Bill Clinton was out again this weekend, making his arguments on behalf of Hillary's candidacy. Unfortunately, as it often does, his argument ended up sounding a lot like whining:

"I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to
push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he
said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported
by ABC News. “'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh,
this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is
not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"

The former president added that his wife had not been given the
respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate. "She is
winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the
evidence,” he said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have
never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.”

“Her only position was, ‘Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player.
We will all try to win — but let's let everybody vote, and count every
vote,’" he said.

I think he's making several valid points here, but why must he make them so petulantly? Yes, Hillary has been treated unfairly by the media lately, but she was treated as the "inevitable" candidate for months and given many a pass before she started being beaten squarely by Barack in a couple primaries, at which point the media started obviously swooning. Why must he suggest a "cover up" reminiscent of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy" comments? Why must he paint his wife as a vicim when she's better portrayed as a fighter against great odds?

I don't think it does her any favors, and it illustrates once again the Clintons' tendency to turn would-be legitimate arguments for her candidacy into unsavory soundbites. A discussion of unseated delegates in Florida and Michigan became a comparison to slavery; a discussion of blue-collar demographics became a sell along the lines of "white people love me!"; a discussion of timelines became a reference to RFK's assassination. Whether or not you think these incidents have been overblown by the media, the Clintons are doing themselves no favors with the indelicate way in which they're making the argument for Hillary. Democratic voters have shown, through polls, that they're open to Hillary continuing the fight, but the Clintons' repeated gaffery will do nothing to convince superdelegates, and that's ultimately what they must do.

Peggy Noonan suggests playing the victim card is "sissy," and I tend to agree. But she argues it's not aimed at voters or superdelegates, but at history, and it may be effective in that way:

You know where I'm going, for you know where she went.
Hillary Clinton complained again this week that sexism has been a major
dynamic in her unsuccessful bid for political dominance. She is quoted
by the Washington Post's Lois Romano decrying the "sexist" treatment
she received during the campaign, and the "incredible vitriol that has
been engendered" by those who are "nothing but misogynists." The New
York Times reported she told sympathetic bloggers in a conference call
that she is saddened by the "mean-spiritedness and terrible insults"
that have been thrown "at you, for supporting me, and at women in
general."

Where to begin? One wants to be sympathetic to Mrs.
Clinton at this point, if for no other reason than to show one's range.
But her last weeks have been, and her next weeks will likely be, one
long exercise in summoning further denunciations. It is something new
in politics, the How Else Can I Offend You Tour. And I suppose it is
aimed not at voters -- you don't persuade anyone by complaining in this
way, you only reinforce what your supporters already think -- but at
history, at the way history will tell the story of the reasons for her
loss.

It may work to mitigate the effects of Hillary's eventual loss on her legacy, but wouldn't it be more dignifed and feminist even to own up to her mistakes-- that she didn't organize well enough in caucus states, that she took the "inevitable" mantle upon her without a back-up rationale, that she underestimated her competition, big-time? I've been, at times, a fan of Hillary in this primary. She's shown tenacity and sparkled under pressure in ways I would not have expected. But I'm no fan of the victim card, and i don't see it helping her or women in the long run.

What do you think?