary about Senator Hillary Clinton. She is the most qualified presidential candidate and should stay in the race.
Carmen Negron
Wesley Hills NY
The space and the readers' time are far too valuable to be wasted by chewing Paul Hogarth's dishonest points. I guess Hogarth must have had bitter time during Bill Clinton's time. If you are keeping writing stupid articles like this, your next four years won't be any better!
Jesse Price
Reading Paul Hogarth's article really turns my stomach! I am wondering why his points made people feeling so bitter and disgusting?
Mike Erwx
I demand that Barack Obama be vetted by the mainstream media so that Americans can be informed and vote accordingly. This is OUR COUNTRY and we deserve to KNOW the person who wishes to be our President. Obama is not immune to scrutiny. It is NOT off limits to question a potential President.
Obama needs to be vetted by the mainstream media NOW instead of LATER.
Katherine Girl
Hillary doesn't owe any feminist such as myself an apology. She only deserves my gratitude. Obama appears angry about questions at the recent debate in which she had no say on the content of the debate. How dare you suggest she is the cause of problems. Obama had difficulty answering questions asked by the moderators not asked by Hillary.
I only hope Hillary stays in till the bitter end. If you think the Philly debate was bad, just wait. Unfortunately, Obama didn't have his usually time to write a speech he actually had to answer questions on the spot and didn't fair well. I will give he is a gifted speaker when he has a prearranged speech, but clearly that won't be happening in the real world.
Hillary definitely can handle the real world and has already demonstrated that. As a feminist I'm tiring of listening to the good old boys. Don't ever tell me how to vote or who to support! Hillary is the clear choice! Obama should be the one leaving the race!
Jennifer Bauer
It is media opinion pieces like Paul Hogarth’s that are actually doing the most damaging, polarizing work in this political campaign -- not the candidates. Clinton and Obama are simply engaged in a political battle. It is to be expected that each campaign will look for every opportunity to try to discredit the experience or judgment of the other.
What distorts and needlessly raises the anxiety of the American Public is the "awfulizing" of these contests by media types, e.g. "her worst CRIME" will be handing over the presidency to the Republicans. Really? It's a crime? Settle down. I know its hard for Hogarth to believe, but there are just as many Clinton supporters who believe it will be very bad for the country if Obama wins the nomination -- whether he wins the general election, or McCain does.
I suspect one reason for Hogarth's disproportionate emotional response to Hillary's campaign, a political contest not significantly different from other presidential contests, is because it is an aggressive woman's campaign. Very threatening and anxiety evoking to the patriarchal status quo upon which folk of Hogarth’s ilk have built their identities.
Hillary scares the bejesus out of them. I advise psychotherapy. Seriously. It's understandable to not like the opponent of your candidate. It's pathological to trash the opponent with dehumanizing names (e.g., criminal) while twittering with anxiety.
I am an avid news follower, former news reporter myself, and from what I observe Obama's campaign is quite good at spin too ... doing everything it can to portray Hillary in the most negative light possible. But this doesn't surprise me. It's politics folks. Therefore I expect Hillary to do everything she can to prove (with facts and her record) to voters that Obama's portrayal of her is "spin."
Hillary has demonstrated that she's quite good when it comes to fighting back. She can defend herself and go on the counterattack. For example, Obama's campaign purposefully twisted Hillary's record on NAFTA when they were trying to win Ohio and they are doing it again -- even though the falsehood of Obama's claim has been proven and exposed in the media -- in Pennsylvania. Hillary came out swinging in Ohio and was able to get the media to investigate Obama's claims and disprove them when they found that in an attempt to discredit Hillary he had used a Newsday article that had been retracted years ago. It was a good attempt by Obama's camp. But Hillary's self-defending punch helped her win that round.
Because it's politics, Hillary does everything she can to expose to voters the weaknesses she has found in her opponent so that she can win the contest. When she goes on the attack, I expect him too to go to his "record" and disprove charges if they are out of context or untrue. Problem for Obama is Obama is having trouble fending off the charges. His thin legislative record doesn't give him much to draw from -- which in some ways is a political advantage.
He's having trouble disproving the questions about his integrity due to his double-talk about his choices in personal and political associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers). He's having trouble dusting off doubts about his integrity because unlike what Hillary did in owning up to her Tuzla mistake, Obama has yet to own up to the truth about his handwriting on the 1996 questionnaire in which he advocated banning all guns. He keeps saying, "Uh, uh. It wasn't me," like a 4-year-old does when they get caught and are scared.
The "elitist" issue is sticking not just because of what he said to billionaires in San Francisco, but because of some of his statements in Iowa, and his whole campaign which basically tells Americans that they are bitter and full of hatred toward each other and need Savior Obama to rescue them.
Political attacks aren't pretty. They grow tiresome. But they are part of the contest process. Media types like Hogarth -- and Obama himself -- need not be so alarmist about the punches coming Obama's way. It makes Obama look weak. Stand up and fight! If you want to play the political game, you have to fight and fight hard rather than whine about the punches.
It's politics, folks. The voters understand this. They hate it. They are tired of it. But it's the way it's done. What's harmful is media types like Hogarth who in their anxiety try to raise everyone's anxiety about this process.
Americans who want America to be better will simply have to make up their own minds by doing their political homework, watching the debates (which Obama doesn't want to participate in anymore) and investing time and energy into reading and listening to a lot of varied news reports. But hopefully they'll value the high anxiety displayed in the media by types like Hogarth, Chris Matthews, Keith O., Maureen Dowd, for what it is -- personal anxiety related to the writer's/pundit's/news show anchor's unresolved life issues.
Elizabeth Watson-Martin
Columbia, PA
How dare you tell me and all the workers on Hillary's campaign that she needs to drop out! We personally talk to the voters all day long, and that's not what we hear from them ... you haven't attended her rallies or town hall meetings, or flew with her all day long and then watched her talk to the voters at the rope lines … Like I have. So until you work your little butt off for a candidate, like we all do, I don't want to hear your opinion … we're in it to win it, we won't stop until she tells us to stop … so think of something else to write and don't waste the time of all the hundreds of volunteers around this country that have the priviledge to work for Hillary
thank you, I'm busy right now,
Michele Mueller
Everytime you Obama supporters get scared Hillary is going to knock over your koolaid canidate you start crying for her to withdraw. Sorry, but we're onto you now. Your argument has no validity. If Obama is the nominee, the republicans are going to throw a lot more at the annointed than Hillary is. If he can't withstand her, he'll never withstand them.
Robin Rowlinson
Wilmington, Delaware
I think Hillary should stay in. one we are not done voting and I believe that it is not going to hurt the party. why is Hillary any different then Ted Kennedy. are we women not part of this party? I am glad you back Obama, and I am beginning to see this is to be a new party. you do not need the base any more
Sharon Bishop
Slow down, folks. Elitism is an attitude that says I think I am better than you - it is not about how much money you have. Obama has an intellectual grasp of what America is about based on the way politicians segment the population. If you agree with him that much of America is bitter, clings to guns & religion and are racist / xenophobic, then I see why you don’t get the condescension in his remarks.
However, you guys are great at raging against Clinton. Is that the profile of bitter liberals? Is that what you do in hard times? Frankly, Obama is not above “politics” – he is just selling a brand that is being positioned as new because there are enough people out there who don’t remember Humphrey, McGovern and McCarthy.
Catherine Sherwood
The election was handed over to the Republicans when [Howard] Dean became the head of the DNC. In your efforts to degrade Hillary Clinton, you've shown yourself to be sexist. We as Hillary Clinton supporters do not approve of any man who will flip off a woman in front of kids. And don't tell he was just scratching his nose. Any one that knows the street language knows exactly what he did.
Getting back to Dean, he began a campaign to take over the Democratic Party but he will not succeed and I am sure that he doesn't care if the Dems win or not. This is supposedly a free country, but you try telling that to all the voters in Michigan and Florida. Also do a poll on how many people will not vote for Obama that are Clinton supporters.
DAVID MORALES
Hillary Clinton must stay in the race because she is the candidate positioned to be the best president; to lead the country effectively and to do the right things. She must stay to clarify, as these past few weeks without a primary contest have done, why Barak Obama – when put to the test, fails and must do so while she still has a chance to win. It is far better for the country that Obama be vetted now in a battle for the Democratic nomination than when he is the standard bearer of the Democratic Party and up against the full attack machine of the GOP.
Jo Anne Bander
Coral Gables, FL
I just want to say Hillary should not and will not ever quit! I cannot believe that so many men are telling her to quit. Real Americans do not QUIT, and Hillary is a REAL AMERICAN, and will not quit, or give up on our country!! She is the only one that can and will do what is best for our country, and the only one I will vote for.
If she does not win the nomination, I will do what I have never done in my life and that is vote Republican (unless someone else besides Obama is in the race!) and I know a lot more people that will do the same.
I do like Obama, but he is not ready to be President of the United States of America, maybe in another eight years after Hillary has fixed everything!
All he knows how to do now is repeat everything that Hillary says, (he does not have a plan for our country, and the only time he does is after he has heard Hillary give the plan and then he just says ditto!) And give speeches. He will end up just like Bush is now except he will know how to give a speech!
Benjamin Rager
Sapulpa, Oklahoma
No, Mr. Hogarth, Senator Clinton's campaign must not come to an end. Senator Obama is not the "presumptive Democratic nominee." He can't be as he does not hold the sufficient number of delegates to clinch the nomination. People in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, my state or Oregon and other states have yet to vote. You may have a crystal ball, but I don't so I cannot foresee the outcome yet.
As for "nasty," Senator Clinton has only pointed out facts about her opponent that she believes make him less qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. I've seen campaigns that could be called "nasty," and this is not one of those. Part of what the "Democratic cause" and democratic (small "d") process is founded on is giving all voters a voice in the election process.
I am not a "feminist," but I have and do support Senator Clinton. I believe she has the experience, depth of knowledge of and solid solutions for issues from the economy to foreign policy, and the strength of character to be our President and Commander in Chief.
Sue Whalen
Grants Pass, Oregon
Who put Hillary in charge of protecting Obama? This isn't about the Democratic Party. This is about America and by Gawd, if Hillary needs to sound like a Republican to get elected and get us OUT OF IRAQ, then so be it! Tell Obama to take a hike, he's a whimp!
Maria Coradi
I am tired of hearing that Hillary should drop out of the race. She is the person who should be the candidate for the President and then she can win. The Democrats had better quit pushing Obama down our throats. This man does not deserve to be our candidate. If he is nominated, I will not vote. I will not vote for someone who is not for America. Go to his church's website and this will tell you who he is really supporting.
The media has given Obama a free ride, and this ride is finally coming to a halt. Here is a man who will not wear a lapel pin to support America, he will not put his hand over his heart when saying the Pledge of Alligance. His wife says that America is a mean country, he sat in a pew for twenty years with a man who lashed out at America, he has ties with a couple of men that are trouble makers in the US, he has taken money from sources for his campaign that he says he did not take from, among many other lies, and his latest remarks about small town America. Is this not enough to sit up and take notice? Come on!!!! The people of America are not that stupid!!
And then the media beats Hillary up about a simple "big fish story" about Bosnia. Give me a break!! What did she do---she did not commit a crime as the newscasters have been trying to paint this. Compare that to Obama. She has given more of her time and money then Obama ever thought about giving.
President Clinton has given of his time and money to help the needy but what did Obama give. Bill Clinton led this nation into good times that would have only continued on if it had not been for the Republicans and Bush. We are paying the price at the pump, the grocery store, health care, prescriptions, taxes, and just everyday living to support the Bush War. A Democrat needs to win but you are right about one thing they will loose if they keep pushing Obama!!
Janice Schellinger
Clinton a train wreck? Hardly!
About Clinton? Well, for one thing, in addition to her much superior qualifications she’ll get us back to a stable, prosperous economy. Also, she's ready with well-thought-out plans to effectively address the problems facing us. Her in-depth knowledge & experience are real; she’s not a product of a massive public relations campaign. We need a president now with the solid experience & prepared plans to move us quickly forward in the right direction, & we need a nominee with the unquestionable qualifications for a viable candidacy. The only one qualified to fulfill these needs and to successfully lead us to a robust & peaceful future is Clinton. She's already got what Obama needs to get; it's obvious who's better prepared for the job & responsibilities of the oval office.
About Obama (& honor?)? Well, for one thing, Obama demonstrated his selective memory when he denied knowing about a note that documents his true position on gun control -- although the handwritten note was in his own writing. RobS333 sums up Obama’s sterling qualities quite nicely: "Sen. Obama seems to be talking out both sides of his mouth ... He calls the people of Pennsylvania “Bitter,” and then says he didn't mean that. He says he never heard Rev Wright deliver hateful speeches, and then he says he did hear some. He says he doesn’t take money from lobbyist, then it is reported he has taken millions from people who work for lobbyist (splitting hairs??), he says President Clinton left Americans out during his administration, but he has hired [& continues to hire] many people that worked in the Clinton administration, as top advisors for his campaign." Oh yeah, Clinton is a really fine & honorable candidate.
Patrick Knif
Chicago, IL
Five states broke the DNC’s rules (FL, MI, SC, IA and NH); not two as is so widely reported. Under the DNC’s rules, all of those states should have been penalized by losing 50% of their delegates and superdelegates. Therefore, you might begin to understand the consternation of Clinton’s supporters when the two states that supported her overwhelmingly were stripped of ALL their delegates, and the states that voted for Senator Obama, by contrast were stripped of NONE of their delegates.
Now, of course, Mr. Obama’s supporters like to point out that he was not on the ballot in Michigan. As has been extensively documented, in Michigan, Senator Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot (in a tactically brilliant move) as a face saving strategy so he could focus his resources on South Carolina. However, my understanding of the rules of most contests (in fact, now that I think about it—every contest)—is that this is deemed “forfeiture”--and to the player remaining on the field go the laurels of the day. Taking Senator Obama’s reasoning a step farther, no delegates from any state could be awarded, because there are literally millions of people not on the ballot, that might have received votes had their names appeared.
There is, of course, an inherent irony in all of this. Senator Obama’s first electoral victory was made possible by challenging the validity of his opponent's nominating petitions. As a result of these challenges, Obama was elected to the State Legislature—running unopposed. So clearly, Senator Obama must understand the ramification of removing one’s name from the ballot (voluntarily or forcibly). “Obama Knows His Way around a Ballot” by David Jackson & Ray Long, Chicago Tribune (4/3/2007)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?page=1
The problem with the math is that if Florida and Michigan are counted—and one way or another they must be counted---Senator Obama’s mantle of inevitability starts to slip... Well, rather dramatically.
Very truly yours,
Paula Abeles
EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
No Kidding?!?!? I would never have guessed which cult this writer came from. Speaking as one of the millions of American voters, I want my candidate to do the right thing and STAY in this race. We all have an equal voice.
Jeanne Pugh
I am very sorry, but that was the most immature point of view I ever read regarding this race. It is Hillary Clinton's duty to not only reflect her own policies on why she is the best candidate for President, but also her duty to point out why Barrack O'Bama isn't.
Is it Hillary's fault who Barrack associates with at church or who he makes friends with? Is she to blame that she has a wealth of executive and legislative experience and he is a freshman senator? Or that she's married to an extremely popular ex-president? Where were you (the writer of this article) when Hillary was ahead of Barrack for the nomination? Why didn't you write that he should quit now because his critique of her might affect the national election outcome?
To me, it sounds like the writer is afraid that Sen O'bama will LOSE the election in November if he is the nominee. That stimulates two points:
(1) If he loses, that will be because he did not step out of the way and allow Michigan and Florida's votes to count. If he truly believes he is the better candidate over Hillary (as he stated in the last debate), then he needs to win legitimately. As it is, he's snubbing us (I'm a resident in FL) and we will make him pay at the election booth. If he realizes that the DNC/Howard Dean was mistaken by having such a silly rule of what exact date a state primary should be held ... allows the votes to count, and in the end he wins anyway over Hillary, then FL and MI will back him and he will win in November.
(2) If he loses in November, your article gives the strong impression that, just like George Bush did for all his failures by blaming the Clintons, Barrack O'bama will blame Hillary for his loss. The fact is, Hillary has an excellent chance to win, period!!
Kevin Chouinard
Crestview, FL
Mr. Hogarth's article does a disservice to readers. Whoever is Mr. Hogarth to call for Sen. Clinton to drop out? I am a lifelong feminist advocate, and I am affronted by Mr. Hogarth's telling Sen. Clinton that she owes every feminist a "deep and sincere apology." Again, Mr. Hogarth, who are you to tell feminists what is owed them?
Your take on the debate tells me that you don't have a clue what this is all about. YOU owe Senator Clinton an apology for labeling her as using "kamikaze tactics." When I read your article, I felt as though you were the kamikaze by the rancor I read in your article.
Please, Mr. Hogarth, do us all a favor, and "to be perfectly blunt" WE are moving on by calling you to task for your being so out of touch and thinking YOU know what feminists are owed. You owe us an apology for the arrogance reflected in your article in calling for Sen. Clinton to close her campaign.
Gloria L. Cordova, Ph.D.
Los Alamos, NM
Since when do the Republicans decide Democratic nominees? (OK, besides 1972 and last time.)
The voting results have been spun. Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote. How? Addition is a first grade skill. Add the votes. Votes were cast in the primaries and in a primary in New Mexico that was only called a caucus. Votes are when people use regular voting machines in regular voting places with secret ballots with absentee ballots and voter registration. When the votes are counted, Hillary is not just ahead now, she's led most of the way! So why would you campaign to stop her from winning?
We concede that Obama has brownshirted the phony red-state caucuses that don't mean anything and have never meant anything in our nomination process since 1932. We concede that Republicans like Obama as long as he runs against Hillary Clinton. She's running 2 to 1 among Democrats, even with his racist appeal in Southern states. She is our only really viable candidate. Her cousin doesn't lead the child abducting Lords Resistance Army in Uganda. None of her relatives facilitated Idi Amin's rise to power and her first cousin didn't kill 1000 people winning election. She went home on her college vacations, she didn't go to Pakistan like Obama.
Hillary can win against McCain. Hillary Clinton gave the commencement address when she graduated from college. McCain graduated 5th from the bottom in his class. She didn't spend the best years of her life being tortured in a cage, eating garbage and drinking sewage either. She's spent nearly 36 years leading this country to freedom. I know, I was there in the very beginning. Plus she's young enough to survive her first term in office, unlike poor McCain.
Yours in service,
Ross C. Bubba Nicholson
TAMPA, FL
I was appalled and offended by Mr. Hogarth "nasty" article about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. His bi-polar approach to whether or not voters deserve to have their voices heard make his writing a poor example of insight.
I am an Indiana resident--a citizen of the United States--and I, along with the other 9 states remaining, deserve to have my voice heard. To compare Senator Clinton to "Tonya Harding," and somehow describe her campaign as "kamikaze" is delirious.
Mr. Hogarth is OBVIOUSLY IN THE TANK with Barack Obama. Hogarth's sad attempt to contextualize why he feels the race should just proves how partial many in the inside D.C media are … and I, for one, will NOT take the bait.
I am headed to hillaryclinton.com this very moment to contribute $200 on behalf of Mr. Hogarth.
Hillary always has stressed solution and her preparedness, which makes her the best candidate and Presidential nominee in my opinion. Questionable associates got Barack into politics in the first place, he sat silently through 20 years of sermons by a bitter and hate-filled preacher, and he was careful to essentially not vote (vote present) so he could honestly say he did not vote AGAINST anything I would not want him to vote against.
If Barack can't stand up to any attention to his negative issues, he will be crushed and cast aside if the Republicans have a chance to get at him. I am certain that there are things that the Republicans know about Barack that they are saving up in case he becomes the nominee. I don't think Barack has been vetted sufficiently, accomplished enough, or is experienced enough to be our President.
If Barack becomes the nominee, my husband has announced he will vote for McCain because we need someone who is experienced as our President. I think there are many who will vote the same way. Hillary needs to stay in the race, become the Democratic nominee, win the Presidency, and lead us through her intelligence and experience to make America even better and more-respected globally.
Carrie Gillespie
I could not disagree more with this piece. Senator Clinton has the right to remain in the race. Only 700,000 votes separate the two candidates, but no one is asking him to quit. I realize there are those in the left of the Democratic Party leadership that want to end this now and crown him with the nomination. They forget that Obama will need Clinton supporters like myself come November. If they do this and do not count MI and FL by giving those states a revote, then the nomination will be perceived by millions as illegitimate.
Senator Obama was not complaining when the heat was on Senator Clinton. He has had a honeymoon with the liberal MSM. Why are him and his supporters whining now? Both campaigns have run similar negative ads. Both campaigns have traded barbs. Actually, this race has been pretty tame compared to others in the past.
One thing, Obama should refrain from coming off so arrogant, and yes, elitist. Elitism, is not about how much money you have, but rather, it is about a certain attitude that looks down on those less fortunate. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with having a great education. However, no one likes an "educated fool."
I am trying to be as polite as I can because I do want to offend anyone. However, Senator Obama's remarks about small town America were inaccurate, and highly offensive. Worst yet, was that he would choose to make these remarks to a very affluent audience far away in San Francisco, where he believed it would not fall on the ears of small town America. I call this world class pandering.
Lets clear one other thing, I do not dislike Senator Obama. I just believe Senator Clinton is better positioned to win in November. There is nothing new for the GOP to take her down. Unlike her opponent. The Republican attack machine is ready for him.
Oh yeah, most, if not all of those Democrat-for-a-day voters (Republicans that hate Hillary or just enjoy messing up our primary results) will not vote for him in November. Bet on it.
I guess some people have made up their mind regardless of the facts that do not support their beliefs. So be it. Senator Clinton is a fighter, she can take the heat in the kitchen. I admire her tenacity, and resiliency. She inspires me, and she has my unequivocal support. I do not put her on a pedestal, as she is flawed like the rest of us. However, I believe she truly wants to serve her country. She has been maligned by the liberal MSM.
Regardless of what candidate one supports, there is no need to insult one another. That is exactly what happens nine out of ten times that I engage in debate with an Obama supporter. This is a major turn off, especially when it is accompanied by unwarranted vile and misogynistic comments.
No one likes to have their voice silenced, or have their vote suppressed. Howard Dean, Dona Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire DNC should take notice and listen to the other 49% that is supporting Senator Clinton. This race should play out without interference from interested parties with a hidden agenda. These acts will prove fatal to the party in
November, and it will not be Senator Clinton's fault as many are bound to claim.
Sincerely,
Rocio Juarez
From my perspective, Hillary Clinton has been a protector, mentor, and worthy opponent of the relatively unseasoned and increasingly arrogant Barack Obama. If he doesn't win the general election, it will be due to his own campaign, which has included some rather nasty jabs at Clinton. Obama has his own baggage, and in a general election, he'll have to deal with it. Clinton has been diplomatic.
Once and if she is out of the race – the perfect female foil for him, and likely the last woman to run for highest office anytime soon – we'll see if a campaign that seems tone deaf to so many voters can actually hold it's own. And if Obams should win the general election, lets hope he does more than flip the bird to those people he'll need to build strategic alliances with.
His bold assumption that he will be ready or able to deliver on his many challenging promises speaks to a kind of hubris that begs deflation once the harder job begins.
Ellen Michel
Wow, what a surprise! A Pro-Obama report with completely ridiculous miscalculations of Senator Clinton. This has to be one the most obvious sexist articles to date, and yet again, treating Mr. Obama, Senator Obama as if his record was just spic and span.
The issues brought up, not by Senator Clinton, but by the hosts of ABC, were a clear reflection of what will be an all-out buffet on past dealings with everyone from the Good ole Boy Rev. Wright to Ayers, and Farrakhan, a list that continues to get little to no attention yet will be hammered upon without a doubt if this man, with his lack of any experience as a Leader, will get by the Republican Machines.
Have you not heard people like Rush and the like lately? They tear this man down like dog food. Senator Clinton has a record that in no way is reflective in this sexist and so obvious Pro-Obama Elite article … Shame shame … Where is the truth?
Joey Lee- a Voter in Scranton PA, where my vote and my word does count!
My gosh, am I surprised at how frightened you Obama lackeys are getting. Senator Obama cannot win the general election. Time & time again, we have seen Hillary Clinton to be the superior candidate. By the way, Hillary Clinton will the candidate for the Democratic party in the general election.
Donald G Sherman
The Clinton-Obama contest is generating more excitement then any election in modern history, and the race is still close. The Obama backers, and Hogarth is clearly one of them, are trying to force Clinton out of the race because Obama is starting to make mistakes.
If Obama can't hold his own against Clinton in a fair election contest, how is he going to stand up against the Republicans? The contest between Clinton and Obama is the best thing that has happened to Democrats in years. The Democrats would make a huge mistake if they try to put a "fix" on the process and stop it before a clear winner emerges.
Linda Reichl
Austin, TX
In response to your article concerning Senator Clinton's campaign coming to a close - buddy, you've got it all wrong. If you had done your job when Barack Obama came on the scene as a junior senator, who hadn't even finished a single term, and vetted this guy with due diligence, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now. And Hillary Clinton wouldn't be forced to do your job!
If you cared about this country, you wouldn't let that punk bamboozle you or your readers. Time to get from behind that computer screen and apply some good old fashioned Dick Tracy and then report the truth- not the garbage I read this morning. Don't let that race card that Obama keeps up his sleeve at all times deter you.
Kudos to George [Stephanopoulos] and Charlie [Gibson] for asking the questions that get to the heart of this man's character. He is not fit to hold the highest office in the land- much less a seat in the senate.
Regards,
E Massi
Here it is. If you would have done your job to start with. If you would have pulled out all the nasty stuff that Senator Obama was hiding it wouldn't have trickled out and destroyed your candidate piece by piece. Now you have the nerve to blame Senator Clinton for your "don't dis the golden boy" policies.
The press that kept a protective net now has to blame someone else for their lack of fair reporting.
Grow up and take the responsibility for this mess. Thank those who couldn't stand by and watch you botch your job. We all know what will happen if he gets the Democratic nod. The Republicans will eat him alive and then let's see who you blame.
Right now they are playing nice hoping you idiots will place this novice into their firing range. Face it: Senator Obama is too transparent, too inexperienced and has turned and twist things around just like the old politicians when caught in his lies. There is no "new" or "unifying" about him. The Democrats might have had a chance had you treated him like every other candidate. The blame's on you.
Mary Hafely
Why is it mathematically impossible for Hillary to win, yet perfectly possible for Obama? In case you have not done the math yourself - it's impossible for ether to win as it stands now in the popular vote. And as far as delegates are concerned - math has nothing to do with it. It's politics all the way down.
There is a system in place, one used for many years and accepted by all the parties involved, and that system does not take logic or math or any other strictly regimented calculation machine into account. Those delegates can vote as they see fit - either, or neither Clinton nor Obama could win the nomination.
I understand your fervent drive and desire to back your buddy and try to force the other candidate from the race so that yours stands a better chance, but don't make yourself sound ignorant while doing it. In McCains "race" for the republican nomination - it took about a month for it to be just plain Mathematically impossible for any other candidate to catch up to him - but you know what - he could, in theory, still lose the nomination. Cause it's the politics of the Electoral College vs Math, that's why. (Don't really see that happening, but that is the way the system works.)
So if you want to rally behind your candidate, do it in an informed and intelligent manner - otherwise, if I were your candidate, I'd be embarrassed to be backed by you.
G. Dorchak
Finally the press love affair with Obama is starting to fade. Everyday we find out something fishy about Obamas background and there is probably more to come. It's the responsibility of the Democratic Party to elect the strongest candidate to beat McCain in the fall. I disagree with you, I believe that candidate is Hillary Clinton.
If Obama gets the needed delegates, I am sure Hillary will endorse him. However, even though I have always voted Democrat I can't and will not vote for Obama in the fall. He will never win in middle America and the Democratic party once again will loose in November.
Until the Democratic Party realizes that they need to elect moderate candidates and stop the press from choosing candidates for us, they will keep loosing elections and eventually disappear all together as a party.
Anne White
As usual, there is not much new, fresh, or hopeful coming from the Obama camp. It is the same old blame game.
Whenever Barack Obama is challenged to explain things he says or does, or the company he keeps, it is Hillary Clinton's fault. How so? The problem that has emerged can be traced back to the Democratic promoters and power brokers who recognized they had a gifted motivational speaker. They hoped Obama would escape scrutiny by talking his way to the nomination. They studied how to take advantage of loopholes in caucus systems all over the country to prove he had momentum. They wanted Democrats to accept their progressive candidate on blind faith, based on a flimsy message of "hope."
Ever since Iowa, Democrats have been demanding more than the Obama campaign was delivering. They were hungry for meat and potatoes. All they were fed was sugary dessert. It is the people who have kept Hillary Clinton in the race because they sensed something was missing with Obama. They knew he was a brilliant speaker. It was what they didn't know that bothered them. It just took longer than expected. The fault lies with the people who put Barack Obama on the pedestal in the first place. The Clinton supporters I know admire Hillary's courage and tenacity.
Sorry Paul Hogarth from the Obama campaign! We are not about to urge Hillary Clinton to quit because we knew from the beginning that it would be an uphill battle.
Phyllis Weeks
Des Moines, Iowa
Mr. Hogarth,
I’m a life long, strong Democrat. Mr. Obama has brought on the criticisms all by himself. If he is the nominee and the Democratic Party, incredibly, loses the White House it will all be Mr. Obama’s fault. Mr. Obama has misrepresented himself to the people of this country. Fortunately, the American people are realizing th
July 29, 2010
