Clinton and Obama Reverse Roles

Clinton and Obama Reverse Roles

Usually, it is the plucky outsider, the determined dissenter, the underdog who did not quite make it, who has to swallow hard and tell cheering supporters that they will have to support the other guy.

In fact, one of the standard images from the American campaign trail is that of the candidate who tried to beat the establishment being forced by hard circumstance – and the demands of party loyalty – to pull the plug on a movement that, when all the votes were, couldn’t beat the bosses.

On Saturday, however, it was the establishment – or, to be more precise, the woman with the most prominent name and, at least at the start of the 2008 presidential race, the support of the party’s dominant players – who had to tell her backers to tell her supporters to vote for the underdog.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Usually, it is the plucky outsider, the determined dissenter, the underdog who did not quite make it, who has to swallow hard and tell cheering supporters that they will have to support the other guy.

In fact, one of the standard images from the American campaign trail is that of the candidate who tried to beat the establishment being forced by hard circumstance – and the demands of party loyalty – to pull the plug on a movement that, when all the votes were, couldn’t beat the bosses.

On Saturday, however, it was the establishment – or, to be more precise, the woman with the most prominent name and, at least at the start of the 2008 presidential race, the support of the party’s dominant players – who had to tell her backers to tell her supporters to vote for the underdog.

“I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me,” said New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who began the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination as the prohibitive frontrunner but ended it as a fiery populist railing against the unfairness of the nominating process, the cruelty of the media and her abandonment by so-called “super delegates” for a young senator from Illinois who wasn’t even sure he wanted to make the race.

Clinton told thousands of cheering supporters at the National Building Museum in Washington on Saturday afternoon that it was time to “take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama.”

Clinton was gracious, and clear about her support for Obama. When some supporters booed her announcement of support for the candidate they had worked so hard to beat, the former First Lady said it would “break my heart” if hurt feelings on the part of her supporters in any way undermined Obama’s fall campaign against John McCain.

“(The) Democratic Party is a family, and now it’s time to restore the ties that bind us together,” she said, quieting most of the boos.

Obama was equally gracious.

“Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Sen. Clinton’s support,” he said, in what after the long primary campaign is surely an understatement. “But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans.”

Of course, it is easier to be gracious when you are the winner.

That’s the norm.

What is not the norm in American politics is the image of the commoner who challenged party royalty accepting his victory.

Though the focus, this day, is on Hillary Clinton — and rightfully so — the real drama, the real history, is in the fact that the roles have been reversed.

The candidate who was not supposedto have a chance is now going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

And his name is Barack Obama.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x