Origionally posted at myDD (link)... ergo the 'rec list' reference. Thought everyone here would like to see that some Hillary die-hards are coming around to supporting the Democratic party
We've all seen the battle cry on the rec list... diary after diary imploring Hillary to take it all the way to the convention floor.
So imagine my shock today when I read an article by Susan Estrich. Estrich it should be said is truly one of Hillary's Girls, she literally wrote the book on electing Hillary...
In The Case for Hillary, Susan spends 288 pages praising Hillary and making the case for her canidacy.
"She has become a symbol of all of us, of our generation of women"
Clearly, Susan Estrich is not (as some of the less tactful Hillary supporters are apt to say) a Kool-Aid drinker. She is a down-to-the-bone Clintonista. Today on realclearpolitics she published this column on taking it to the convention:
"Should Hillary Be Plotting Convention Battle Plans?"
So I was expecting yet another "Fight on!" diatribe... and then my jaw dropped:
Of the thirty members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee scheduled to meet at the end of May in Washington, 13 are committed to Hillary's candidacy. She may not have won the majority of pledged delegates, but right now, she has a plurality of the pledged members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
If she can't "win" there, whatever win means, she is not likely to do better on the convention floor.
Estrich was being reasonable... she recognized the advantages Hillary has had... and the fact that Obama has managed to over come them.
Not only that, she admits that what Hillary is talking about doing will hurt the party... and not just the party but Hillary herself.
It will be "Hillary's fault," in the eyes of too many for her to become the nominee in the future, if she takes a doomed fight to the convention and keeps the party from uniting behind Obama if and when he can legitimately claim the support of a majority of the delegates -- that is, a majority of the delegates who will vote on the credentials challenge, and thus, enough for him to win by refusing to seat them, if that's what it takes.
And she realizes that Hillary can't very well demand to be placed on the ticket
As for forcing him to pick her for vice president, the short answer is you can't force someone in that position to do what they don't want to do.
Pressure, sure. But if Obama wants Sam Nunn or Joe Biden or Governor Strickland or Rendell, all he has to do is say it, and the game is over.
She also points out that getting on the ticket might not be the best thing for Hillary:
It will also be "Hillary's fault" if she forces herself onto a ticket which is then viewed as combining the worst rather than the best of all possible worlds.
In the process she admits Hillary comes with her own baggage (but not without taking a shot at Obama):
A guy running for change and against Washington might be excused for thinking twice before running with someone who epitomizes Washington in the 90's, for better and for worse. A guy who has plenty of his own baggage to carry (hello Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, past drug use, etc.) might be excused if he concluded that the overhead bins were crowded enough without adding any baggage from the Clinton years.
And lastly she makes the case as to why it's in Hillary's best interest to end this primary season with some class intact:
In the end, Hillary will do what's best for her, and taking a credentials fight to the convention floor, especially if it's a losing one, is not going to be best for her. And Obama will do what's best for him, and if it's not picking Hillary to run with him, there's nothing she or anyone else can do to force him to change his mind.
So there you have it Hillary supporters... I could have said it myself, but you would have just dismissed it. Hopefully, some of you will be a bit more open to the logic of this argument coming from the woman who literally wrote the book making the case for Hillary.