Lanny Davis, you seem a bit confused - to say the least

In the October 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lanny Davis writes that Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate. THIS is why Clinton supporters - most of whom were presumably Democrats - should be glad she stayed in the race?

Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama's campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party's nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party's nominee.

We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.

If the best you can say about Senator Clinton's campaign is that it helped Senator Obama then you really are not saying much about the millions of voters who cast their ballots for Senator Clinton, the thousands of us who donated money, time, and energy to Senator Clinton's campaign. I assure you we did not do it so that her run for the nomination would help Senator Obama. We did it because wanted Senator Clinton to represent our party this November.

I am not sure, Mr. Davis, if you realize how insulting it is to those of us who are not "prominent" or "key" Democrats for you to define Senator Clinton's campaign as some sort of testing ground for Senator Obama. Please give Senator Clinton some respect and some credit: presumably she stayed in the race because she wanted to win. She wanted to win. And it was perfectly ok for her to want to win, and to want to win because she thought she would make a better President than would Senator Obama.

I certainly agree with you, Mr. Davis, that  "the cartoon caricature [of Senator Clinton] created over the years by extremists left and right has nothing to do with reality." But although I have not known her personally over the years, as you make clear you have, I did not need to see Senator Clinton keep her word about campaigning for whoever became the Democratic nominee to recognize her as "principled and authentically committed to progressive issues". I saw that when I first learned about Senator Clinton, which was before her husband ever ran for President, when I was studying the lawyers who worked to prosecute Richard Nixon's participation in the Watergate break-in.

Finally, Mr. Davis, I must take issue with this particularly offensive passage in your commentary:

There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.

Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the "certain working-class/rural voters" you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or "simply grieving" about "Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee." I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.

As for me, I worked for months to try to keep the DNC and the Democratic Party from tossing out the Party's own established rules for nominating a candidate, precisely because I thought that ANY candidate who was PICKED rather elected via a free and fair roll call vote would be illegitimate and viewed as such. And I, along with thousands of Democrats from every demographic group you can imagine, still feel that way.  Regardless of whether Senator Obama wins or loses, the people we hold responsible for hijacking democracy from the Democratic Party are the people who corrupted the process that was supposed to be used to determine the Democratic nominee: chiefly, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Obama himself.

Comments

[Swannie]

Heidi Li,
Lanny is not just confused ,but confused with a purpose , or so it seems to me. He appears to be attempting to be an apologist for Hillary ; who needs none, and at the same time redefining her campaign in terms of helping bho. Her campaign neither requires re-definition, as some sort of campaign training ground for bho, nor does it need reframing as a grief stage , for emotional women who ( obviously ) do not think or make rational decisions regarding campaigns and candidates , but somehow manage to feel their way to the voting booths with their blind but endearing empathetic fingertips .
Love and hugs
Swannie

[Prolix]

Excellent. Hillary needs no apologist for running for President and that is how I read Lanny's comment. You nailed it -- I, too, found his convoluted excuse to be disparaging and insulting. Well done!

[ainnj]

Spot on as usual Heidi. The only point where we differ a little is that I am most definitely angry. I am angry at the DNC, the Democratic Party, the Obama campaign, mr. obama, the msm, former "feminist" icons who turned out to be, hmm, not so much, and a whole slew of other entities. I am angry that this country lost the opportunity to have a great leader, someone who could take charge, work with BOTH sides of the aisle and get things done. I am angry because I don't give a hoot about making any more cracks in any goddamn ceiling; that there is still a ceiling is horrific and that seems to be just okie dokie with the people of this country. I am angry because wearing a shirt to a mcpalin rally with "palin is a c**t" isn't deemed to be hate speech although it tells our children that it's okie dokie to treat women like they are dirt or worse. I am angry because this is the year 2008 in the United States of America and once again we have been told "sorry, now is not the time, the country just isn't ready." I am angry because Senator Clinton was by far the best candidate the Democratic party had in a long long time. I am angry because Nancy Pelosi should not be wasting our time as speaker of the house.
Mr. Davis can BITE ME! That he can even look at himself in the mirror when writing this crap is beyond me. He knows better, thats what makes it even more disgusting!

I am angry because my girls deserve better than this. They deserve better than the choices we have been given for this election.

[johninca]

The Lanny Davis article is just nugatory spin and manipulation-- gotta support the Party, team spirit, blah blah blah.

[twandx]

Well said. Thanks. Lanny needs to read a little echidne.

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#4019843672375903459

[Alwaysthinking]

Heidi,

Thanks for your response to Lanny Davis. I hope you also send it to the Wall Street Journal.

How long can this type of idiocy and deliberate misunderstanding, or dissing, of Hillary Clinton supporters continue?

Frankly, I am still angry about what is happening to our democracy and the blatant abuse of it by the Democratic Party (not that the Republican Party has not also abused it in recent years)and by the continuing media bias.

However, I simply do not understand how so many people in influential positions like Lanny Davis can choose to disregard reality. Frankly, I think Senator Obama is running a terrible and disingenuous campaign. I suppose Hillary is his saving grace, but I wish she were not supporting him.

[purplefinn]

It seems that Mr. Davis is trying to right one of the wrongs aimed at Clinton, but ignoring the biggest ones. I agree that Barack benefitted from an extended hard fought, hair graying (his) primary. The whining know-it-alls (pundits and Obama partisans) tried to undermine Hillary's legitimate campaign with another reason to cry "Hillary, get out now. You might win!" and "Poor Barack might wear out before we can install him!" "Poor Barack" being the operative phrase.

It's the installation, stupid. And depriving us of the best candidate for president in our time of great need.

Thanks for pointing this out, Heidi.

[Annie]

I am not angry or "simply grieving" about "Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee." I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

Lord yes!! He even thinks the problem is Hillary wasn't "picked" ..opps, Lanny you let that one slip by.....see Lanny the problem is the nominee shouldn't be "picked" at all. It's an election. Remember them?

The whole thing was and is so fraudulent, it takes one's breath away.

[janicen]

Heidi, I strongly encourage you to submit this essay to the Wall Street Journal for publication. As in many instances throughout the primary and general elections, you speak for all of us.

[Stray Yellar Dawg]

Poor Lanny. Caught between a rock and a hard place. So many Dems going down this same path. It's a real eye opener... how little principle they seem to display.

[Alice Paul]

Senator Clinton's race for the White House has brought out every woman hating person from sea to shining sea with a stamp of approval from the D.N.C. This was a backlash against any gains won by women make no mistake. The democrats are for every cause, for every woman working behind a male dominated government as long as she doesn't dare to lead in those causes. Should she dare to be bright, articulate and a proven fighter she will be destroyed by her peers. The message was? "The same goes for all of you too, and your daughters if they don't get in line."

Lanny, is a man. He's not sacrificed a single thing here and all he did do was stick with Senator Clinton till the end. Give him a medal would you? He didn't stand up against what this party was doing at many crucial times when he might have.

Senator Obama is a misogynist or he would not have exploited such hatred to his advantage.

The sleeping giant of women's rights is fully awake now thanks to Senator Clinton and we've seen it's time to break out of old molds...it's a new day and even if Senator Obama goes to the White House he will be shown up for what he is truly. So will the D.N.C. I'm for a daily picket the same as was done to Wilson to show he stole the nomination with cheating in every caucus state and the Indiana primary while capitalizing on fear and hatred.

I'm not forgetting this, never going back!

[M. A. Liginter]

great item, and many of our readers at FemiSex feel exactly the same way, thatit, the DNC handed this to Obama. great post, keep up the flame.

[Sherrip]

It is so nice to have someone say what I have been thinking. No one in the mainstream media will say it. Its like we are invisible. You would think things would have changed in the 21st century. The question I have which no one will answer or even address; why is racism, real or preceived, so roundly condemned but misogyny is roundly ignored. Are we, as women, less deserving of respect than people of color? I agree that slavery was a horrible part of our history, but does the fact that women were dressed up to be sold to the higest bidder instead of in chains make our history of oppression any less?

The so-called liberal feminists are a disgrace to all women. Women will never be treated equally until we demand it as a group instead of eating our own.

[Cyn NY]

Heidi, I saw your post over at HillBuzz and commented it on it there, but thought I would repeat the comment here:

Well, I am one of those working class, rural voters and I’m not grieving or angry either.

On behalf of all of the white, rural, non-educated folks, let me tell you what we do have. Principles. And, it is these very principles that will not allow us to vote for an inexperienced candidate who was handpicked by the party elites and whose candidacy has been facilitated by the so-called progressive Democrats, politial pundits and liberal media outlets.

You see, Mr. Davis, some of us know what real democracy is. It is letting the people speak. It is letting the process play out as it was intended to do. It is not gaming the system and pretending all is right with the world.

I expect better than that from the Democrats. And it is why I am now registered as a non-affiliated voter. You’ve lost my political contributions, my political support and my party affiliation.

[Linda]

I agree with those above. I'm so tired of being misrepresented by those who know nothing about what we think and feel.

Please send your response to the WSJ and ask to have it published.

[Barb C.]

I flat don't understand this article by Lanny Davis. I think he's still trying to tell the Obama people to back off and respect the Clinton supporters, but the way he did it is so obtuse I barely followed it -- and I have some knowledge of why people like Lanny Davis (a man I respect and admire) do what they do.

When Senator Clinton decided against an Independent candidacy, Lanny Davis's hands were IMO tied. He couldn't speak out -- though how he spoke up at the 5/31/08 RBC meeting is almost certainly how he continues to feel -- any longer because that's not what Senator Clinton wanted.

To be a good friend -- and to keep some sort of job as a political analyst at Fox News, no doubt -- he has to do what people usually do in a less contentious election than this one; support the nominee of his party. That he knows this nominee is fraudulent makes no nevermind; Senator Clinton decided against running Independent, which was the only way she'd win this year. And perhaps she felt at the time that she could still win honorably at the Democratic National Convention -- not realizing what would happen there, or the breathtaking scope of the audacity and corruption revealed there.

I don't know why Senator Clinton has done what she's done, either, but I continue to respect her, and Lanny Davis, too, for doing what they feel they must.

However. I am not a nationally known, prominent figure like Senator Clinton -- or to a lesser extent, Lanny Davis. So I am free to speak my mind and heart.

I have not forgotten what has happened here, and I remain hopping mad at the DNC for enabling a weak candidate, Barack Obama, for the Democratic nomination for Pres. in '08. I will never support him; he was selected, not elected, and I will not enable the DNC by voting for this man in any way, shape, or form -- and I believe all Democrats who aren't nationally prominent should do the same. (Those who are should figure out what's best for them. I don't own their votes, just my own.)

I don't dislike Barack Obama. I do dislike the people around Senator Obama. And I can't stand the DNC -- am livid about the vast majority of them, including Donna Brazile -- and want them gone. They need to go home and be real people for a while, away from the Beltway/Washington, DC area -- talk to waitresses, doctors, nurses, secretaries, gravediggers, landscapers -- talk to _real_ people. Then they might realize the magnitude of their error.

Senator Clinton isn't a perfect person, but she's an outstanding political candidate and definitely had a good chance of fixing this huge mess we're in this year, in 2008. While Barack Obama has none whatsoever. And John McCain has about a 1% chance.

I am not a Republican and I will not vote McCain. However, I cannot vote Obama as I will not enable the DNC and I also will not enable the Obama campaign's devious and underhanded tactics in the caucus states.

That the DNC has left me without a candidate to support I frankly loathe. I will never, never, never forget this and I certainly will never forgive it. Howard Dean and the entire DNC -- anyone who supported this idiocy in any way, shape or form rather than speak out -- should be ASHAMED.

Heidi Li, you keep telling it like it is. But please, I beg of you -- do not vote a blank tally for President as that's going to be the easiest for Obama to take for himself if you've voted all down-ticket Dems otherwise; vote for yourself if you're over 35 and a natural-born US citizen if you must, but do not vote blank! (Somehow everyone in the PUMAsphere needs to be aware of this problem. Think about 2000 Florida and how votes were "assigned" to Bush and Gore, will you? Don't let this happen -- if you don't want to vote Obama, vote for yourself!)