I t was always so with him. Now, sadly, it seems so with her. With Bill and Hillary, it's all about the Clintons.

On the most historic of nights, when the world watched in amazement as America provided stunning proof of its promise of endless possibilities, she could not bring herself to concede the contest, or the spotlight, to Barack Obama.

If she could not win the Democratic presidential nomination, she would not let him have it cleanly either.

Shocked at trailing and then losing to Obama, the Clintons have behaved incredibly badly.

They ran a dirty campaign, in the George W. Bush mould: playing the race card, the religion card, the fear card and the patriotism card.

They defined Obama in the same terms as the Republicans: he's exotic, he isn't quite American, he can't be trusted, especially on security.

This was summed up by Bill Clinton: "It'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of this country" (Obama doesn't love the country and he doesn't have the American interest at heart).

The race is being prolonged even after it's over, at the risk of undermining Obama's candidacy against John McCain.

Has she been hobbled by sexism? Sure. But Obama has been hobbled by racism. Arguably, his hill to climb was steeper than hers. Yet he has reached the peak.

He has done so without playing identity politics. While she claimed to be the torchbearer of "white Americans," he never claimed to be of blacks ("There's no black America and white America, only the United States of America").

While she invoked sisterhood, he didn't invoke black brotherhood. In fact, blacks came to him long after the young and the educated and the independents had flocked to his banner.

Some voters wouldn't vote for him because he is black or "a Muslim." Many wouldn't vote for her because of her gender or because she is a Clinton. But he is more likely to cut into her constituency than she ever could into his.

Hours before her speech Tuesday night in New York, it was clear that he had won enough superdelegates to sew up the nomination. Yet she wasn't going to let go.

That became clear the moment warm-up speaker Terry McAuliffe, her campaign chair, uttered his first words: she was the only candidate who could beat McCain (Obama couldn't) and be ready on Day 1 at the White House (Obama wouldn't be). McAuliffe then introduced her as "the next president of the United States."

That this was more than mere partisan enthusiasm was made clear by Clinton herself: "Who'll be the strongest candidate and the strongest president? Who'll be ready to take back the White House and take charge as commander-in-chief and lead our country to better tomorrows?" (Not Obama.)

Clinton pressed on: she (not he) had won "the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes" (which Obama won't).

Having dissed the newly minted Democratic nominee, Clinton started the brush fire of a rebellion:

"I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible. I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my website ... and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can."

That was code language for creating the pressure for Obama to name her his vice-presidential nominee, or give her whatever else she might demand. Failing that, she could try and withhold her backers from supporting him.

This is more than hardball American politics; this is blackmail.

She is making a virtue of staying on, saying she is no quitter.

Not being a quitter is a great quality until the time comes to quit. She has to quit, not because she is a woman but because she has lost.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Haroon Siddiqui is the Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears Thursday and Sunday.

hsiddiq@thestar.ca

Read more about: