Besides all of the disqualifying reason why she is ineligible to be on the ticket as Vice President - such as her gross mismanagement of the money her supporters gave her, the turnover on her staff, the ever changing message of her campaign, the flawed strategy, etc, etc., etc.
And the fact that her very essence dilutes the core message of change that inspired Obama's campaign and his supporters. And no, she doesn't represent change simply because she is a woman.
But, most of all, most essentially of all, there are 4 very specific instances of words she uttered that make it absolutely impossible for her to have the honor to be associated with the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.
1. March: The "As Far As I Know" he's not a Muslim as reported by Politico (video at the link):
“You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.2. Then she offered this outrageous statement, also from March:
“Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that,” she replied.
“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”3. Then there was this last month:
“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”Regardless of whether or not she actually hopes for Obama's assassination, this remark was so insensitive, so outrageous. It was also not a relevant fact for her point to explain why she stayed in the race because it was not a fair historical comparison because the primary seasons were so different.
4. Her speech last night. She is a spoiler. Her utter denial of reality, her lack of graciousness, her threats, and her lies.
Here's American Prospect's Ezra Klein in a great piece, She Doesn't Accept:
Tonight, the Democratic Party essentially told Clinton that it was over. Obama crossed the magic delegate threshold and captured, for all intents and purposes, the nomination. Clinton had run a remarkable race, and come inches from securing the nomination, but she had lost. And tonight, Clinton took the stage in New York, and said, in effect, "I don't accept."So the bottom line, she mostly can not because she is lying, not accepting reality and causing destruction. For her not to stop the cheers of "Denver" last night was selfish.
Here's just one of the biggest lie from last night: She told people to go to her web site to tell her what we feel. Well, you can't do that. You can't tell her to bow out. By default, the site presumes support and the language there is defiant and confrontational. It also asks repeatedly for money - money that she need to repay her debts. Debts she did not need to incur because this thing has been mathematically over since March.
Here's Klein again:
She admitted that the next few days would require thought as to the path forward, but used that as an opening to plug her web site, where supporters could weigh in on the path she should choose. And on her web site, the button to submit your message of support sits next to an even larger button asking you to contribute. "Throughout this campaign, Hillary has always promised to stand up for you. Show Hillary you're standing with her by making a contribution to our campaign today." If you decide not to contribute, and try to simply leave a message, you're taken to another page where, again, you're asked to contribute. In truth, it is the contribution that Clinton is asking for, not the support. And those donations will not go towards her campaign for the nomination, which cannot be revived by more money. Rather, those donations will go towards retiring her millions in campaign debt.Sullivan also noted that specific lie of openness on her web site and then, then Terry McAuliffe while drinking rum on the air (is that legal) this morning with Mika and Joe and Pat Buchanan, actually said that most of the messages were supportive of her, as if it were possible for them not to be! I mean, the unreality is just unbelievable!
Even a stalwart support as Hillary Rosen, who as late as last week was misstating the facts for her candidate Hillary. She stated that Hillary never blamed her loss on sexism, that Ferraro perhaps did but not Hillary. Hillary in fact has done so and did so in an interview with the Washington Post on May 18th.
This is what Hillary said:
"The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."
It's never Hillary's own fault. Even when she blamed misogyny for the state of her campaign (as opposed to mismanagement of money, strategy, message, Mark Penn, Bill Clinton, Patti Solis Doyle), her supporters went on TV and said she didn't do so.
Here's what Hillary Rosen said today:
Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.
she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.
But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.
Clinton actually did not leave her supporters empty, she left them angry in order to improve her "bargaining" position.
She is despicable.
Here's the Washington Post on what she did last night:
It was an extraordinary performance by a woman who had been counted out of the race even when she still had a legitimate chance. Now she had been mathematically eliminated -- and she spoke as if she had won.
A crew from "The Daily Show" joined the party, and, hoping to keep Clinton in the race, struck up a cheer of "Four more months!"Such an outlandish thing seemed almost plausible among the Clinton backers in the hermetically sealed Baruch gym. Below ground level, there was no cellphone or BlackBerry reception, and there was no television playing in the room.
Terry McAuliffe, the campaign chairman, took the stage and read the full list of Clinton's victories, from American Samoa to Massachusetts. Introducing Clinton, he asked: "Are you ready for the next president of the United States?"This brought laughter from the reporters in the back of the room, but Clinton induced the crowd to boo the "pundits and naysayers" who would have run her from the race.
And lest you think her behavior is innocent and will not have long lasting implications, check out this and this.