Conversation | 05/09/2008 4:43 pm

Cokie Roberts: 'Hillary Is Negotiating Her Withdrawal'

A Q&A with ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts.

LESLEY: Let’s talk about Hillary. I’m wondering, how do you explain her unwillingness, at this point, to throw in the towel? Does she really think she has a shot at winning this? Is she addicted to campaigning, which is my favorite possibility here. She’s kind of unable to give it up. Does she think there’s another shoe to drop with Obama? What do you think?

COKIE: I think that she is taking a somewhat graceful and prolonged exit. You know, when you’ve been running this hard and have won this much, you don’t just go. And the truth is, when you’re this significant a candidate you negotiate a withdrawal. It’s almost like a plea bargain. You start talking about paying off debt and about convention roles. There are all kinds of things that have to be negotiated. But I also do think that she feels strongly that she is the better candidate — and you can make a good case of that given the way the votes played out in these primaries and caucuses — and that by staying in until it’s over, perhaps something will happen.

LESLEY: Assuming, though, that he does win this nomination, do you think she will be anything less than enthusiastically behind him and corralling her supporters into his camp? Or, is there any chance there’ll be a moment like the one at the ‘80 convention.

COKIE: No, I don’t think there’s going to be that kind of moment. I think that Hillary Clinton is too interested in her own political future to be seen as someone who is tearing the party apart at that moment.

LESLEY: Will she go all out, do you think?

COKIE: I think she’d campaign for him. But, you can’t move your supporters. You know that, Lesley. The endorsements hardly matter at all, particularly at the presidential level. Or she can say, "I want everybody to vote for him. I think he’s terrific. I think he should be president." And those working-class Democrats who voted for her can say, "Have yourself a ball, Hillary. I’m voting for John McCain."

LESLEY: And do you think that’s going to happen?

COKIE: I do think that’s going to happen in a lot of cases.

LESLEY: Really?

COKIE: The fact that John McCain is doing as well as he is in a year that should by all odds be an overwhelmingly Democratic year tells you that there’s a lot of unhappiness with these Democratic candidates. You know, many people say this was the year when the Democrats needed to nominate a boring white guy, somebody who you didn’t even hear talk because all he needed to have was "D" after his name.

LESLEY: Show up, right?

COKIE: Show up. Exactly. And instead they’ve had this very exciting, historic nomination process. But it might not work so well for them in the end.

549 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

http://www.observer.com/2008/rangel-why-hillary-still-runs The above link to a NY Observer column is a local boots on the ground take on how NY is reeling from this doomed and divisive candidacy. I campaigned for Charlie Rangel when he ran against a legend, Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY) in the 60s. He is a family friend. He rightly says the “NY Delegation” has put all of their political clout behind Hillary Clinton. He CANNOT state clearly HOW she can win and deflects more than usual. This must be terrifying for him because, after working to become the head of the House, Ways & Means Committee for a generation, Harlem voters will be voting him out of Office — and my daughter will be among the most ardent fighters for a generational change that is long overdue. This candidacy has caused a generational fissure w/in the African-American communities and their leadership. As in the 90s, the Clintons will take ALL their political “friends” down with them — and put the slim Democratic Majority hold in Congress in SERIOUS JEOPARDY. Charlie sponsored the Clintons arrival in New York and put all his local clout behind her Senate candidacy. Holding him to supporting a losing and race-baiting candidacy, is a sad state of affairs, locally. Alma Rangel supports Barack Obama, of course. She, at least, is not bound to political favors w/Bill Clinton (and his surrogate, James Carville). We lost Congress this way after more than 50 years. Remember??? Triangulation leaves no majority for anyone…the way Clinton Inc. likes it…with themselves at the pivot.

By Renata on 05/11/2008 12:58 am

e-mail alert

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign and personal weakness is she relies solely upon and hires only people that think like she does — and confirm her views/worldview. They are LOYALISTS, diminishing her capacity to properly evaluate and process information from disparate points of view and perspectives — even if she doesn’t want to hear it — especially if she doesn’t want to hear it. Compounding this serious problem, NOBODY takes responsibility for mistakes and deflection is the order of the day. There is no REAL leadership at the helm. Management of a Nation such as the US — prosecuting TWO WARS — by highly paid CONSULTANTS and toadies w/out accountability to the American people, has run its course in the Bush II dynasty. Cheney’s recent response when told more than 70% of the American people don’t believe continuing the Iraq War is the proper course — “So….” — speaks volumes about the state of ur Democracy and Republic. We have definitely reached some kind of a nadir when the President and Vice President can openly say “So…” to the will of the American people. Hillary Clinton’s Campaign has too many parallels to the Bush/Cheney entitlement legacies. She/Bill and their financial fortunes are too entrenched with the ESTABLISHMENT, including corporate interests who benefit by the current DYSFUNCTION. Their time has passed. “Merit doth much, but fortune more.” Shakespere It is Barack Obama’s and our children’s time.

By Renata on 05/11/2008 3:33 am

e-mail alert

“Hillary Clinton’s Campaign and personal weakness is she relies solely upon and hires only people that think like she does” Actually I believe exactly the opposite is true. I believe she gathered the wrong people around her. I do not agree that they were loyalists to her point of view. Hillary was the person who initiated the “it takes a village” grassroots approach to organizing and campaigning. And yet she strayed from this , while Obama embraced it. I think she bought her advisors line, that they had the experience and knew better how a presidential campaign needed to be run. I blame the people she chose to run her campaign, for it’s weaknesses. Obama has made better choices, I think.

By Deni G on 05/11/2008 2:57 pm

e-mail alert

It’s been a pleasure debating — while proofing my special project w/GoogleHealth, ladies — for more hours than I’d like to think about. Signing off - and Happy Mother’s Day, all!

By Renata on 05/11/2008 3:57 am

e-mail alert

And to you Renata +~~

By ~ countrywoman ~ on 05/11/2008 4:29 am

e-mail alert

Thank you for your work Renata—-truly a pleasure to read your posts.

By zut alors on 05/11/2008 10:13 am

e-mail alert

Kind of comic relief for me…but everyone should have a nice Mother’s Day. Google Health, by the way, has many problems—now you are on my main playing field.

By Star Lawrence on 05/11/2008 11:55 am

e-mail alert

When we political scientists are writing about this campaign, we should write about the sexism and misogyny and considerable “old boyism” by the press, the Democratic and Republican parties. It was ugly. And Senator Clinton would have been the nominee had the press not hated her so much they would buy Senator Obama’s lie that the Clintons played the race card. President Clinton’s office is in Harlem. Senator Kennedy was more concerned that Senator Clinton somehow, in his mind, was disrespectful of President Kennedy by stating factually that it took President Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act. The press didn’t know any better or care to look at the reality of the situation. Senator Obama said in Oregon that he had visited 57 states. If he is tired, what is he doing to do when he is president and tired? What is he going to do to pass a legislative agenda as president when he never was the point man for legislation as a Senator. The media believes that racism is evil but uses sexism at ever opportunity. Racism is evil, but pointing out that someone is not experienced has nothing to do with racism.

By Jaye Ramsey Sutter on 05/11/2008 5:26 am

e-mail alert

There isn’t a sensible or patriotic American who does not believe serious consideration should be given to “experience.” However, thinking Americans of every stripe — young and old — Democrat/Independent/Republican — are beginning to wonder what KIND of experience is translatable/transferable in the world America faces in the 21st Century. Some Americans are reconsidering whether the narrow/exclusive though comprehensive cumulative experience the Bush/Clinton dynasties — and Congress have — has translated into PROGRESS, SECURITY, FISCAL PREPARATION FOR 79 BOOMERS RETIREMENT W/HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED LONGEVITY and the continued march to full integration of the talent, skills and abilities of ALL Americans to face the challenges of a globally competitive world. Since ACCOUNTABILIT is totally absent as a hallmark of both dynasties, Americans NEVER get to ask the question or get an answer beyond the reduction in our quality of life and continued security risk. Some Americans are wondering if lack of RESPECT for all citizens in this globalized world and their DIVERSITY — and lack of DIPLOMACY in lieu of first-strike warfare/threats (“OBLITERATE”?) —has compromised our SECURITY. Some are wondering if the decisions we have seen by the “experienced” political pros over the last 30 years, has BENEFITTED AMERICANS. Who had more “experience” than Dick Cheney? Some members of the Religious Right are planning to LEAVE the “experienced” Republican Party and its misguided leadership. Democrats and Independents are doing THE SAME if Hillary Clinton continues her fused (to the same failed Republican stragegy Republicans are leaving). What if past “experience” is a LIABILITY and holds America back? Perhaps no Campaign has ever had more money, “experience” and backing than Hillary Clinton’s. Yet, it was totally MISMANAGED and, like the current “experienced” administration — totally TONE DEAF to the American zeitgeist. And, since we are STILL a Democracy — what Americans want/need/desire is paramount — not an afterthought to the arrogant “experienced” pols. The “experienced” Dick Cheney said “So….” when told Americans overwhelmingly do not want us to continue on the path we are on. I can do without this kind of “experience” from long-term insiders — or any other code words/language/subtexts Hillary/Bill Clinton put forth to undermine Senator Obama’s candidacy. Wisdom teaches there are many kinds of EXPERIENCE.

By Renata on 05/11/2008 12:15 pm

e-mail alert

Ms. Sutter is correct. The media has been out to destroy Senator Clinton’s candidacy from “day one”. Is Senator Obama renowned? Is he credibly prepared to lead our country? Does he have credible attachments to people, places? How long has he served in the same position? What does he think about white people: yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Reparations? These are questions that should be vetted now.

By Bonnie D-Z on 05/11/2008 12:24 pm

e-mail alert

countrywoman 2:31 a.m. — “And I respectfully correct your “big state” reference to TX. Texas was a draw.” Hillary won the popular vote in Texas by 4 points (51% to 47%). The ‘draw’ you speak of was the caucus that followed. We all know by now that Obama activists have jammed the caucuses, much the way you and a few others are jamming this site. If this is what Obama is about, then I will continue to be very cautious about him and certainly will never vote for him. All a moot point, however, because I doubt that Texans will fall for the Obama line. Texas is in McCain’s pocket.

By Marjorie C. on 05/11/2008 5:29 am

e-mail alert

Texas was a very interesting primary to me. At that time, I was still a Clinton supporter. In the weeks preceding the primary, Obama not only had ‘boots on the ground’. but they were highly organized. From Salon Feb. 29, 2008: “Running phone banks, volunteers remind early voters to save the receipt showing they’ve already cast a ballot if they want to caucus on March 4 after the polls in the primary close. (Texas Democratic Party rules allow for participation in both.) Obama’s staff here calls preparation for the Texas election “the Olympics” of field organizing, but they seem more than ready for it. The campaign trained more than 4,000 precinct captains (Texas has about 8,300 precincts) in statewide sessions last week that sometimes drew overflow crowds. By the time aides opened their 10 regional headquarters around Texas last week (which, in turn, will supervise smaller satellite offices), there were already volunteers on the ground working all over the state. Clinton, meanwhile, is finally now putting serious muscle into organizing — but it may be too late. An inferior ground game could make it hard for Clinton to emerge with the most delegates in Texas, even if she wins the statewide popular vote” Contrast Obama’s readiness with what Hillary said of the state’s complicated setup, 2 weeks before the primary, “I had no idea how bizarre it is. We have grown men crying over it.” I was upset by the fact that the caucus representation seemed unfair. I was more upset when Obama won those caucuses. But even I knew the reason he won, was because he was much much better organized. And I began to rethink my stance on his ‘lack of experience’. Because in my opinion, his caucus wins in Texas of all places, meant he was making better choices, about who he appointed. He had the better ground plan, was better, more efficiently organized and started implementing his plan far ahead of Clinton’s group. I began to think right then, that perhaps as a Presidential Candidate and as President, he might be the one to surround himself with the right people, to have the better strategies to accomplish his goals and to be the one who can outmaneuver and out organize, the far right wing opposition.

By Deni G on 05/11/2008 1:41 pm

e-mail alert

ariadne: “rendell has already said that he would be’front and center’ to back obama if he won the primary.” I agree. With Rendell’s help, Obama has a chance of winning Pennsylvania. It’ll be the other 56 states he’ll have to worry about.

By Marjorie C. on 05/11/2008 5:55 am

e-mail alert

Renata: “Barack Obama has won an impressive majority of States that are not “urban.” ” Yes, and they’re all traditionally Republican states. Idaho, Maine and Wyoming. Eleven electoral votes between the three of them.

By Marjorie C. on 05/11/2008 6:04 am

e-mail alert

My anger is rising each day that Hillary stays in this race. Her racist comments about white voters are unprecedented and incredibly low, not to say divisive, harmful to the social fabric of our nation and in terribly poor taste. She only proves that she would be a true disaster as our President. Her ego, personality and judgement are fueled by classic negative ambitions to power, I can only think of Lady Macbeth. She is a great disappointment to being the a candidate that represents women. In my opinion, she is acting out the most monstrous behaviour women can resort to when scorned. She knows that she is deliberately damaging the Democratic Party but doesn’t care. Her so called patriotism has to be called into question here. I am especially angry because I am a mature white women and I know lots of white women who are very much in the Obama camp. Although the poles may say the white womens numbers are not great, Hillary is creating an illusion that no white women or men would vote for Obama. Everyone in my family, who have been divided in their political loyalties for years( half voted for Bush twice and half voted democratic.) Everyone of all age groups that can vote are voting for Obama and no one has twisted anyone’s arm to do this. I find this among my friends across the board and we are all white. I am speaking up about this because although I find it objectionable to talk in racial terms I feel that if white women don’t speak up we will allow these illusions to be myths and perhaps influence people to move away from their natural inclinations. People may be pulled into a” group think “of what the white people are doing. That is Hillary’s awful strategy and it is shameful. I as a white voter am insulted by these remarks and must speak out.

By christina haskin on 05/11/2008 9:08 am