Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not?

Helen Thomas nailed it in a column in the Seattle PI on Friday, saying “Hillary Clinton should hang in there and run a good race. And she has vowed to do so.”

Thomas goes on to note, “Among those who want her to throw in the towel are, of course, Obama’s supporters,” however “many other Democrats are trying to push her out of the contest on the ground that a contentious race can hurt the party and could help their Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.”

Here’s where Helen Thomas is on the money (emphasis mine):

Although Obama has racked up more delegates, neither candidate has nailed the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Obama has captivated the enthusiastic support of America’s youth and ignited their interest in presidential politics. His eloquent speeches are designed for the bully pulpit. But does a good speech make a good president?

Obama stresses he was against the invasion of Iraq, but he doesn’t say he was not in the Senate when it was initiated. Since become a senator, he has twice voted to fund the war.

I am still trying to find the key that has made Obama a prime candidate for the presidency, and to understand what he has done for the country beyond his middle-of-the-road political moves to make his name known and to steer clear of hot-button issues.

The Rev. Martin Luther King had a dream, too. But he acted on it. He went to jail, he marched, he led.

And here’s where she points out the unbalanced media treatment of the two candidates:  

There is no question that the pundits and the news media have been harder on Clinton, perhaps because she has been longer in the public eye and there is more to pick on.

A Feb. 20-24 New York Times-CBS poll found that 48 percent of respondents said the news media were tougher on Clinton compared with 43 percent, who thought the media were tougher on Obama.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that the major newspaper columnists are giving Obama a free ride, while trashing Clinton. Likeability undoubtedly goes a long way with them, and he has mesmerized the media.

Thomas concludes:

Obama can be forgiven for acting like a front-runner, but not for his patronizing remarks such as: “My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.”

Even Clinton has the audacity of hope — and why not?

Barack Obama doesn’t own “hope” or having the “audacity” to “hope.” Anyone with dreams and visions can be audacious in their hope, including Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It’s just a fact of being hopeful really. And Helen Thomas is audacious enough to point that out.

H/T to Taylor Marsh for the Thomas Op/Ed. Keep the “hope” coming — Contribute.

Bookmark and Share

About Pamela Leavey

Pamela Leavey is the Editor in Chief, Owner/Publisher of The Democratic Daily as well as a freelance writer and photographer. Pamela holds a certificate in Contemporary Communications from UMass Lowell, a Journalism Certificate from UMass Amherst and a B.A. in Creative Writing and Digital Age Communications from UMass Amherst UWW.
Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not?

  1. Pingback: Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not? | Barack Obama Chronicles

  2. Pingback: Even Clinton Has the Audacity of Hope — And Why Not? | Hillary Clinton Chronicles

  3. OK, let’s look at the contentions of Helen Thomas one at a time:
    1. She ask’s the question, “Does making a good speech make
    a good president.” No, not neccesarily, but it can’t do much
    harm. Would you prefer a president who delivers a bad
    bad speech? If so,its a shame we don’t have a president
    like the current one, who has time and time again proven that
    he is barely literate. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and
    John Kennedy all could deliver a pretty good speech and they
    aren’t useally considered on a list of our worst presidents.
    One’s speech is frequently an indicator of their overall
    2. Yes, Senator Obama has frequently and accurately indicated
    that he oppossed the Iraq War from it’s beginning. He has
    never tried to misslead the electorate into believing that he
    was a member of the US Senate at it’s conception.
    He freely admits that he was a member of the Illinois
    legislature in March 2003. Since becoming a US Senator, he
    has gone on record time and time again as being opposed
    to this war that was based on lies. And, of course, “he has
    twice voted to fund the war.” So has Hillary Clinton. Funding
    the war and being in opposition to it are two seperate issues.
    Since the votes have never been available to end the war, do
    you expect that any Senator worth their weight would vote to
    further endanger the safety of our troops by not properly
    funding it?
    3. I totaly dispute her claim that he has displayed only, “middle
    of the road political moves to make his name known and
    steered clear of hot-button issues. This is just plain false.
    If anyone wants to see where he stands on hot-button issues
    they can go to Obama.com, listen to the debates, read “The
    Audacity of Hope”, or “Barack Obama In His Own Words”–
    where he speaks on everything from abortion to the Middle
    East. He has been very specific as to where he stands!
    4. Yes,” Martin Luther King did have a dream, acted on it and
    went to jail.” Has Obama disputed this? For a young
    politician, he has displayed great leadership skills. He
    definitely, like Martin Luther King, has a natural ability to
    inspire people. Inspiration, especially among the young, is
    what this country desperately needs in 2008.
    5. Yes, I agree that the news media has seemed to go harder
    on Hillary than Barack. She rightly states, “She has been
    longer in the public eye and there’s more to pick on.” I have
    gone on record as saying that Hillary, because of her access
    baggage, would be a less electable candidate than Barack.
    This is the very reason that the GOP brain-trust, Sean
    Hennity, and Rush have let it be known that they are hopeing
    that Hillary is our candidate. They realize that she would be
    the the easier of the two to defeat.
    6. I simply don’t understand Helen’s assertion that the media
    has given Barack a free ride. There has been his association
    with real-estate broker Resnick, Rev. Wright, his wife’s
    statement that she is only now proud to be an American etc.
    This sure doesn’t sound like a free ride to me. Helen states
    “likeability does go a long way.” To this point in the
    campaign, justly or unjustly, it seems like both the media
    and the electorate are finding Obama more likeable.
    7. Why does she consider Obama’s comment that, “My attitude
    is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.”
    patronizing? Would she rather hear Barack saying that she
    should drop out of the race? I find it far more patronizing
    for Hilary to publicly offer Barack the vice-presidency when she
    becomes President. HELLO HILLARY–it’s you who is trailing.
    Shouldn’t perhaps it be Barack offering you the VP spot?
    8. Yes, I totally agree that Hillary also has the right to have the
    “audicity” of hope. I think it is historically proven that
    most all Americans since 1776 have been characterized by
    faith and hope. The “audacity” Obama was talking about in
    his book, however, was not the audacity that some day he
    might be President. Rather, it was the type of visionary
    outlook tyypified by the life of Martin Luther King.
    I apologize for the length of this response but Helen Thomas
    provided a whole lot of material worthy of refute! Buzz

  4. Buzz

    “Since the votes have never been available to end the war, do
    you expect that any Senator worth their weight would vote to
    further endanger the safety of our troops by not properly
    funding it?”

    I hate to break this to you but Kerry-Feingold would have effectively put an end to the war. Obama voted against it.

  5. Kendall A. Johnson says:

    Obama is a media made candidate that will fall as quick as he rose!!!! The media is his base!!! Without MSNBC and CNN he would have sunk before Edwards dropped out. Obama is only in this race to derail any viable democratic ticket in the fall.

    When the time comes, they will break him, just as fast as they made him!!! And then, John McCain will comfortably take the presidency!!!!! Don’t fool yourselves, the only reason the media made mirage is in this race is to deliver a republican president for General Electric and Time Warner as well as others!!!!!

    It’s not a randum coinsidence that this young half black guy entered the race at the same time that Clinton was running!!!!Everyone knew she was going to make a run for years before she announced it. Obama ‘s constant reminding us of his white mother is all about getting white men to vote for him!!!!! That’s the only reason he keeps reminding everyone that she was white.

    CNN is regularly saying that sexism is not as offensive as racism!!! They have specials on race every single day trying to brain wash white america to vote for this big ZERO!!!!! Even Lou Dobbs couldn’t keep his mouth shut about it!!!! ITS DOWN RIGHT SICKENING!!!! And these weak kneed dems are falling for it!!!!!THE SAME LOSERS LIKE JOHN KARRY AND TED KENNEDY WHO ARE TOO STUPID AND REACTIONARY TO SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS,. INSTEAD THEY WILL RUN TO THE BLACK MAN’S SIDE TO PROVE HOW PROGRESSIVE THEY ARE!!!!! MEANTIME, THEY **** THE WOMEN, THE WORKING CLASS AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO NEEDS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT SO THEY CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEIR “PROGRESIVENESS”!!!! WHAT **** **** AND WHAT MORONS!!!!!!PAMELA WAKE UP!!!!! Its so obvious!!!!

  6. Kendall

    Your comment above has been edited for foul language — I have edited a few of your comments recently.

    Please tone down your comments — refrain from using the F word or edit it and stop using all capital letters — it comes across here as screaming.

  7. Kendall

    Also — There is no need for me to “wake up” I am supporting Hillary Clinton. Buzz is a long time commenter here, and a friend. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (his name is spelled Kerry) are neither stupid or reactionary. I am originally from MA, they were both my Senators and they are 2 of the most progressive men in the US Senate. Please do not continue to bash them here — Your comments bashing them in the future will be moderated.

  8. Janis says:

    Tangentially related to this, another great piece by Sean Wilentz in Salon.com that discusses — in the context of the current primary — the entire way that the Dems choose a candidate for the general election.

    It’s quite interesting, and alone among anything I’ve ever encoutnered, it does seem to go straight to the heart of the question that’s been asked so often for the past few decades: “Why do the Democrats enver seem to put forth a decent candidate?”

    Until this election, I didn’t realize two things — that the Repubs and the Dems don’t use the same method for choosing primary winners, and that the Dem method of choosing primary winners was so grossly different from the one used in the general election! No wonder the damned jackasses can’t field decent candidates! They aren’t testing them according to the “winner take all” method used in the general election. It’s like picking a candidate based on how well he (and I mean that “he”) can throw a football and then pushing him forward for a chess tournament.

    It answers a lot of questions — the whole thing comes down to the Dems, for some convoluted reason that will never be acknowledged, addressed, or solved, using precisely the wrong process to vet candidates. It’s incredibly easy to pick the wrong one with a system like this. How insane.

  9. Sen. Obama has contributed (or at least helped to) increased awareness among various groups, including younger people, of the political aspect of our public life. I’m not sure that anything more than that really is required as a qualification for holding high public office in this time and place. I don’t argue that that proves he would be the perfect President, but we have never had one of those. And no one else can realistically argue that he would be worse than many in the past, including the one that we are in the process of replacing.