Paging Elisabeth Kubler-Ross

Or maybe the Dems could hire someone with a really big boot to kick her ass out of the race. You're done -- get out of the way!

But, Joe, if every hard working white person in the entire country moves to the state of West Virginia over the weekend and votes for her next Tuesday she could still win the popular vote.

What stage is banal Joe?

Was it something I said or did somebody get off message. Just asking.

I think it will be harder for Bill than HRC. She's one to give 200% and then chalk up her losses and move on.

That means once she throws her support toward Obama, she will work tirelessly for him and ask her supporters to back him enthusiastically.

Bill is more the type to wallow in self pity.

"Hillary has run a fine campaign, with certain, uh, exceptions"

I can't think of a single aspect of her campaign that was handled well. But, here we go again with Joe apologizing for the campaign that he famously kinda endorsed around the time of the Philadelphia debate last year. Since then, he has done everything possible to clean up her mess (around the edges atleast).

Boomers defending Boomers - go figure.

Burn baby Burn....that is the earworm that the former president has been dealing with recently.

...pure guesswork...
what the clintons really need is every non college educated white person in america to move to wv and vote...did you hear me alabama??
(ok that was a low blow, but i spent the longest year of my life in alabama one summer)

I know it's not the focus of Klein's piece, but Kubler-Ross maintains that those stages can actually come in various orders and is highly personal. People can actually move pretty readily between the grief stages, until they come out the other side (even back and forth).. so while some might start w/ anger and move to denial, others might start with denial and move to bargaining then back to denial, etc. Here's hoping she get's to "acceptance" right quick! Heck, maybe she can even skip a stage or two (though I think she'll be stuck in "bargaining" for quite some time).

If the conversation taking place on this thread is any indication:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/how_obama_learned_to_win.html#comments

I'd say once Hillary starts turning the corner and campaigning with Obama rather than against him, Dems will close ranks and unity will come surprisingly quickly.....

Or someone could get her to read Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Illych." She needs to get to acceptance since her campaign's in the last throes. Tolstoy describes all this better than Kubler-Ross.

I absolutely agree, Paul.

I've been a supporter of HRC since 1992; when she gives her concession speech, I know I will shed some tears for the end of my dream for her to be president.

But, I also know I will not hesitate to campaign for Obama once he's our official nominee.

Joe Klein - Since you never followed up on your previous thread and have not responded to comments I am going to repeat a couple of questions:

We have already discussed why any form of military attack against Iran would be disasterous to America so let's take the assumption that the administration knows this and that they have decided to inject this issue (via Adam Nagourney) into the punditocracy. Then the question for Joe Klein becomes: Why do you think that they have decided to jerk your chain in this manner? From what do you think they are trying to distract you?

And finally, how many of your military and intelligence sources were on the Pentagon's psy/ops list? Given the type of manipulation described in the NYT article on the subject, do you suspect that there is a similar program in place to funnel false information to prominent pundits? Does this revelation cause you to be less credulous of your sources than you have been in the past? The entire episode raises the possibility that you are merely the final vector in the delivery of the Pentagon's propaganda virus and I honestly believe that you do not want that to be the case.

Hillary lose? Never.

Haven't you heard that Hillary set Obama up the bomb? All the democratic base (hard-working white voters) are belong to Hillary. Obama has no chance to survive and must make his time.

"I know everyone is being nice and patient with the Clintons, and that's as it should be."

Why should it be? Were you nice and patient with the Clintons when you wrote Primary Colors? Why start being nice and patient now? Why not just tell them to pack up and move on? I voted for Hillary throughout her entire senatorial career in New York, and even I'm starting to get sick of this manufactured notion that somehow the Clintons are the Democratic Party's first family and are deserving of some sort of party-wide love fest because they were at one time the victims of a vast right-wing conspiracy? I mean, nowadays we're pretty much all victims of a vast right-wing conspiracy, so I don't think that the line works so well to elicit pity anymore. And aren't we supposed to be the party that eschews entitlement?

Democrats - let's just stop the hostility and unite this party. We're only hurting ourselves. A united Democratic party will certainly succeed this november, but divided we will fail. McCain will see that we never forgive ourselves for that mistake. Please, I have family in Iraq. Help me bring them home. Unite this party and let's take the White House.

Hasn't she already kind of gone through the anger phase?

Maybe all she needs is a basic refresher course in math.

Maybe all she needs is a basic refresher course in math.

I hear Karl Rove has his own brand of math that she might find useful.

I don't trust Hillary now. I really think she and Bill might sabotage Obama's campaign so that McCain wins and she can run against him in 2012.

I think its time to let bygones be bygones. If we continue the attack on her, it just makes her want to fight that much more. Obama and its supporters need to just focus on McCain and his issues not his associations.

She started with anger, right after Wisconsin, and hasn't been able to shift out of it.

This is clearly being very hard for Hillary to face, and I guess that's not a surprise. So difficult to let go of such cherished dreams held for so long, and to have to let go in a very public way.

I don't trust Hillary now. I really think she and Bill might sabotage Obama's campaign so that McCain wins and she can run against him in 2012. Posted by Beth in VA | May 9, 2008 5:21 PM

Gosh I hope you are RIGHT about that Beth! In the bargaining stage for grief from loss, Hillary I hope knows that in just 4 short years she could do this all over again. Perhaps even in just 2 years she could start campaigning again.

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

The question I have for you, Joe, is this: Why is everyone nice and patient with the Clintons? Are we indulging them, like we would willful children and, in the process, spoiling them rotten? Did they get their arrogance and entitlement because of our past fawning? It's time to send them to their room and not have to listen anymore to the whining, deceit, anger, defensiveness, opportunism, and a whole gamut of other savory characteristics that these two intelligent but obtuse people share in common.

She is, without question, one of the smartest people adorning our public life.

Is there any evidence of this? Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not saying the woman is stupid. But "one of the smartest people adorning our public life"?

Even if you limited it to politicians. Hell, even if you limited it to her fellow running mates, what is the evidence that she is smarter than Obama? The guy was editor of Harvard Law Review. Smarter than Bill Richardson? Smarter than John Edwards? Smarter than Dodd or Biden?

Is she smarter than Russ Feingold or Sheldon Whitehouse? Is she even the smartest Senator from New York?

How about Sandra Day O'Connor or David Souter? Patrick Fitzgerald?

Any person "adorning our public life"? That's pretty broad. Is she smarter than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? How about George Soros? Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger? Richard Branson and Burt Rutan? Oprah?

Again, Hillary's no dummy. But she who failed a bar exam and racked up a fairly run-of-the-mill resume as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas.

While in office, she got played for a fool by George Bush and has no significant legislative achievements to her name. She's also backing a god-awful gas-tax holiday idea.

I've heard Hillary speak intelligently about policy on numerous occasions, but I've never heard her say anything terribly profound or insightful.

Smart? Yes. One of the smartest people in public life? I don't think so.

I agree with Space. A brilliant person doesn't surround themselves with sycophants, a brilliant person doesn't underestimate their opponent, nor do they assume they'll have a nomination locked up by Super Tuesday.

Frankly, I've found Hillary's campaign to be an exercise in NOT thinking ahead.

Does she have a fine grasp of policy and legislation? Sure. But rote memorization does not make one intelligent.

I think Joe's being a bit too kind with his "one of the most intelligent" statement.

Finally, losing a 25-30 point national lead in an election points to more than just a "few exceptions". Given the Clinton resources, her advantaged starting position and experience in national elections, one can argue her campaign was a disaster.

But she IS tenacious. That I'll give her.

Great post Joe! And hilarious. The fact that you prefaced it with the same monologue we must all go through, "She is a great candidate (questionable) who's ran a tough race (undoubtedly true), blah, blah" makes it even funnier.

I think what the Obama people should do is outflank her on the bargaining stage. She probably could have had V.P. But if she keeps going, she's manuevering herself out of it.

I'd offer her Senate Majority Leader, a keynote address at the Convention, first rights to writing the platform, and an inclusion of her healthcare platfrom. Let her refuse.

Hillary and Bill's refusal to recognize that her campaign is over is only hurting her at this point. We're trying to be respectful. But any candidate, even one as important as Hillary Clinton, has to eventually realize this is over for her in the same way it has been for every other political candidate on the planet. Eventually it must end. That time is now.

Hillary and Bill's refusal to recognize that her campaign is over is only hurting her at this point. We're trying to be respectful. But any candidate, even one as important as Hillary Clinton, has to eventually realize this is over for her in the same way it has been for every other political candidate on the planet. Eventually it must end. That time is now.

And yet, if Hillary had ever demonstrated that same level of tenaciousness in dealing with Bush and the GOP, she'd be the nominee right now.

When has Hillary ever looked the GOP in the eye and said, "Not on my watch!" When did she fault Gore for not contesting Florida's delegates in Congress? Or Kerry for giving up on the recounts in '04? When did she insist on filibustering Alito? Or boldly stand by Dodd on FISA? Or demand investigations into war profiteering in Iraq? Or call for Bush or Cheney's impeachments?

What Democrats resent is that this tenacious, never-say-die side of the Clintons is only exposed against Democrats.

Joe, this is a good post. Thanks.

While Billary have been in denial since Feb, Bill has also been exploding with paroxysms of anger for months, at Richardson, etc.

Does everyone remember back in January when Obama said that the Repubs had ideas in the '90s, such as tax cuts, but that they had gone stale, and then HRC twisted his remarks and said that he liked the GOP ideas, but she thought they were bad?

Well, when did she start liking them?

How long do the superdelegates and the "party elders" (or grownups, if there are any) continue to let Hill and Bill drag down the likely nominee, the party's chances and their own flagging reputations? Why isn't the outrage about her USA Today interview louder among the party leaders, not just the TV pundits? Hard to figure...

The election is over, unless Obama does something incredibly stupid. So there is no reason to page Kubler-Ross; Clinton is no longer having any significant impact on this election.

The Obama campaign and many of his supporters need to stop their obsession with Clinton and adjust to the new realities of this campaign: Clinton can no longer be blamed for everything that's wrong with Obama or his problems, and it's time to start running a general election. His campaign is actually doing a better job of that than many of his supporters. Her national poll numbers will free-fall, and he will rise in the GE polls for the next couple of weeks, so uniting the party just isn't the issue right now in May. Also, blaming Clinton in any way is just not going to appeal to Independents and her supporters, especially since it feeds into the "he's weak" narrative. The next few weeks will be his best opportunity to define himself and McCain, and if he does that well he will unite the party anyway. As I've said before, I don't think he will do that well, but this has nothing to do with Clinton.

McCain will start to throw the real kitchen sink soon - what the Clinton campaign was doing had no resemblance to the kitchen sink - and Obama just needs to focus on the issues, and remind voters and the media that McCain is Just Another Republican. Obama needs to run a completely different campaign in the GE, because almost every competitive weakness he had with Clinton is worse with McCain, except that he is more specific and policy-oriented than McCain. Fortunately, the specifics and policies really favor Democrats this year.

I really don't think she is necessarily ou of this, if she really wants to continue as she was doing in Indiana. She's likely to win WV by 30 pts or more, as well as KY, and can probably make things closer in OR. If she pulls off the upset there, then she'll have momemtum going into the credentials committee meeting on the 31st, and she's also sure of doing well in PR. By that time she may also have turned enough rural white people off to Obama that she can steal MT and SD as well. If she wins the last 6 contests, some by huge margins, I think she'll have a real argument to make to the supers. But it only works if she can make him seem unelectable. If she's not ready to go totally negative, there's probably no point in continuing, but it looks like she'll stay in until the 20th, at least.

I think they're already in the bargaining stage, Joe. A big part of negotiating is puffed-up bluster,( as if you had 3 aces in the hole instead of a pair of 9s)...there's plenty of bluster from the Clinton Royal Family!

Rose,
I know you prefer not to see it, since you are an HRC supporter, but she definitely has run a Rethug-syle campaign against him: She (and Bill) questioned his and his wife's patriotism, said he was unqualified to lead, called him an out-of-touch elitist, called him a flip-flopper on the war, implied through surrogates that he was a muslim and also a drug dealer, painted him as the "black" candidate who couldn't win over "hard working" whites, accused him of plagiarism and embellishing his resume, and generally attributed any negative qualities of his associates to him. At least McCain won't accuse him of not supporting a woman's right to choose.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, she also said that he would raise everyone's taxes to pay for his health care plan. Now what could be more Rethug than that?

I agree with Malcolm's post from May 10, 2008 11:08 AM. These final contests will favor Clinton. The words may seem controversial when they come from Clinton's own mouth, but she has a very strong constituency in working-class, older white people. We can debate how strong that support really is but it is the only thing that is keeping her in the race - it is the basis for her 'Swing State' argument. From her point of view, nothing has really changed in her strategy to convince the Superdelegates that she is more electable. For their part, the Superdelegates have locked themselves into waiting for the final primary until they make their choice. They have their reasons (respecting everybody's right to vote, etc.) but the result is that we cannot count on them to put a stop to this process.

So do not expect Clinton to change course at this point. And if you want to be angry at anything then focus it entirely on a stupid six month primary schedule. The very fact that it was planned to be this long meant that they expected the later primaries to be worthless. For my part, I could not care less which state goes first as long as the process is compressed into a manageable two- to three-month period. If anything constructive is to come of this death march then it ought to be a sustained committment to reorganize the primary calendar.

Also, what is the basis for the public discussion of the deals between Obama and Clinton? Are they 'sources close to the campaigns/negotiations? Or is the press just manufacturing a story based on their own speculation?

Finally, I want to take issue with the idea that the seating of Florida and Michagin delegates at the convention makes any difference as to how those states vote in November. The theory that is being floated around is that the delegates and the voters within those states would be somehow 'insulted' and that Democrats would have a hard time winning those states in the general. Hogwash. I cannot think of a notion which illustrates how self-important the party leaders and delegates must think of themselves than this idea. Do they really think that actual voters give a wet hot damn as to how the party leaders feel about anything? What a load of nonsense.

And if it is a matter of how hard the state party will work for the candidates in the general then that smacks of a kind of extortion that has no place in an election with stakes as high as this one. If they are going to jeopardize their own party because they do not think that they have been stroked enough due in large part to actions that they themselves undertook then they can go to hell.

"Rose,
I know you prefer not to see it, since you are an HRC supporter, but she definitely has run a Rethug-syle campaign against him" - Malcolm, of course she's attacked him from the right at times. As has he, with his "Harry and Louise" ads, and reliance on Republican-style criticisms of her supposedly polarizing personality, although she has been able to work with many Republicans in the Senate who voted to impeach her husband, while Obama has done very little bipartisan work. And his campaign has repeatedly played the gender card - McPeak, Jesse Jackson Jr., the SNL witch sketch, periodically down, etc. - so no one's been perfect in this campaign. Yes her campaign's misdeeds have been the subject of much more media coverage than his campaign's, but as I said before, this is not a "if the tree falls in an empty forest does it make a sound" thing.

You may prefer to not see that Obama has also run a "Rethug-style campaign" at times, but it's not productive at this point to attack Clinton for doing what Obama has also done.

I forgot to write that nothing that Clinton or Obama has done in this campaign will be anywhere near the level of Republican attacks. In case anyone is unclear on what the kitchen sink looks like, we'll all know by the end of the GE.

Rose,
First of all, you more or less did say that in your earlier post, which is what I was responding to.

Secondly, while Obama did at times launch unfair negative attacks on her (likening her health care plan to one that would require homeless people to buy houses was probably the worst), they were far fewer and much more mild than what she did to him. Many of her atacks are identical to what the GOP will use - almost like a trial run. Except I doubt McCain will openly crow that he has the blue-collar white vote locked up.

I think part of the issue is that you are conflating her treatment by the MSM and the blogosphere (including commenters here) with the behavior of the candidate himself and his campaign. While I can understand your anger at this (a lot of it pisses me off too), it's not fair to attribute it to him.

A lot of people here, myself include, began this campaign with a very favorable view of Hillary. Indeed, I've voted for her several times. But that image has been shattered, probably irretrievably. I didn't have a particularly favorable opnion of Obama initially (I thought he was an empty suit), but he won me over, although I still have reservations.