Where is Clinton? (Part 2)

I wrote a serious post yesterday asking where Clinton was (See Where is Clinton). This was not to criticize her but to challenge that she is now faced with her 3 a.m. call and how she responds will mark her legacy and also determine her future role in the party and as an elected leader. As SJ writes, “a lot of us will be waiting and watching.” Even though the original post is now stale in our 24×7 Internet age, the matter is far from resolved and Clinton’s moment to respond remains very open, needed, and timely.

Political Correctness (PC) neutered everyone such that Obama and his followers could run amok. People in the Democratic Party were conditioned to avoid saying or doing anything that might offend someone. Hopefully that is a lesson learned. The Republicans learned it well watching Clinton get savaged in the primaries. When Obama tried to then play the race card on them they shoved it back in his face and now no one talks about race anymore.

Republicans are shaming Democrats on sexism and Obama’s misogynism. The party, at least Obama, his cult following, nutroots gangs, and adoring media are being painted for what they are racists, sexist, and hate-filled people. Unfortunately, this poison will last beyond Obama’s defeat in the November.

Clinton has faced and fought against the party’s establishment and the hate-filled people supporting Obama. She lost the nomination, in large part to their hate. She too often played nice, played polite, and played party loyalist rather than calling hate, whether racist or sexist, for what it is—wrong and unacceptable. As her supporters we’ve been far more willing to challenge this hate and say no. We own our votes. We’ve now walked from the party’s nominee and with a wide range of emotions will vote for the Republican ticket of McCain and Palin this fall, ignoring Obama and Biden, wishing and working for their defeat.

Back to my earlier post. This is Clinton’s 3 a.m. moment vis-à-vis the Democratic Party: go along to get along or say ‘No, this is wrong and I want no part of it.’ In my post I suggested that Clinton cannot retain her legacy and have a future in the party by becoming a partner in Obama’s campaign. She’s in a lose-lose position wherein she’ll be blamed for Obama’s loss whether she helps him or not. Should he win, he’ll ignore her and toss her aside. As Dean, Brazile, and others have stated, they don’t need whites, women, latinos, blue collar workers, small town residents, people of religion, and others in their new party—if they win, this is confirmed and Clinton might as well either retire or start a new party.

The responses to my original post now number 700 and range from agreement to shock and anger that the topic was even being raised. Take a moment to read through them. Note, importantly, as you do that it was and is a civil discussion, shared emotion, experience, concern, and hope. The few nutroots gang or off-thread comments were politely addressed. The community at NoQuarterUSA is not Daily Kos, TPM, or other places where any inconvenient question is met with hateful and foul-mouthed response, nor where differences of opinion are not welcomed.

The responses can be organized into several views and proposed courses for Clinton to follow:

• Should she be a nice girl and keep her mouth shut and campaign for Obama and/or down ticket candidates? (That might work for expediency but there is there future upside to this course, whether Obama wins or loses. Importantly, if she says nothing of the hate, does this mean it is okay to use hate against another party but not within the party?)
• Should she punt and say that this is not her fight? The party rejected her and she’ll just sit out the campaign, thank you. (Just take a break for a few months. Return after the vote in November to help rebuild the defeated party.)
• Should she fill the moral and leadership vacuum and say no, this campaign of hate has gone on far too long, enough-is-enough, I want no part of it? (My preferred choice as leadership requires grownup action, whatever the cost. Right and wrong are important judgments that are not a matters of expediency and convenience.)
• Don’t talk about it as all we do is feed the critics.

This is Clinton’s 3 a.m. moment. It is not a question of McCain or Palin (and it pained me to see some of the nutroots trash about Palin repeated in the thread). It is simply a question of what is best for the Democratic Party and Clinton.

What are your thoughts on this?