Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The DNC Must Apply the Zell Miller Rules To Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton Pulls A Zell Miller - Must Lose Super Delegate Status
Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’ Posted at the Carpetbagger Report March 7th, 2008Like Lieberman, Hillary must be stripped of her superdelegate status.
At a press conference on Monday in Ohio, Clinton was defending her “3 a.m.” ad, and told reporters, “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”
The pro-McCain comments were quickly and widely panned — so Clinton repeated them. James Fallows reported on Wednesday, “In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the ‘Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002′ line
That, too, was widely panned, leading Clinton to ratchet up the pro-McCain rhetoric a little more.
...The only other member of the congressional Democratic caucus who praises McCain this much is Joe Lieberman.
Clinton's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies her as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule
Here's How the Zell Miller Rule Apply to Clinton:
Lieberman Has “Superdelegate” Status Stripped Because of McCain Endorsement
By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday February 6, 2008
Hillary Clinton Has “Superdelegate” Status Stripped Because of McCain Endorsement By: Laura Roslin Sunday February 9, 2008Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.
Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Hillary Clinton
Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.
Hillary Clinton's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies her as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to __name_intentionally_left_blank
Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.
Clinton, then a Democratic senator from New York, not only endorsed Republican John McCain repeatedly in March, she suggested publicly and to the main stream media that her primary opponent and likely nominee, Barack Obama - is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him.
Comments (39)
This makes complete sense to me. This repeated pro-McCain endorsement by Clinton really needs to be widely publicized *now* before the nomination is sealed - they will finally see the Clintons for what they are. It'll appeal to the Democratic base like the mug of Lieberman hugging McCain. Good luck to Hillary with the wooing of the Republican base!
March 9, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Laura -
Pure brilliance!!!
PLEASE distribute far and wide - all the way to the DNC.
You just made my Daylight Savings jump less painful.
Thanks!
March 9, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! I'm framing this one!!!
Awesome.
March 9, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daschle asked for resignation of Wolfenson for comparing Obama to Ken Starr :)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/08/daschle-suggests-clinton-_n_90491.html
Only Daschle, I may add.
Time to put some pressure on the DNC superdelegates to show us which side they're on, the Democratic Party or the party McCain represents.
March 9, 2008 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um... saying somebody has experience is not the same as endorsing them. Did you somehow miss that she's trying to run AGAINST McCain for the presidency? It's amazing that TPM has become so overrun with Obamanoids that a suggestion this stupid winds up as one of the most recommended posts.
March 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you somehow miss that Hillary is losing at the moment? The person who is currently closest to running against McCain is being trashed by her? I know that rivals do that.
However...
What Hillary is doing is giving John McCain ammunition to use against one of our candidates. It isn't the same as disagreeing with Obama; it is saying that
Who benefits from that? Our party? Our country?You really don't get it? Then please stop referring to us as Obamaniacs, because it is insulting, and you Hillary clones are showing your nasty sides!
March 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary thinks he's unqualified she should continue to say so. It really irks me that Obama's supporters seem to think that he shouldn't be the subject of any attacks.
It really is amazing that so many people are so in Obama's thrall that they can actually interpret Hillary's comment as an endorsement of John McCain. You have to torture logic so badly to draw that conclusion that even Mukasey would prosecute.
March 9, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments are only true if Hillary was talking in a vaccuum containing Democratic primary voters. Her words are for all to hear, and republicans will use it against our nominee, Obama; independents will hear it and question their own good sense, and Hillary will laugh all the way to the bank.
March 9, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain would come up with all the same criticisms on his own so whether or not Hillary makes them during the primary is immaterial.
You're using the general election as an excuse to argue that Hillary shouldn't be able to criticize her opponent where he's weakest. That's a fine argument if you're an Obama supporter. But an impartial observer would find it unfair.
March 9, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
These comments that Hillary is running against McCain and she has a right to challenge Obama, etc. are missing the point...Yes, she has a right to challenge Obama, but let's face it, she should have kept the argument that her experience is more than his and not compared him to McCain. What she did is just political suicide. Her statement implies that the experience factor relates to one's years in Washington, an argument that she cannot win herself when it comes to McCain. The argument for her should not be experience in Washington if she wants to run against McCain in the general election. And don't for a minute think that he won't use the argument. He can smother not only Obama with this, but her equally as well. Stupid argument! Obama has it right... not longevity in Washington, but the right clearlity when making those decisions at 3:00 am in the morning.
March 9, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She uses the arguments she needs to use in order to beat her opponent.
Against Obama it's that he's a neophyte.
When she runs against McCain she'll humiliate him for being an old man.
Can't wait to see her lace into the Republican geezer.
Obama doesn't have the cajones to do so, and McCain will make him pay for his timidity.
March 10, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, do you own a dictionary?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endorse.
2 a: to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation
She ENDORSED McCain's Commander-in-Chief credentials and experience. Since she believes that she herself is qualified on both counts, and she places McCain on par with herself and excludes Obama, she has put her stamp of approval on McCain. Still confused? Draw a Venn diagram - it helps.
"Did you somehow miss that she's trying to run AGAINST McCain for the presidency?"
I think it is you who's missing WHAT HRC is plainly saying. Why do you think so many are apoplectic?
She recommends/endorses/approves/expresses support for (or insert your personal preferred term of approbation) McCain's credentials over Obama's for Commander-in-Chief.
It will be used by McCain against Obama should he win the Democratic nomination. "Even his own party opines that *I'm* more qualified to be CIC!" Over and over.
That's why such pronouncements are deemed treacherous.
Now go have yourself a latte.
March 9, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Settle down, Obamanoid.
March 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Hillary should run as a 3rd party/Independent with Bloomberg. That will fix the Obamaistas. Or she can wait until the Republicans clean the empty suit's clock in November and run against the 76 year old McCain in 2012.
March 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally ENDORSE both ideas! How about Clinton/Lieberman for ole time's sake?
March 9, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
By all means, let Hillary run as an independent. Hillary/Lieberman, or Hillary/Zell, would be perfect matches. Their platform would be "McCain Is Awesome!!!".
March 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about putting together the "Dream Team". How 'bout Douglas Feith as Secretary of State?
March 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And bring back Fredo for AG! Now THAT's the kind of person Hillary wants guarding her back! (I'm not kidding!)
March 9, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empty suit? That's as silly as Hillary (the current loser) offering the VP slot to the current winner.
What can one expect from an Ice Cream Cone with a face?
March 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you somehow miss that she's trying to run AGAINST McCain for the presidency?
How very quaint that you still try to take Hillary at her word.
Her endorsement of McCain isn't about trying to run against McCain, it's about trying to tear Obama down no matter what it takes.
This is pretty obvious when you look at how much her endorsement of McCain would hurt her if she got the nomination. Making experience an issue, and praising McCain's experience, would look pretty stupid if she got the nomination. To claim more experience than Obama when she has fewer years in elected office, she tries to claim her years as First Lady. And her team hadn't even prepared an answer to the obvious question of "What experience?" when they started pushing this theme. You've probably heard the recording in which they were caught completely off guard by that question.
As for her "experience" as First Lady, it doesn't stand up to close inspection. One of the key things she now cites was that she had tea in a cafe in Belfast with some people who were peripherally involved in the peace process. She describes it in her autobiography without claiming that it had any significant role in the peace process, it was just a social event. It was described in the papers at the time as a social event, the highlight of which was Hillary admiring a tea pot. And the cafe was packed with reporters and photographers. It wasn't a serious discussion or negotiation, it was a photo op.
So now imagine McCain putting up a commercial with photos and news stories in the local paper at the time, all about Hillary admiring that tea pot. This is one of the centerpieces of her claim to having the "experience" it takes to be commander in chief. Admiring a teapot.
This is what she's handed to McCain on a silver platter. Why? Not because she's preparing to run against McCain, obviously. Simply because by endorsing McCain's experience over Obama's, she might be able to hurt Obama.
March 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume McCain wouldn't make the comparison: Obama, non-military (McCain POW, Vietnam), 3 years PT US Senate experience, one speech that he backed off on in 2004. McCain brings experience, integrity and independence. McCain is a slave to no ideology special interests unlike Obama and the Obamaistas. Hillary for PONTUS; McCain, VP.
March 9, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. Of course McCain will play the experience card.
The point is that Hillary is playing the experience card ON MCCAIN's BEHALF, and saying very openly that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama by that standard. Does that not disgust you in the slightest?
The second point is that Hillary is playing the experience card AND THAT'S A GAME SHE CAN'T WIN EITHER. They didn't even bother to try to think up some things they could claim for her "experience," and when they did one of the centerpieces is a tea that Hillary attended, which shows up in her own autobiography as a social event and showed up in the Belfast papers the next morning as a story about Hillary admiring a teapot. It's beyond laughable, or would be if she weren't doing it to tear down Obama by helping McCain.
March 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Her endorsement of McCain isn't about trying to run against McCain, it's about trying to tear Obama down no matter what it takes."
And very shortsighted at that. She is not even thinking about running against McCain yet. In true Scarlett O'Hara form, she is basically saying "I won't think about that now. I'll think about that tomorrow". Hillary has proven time and time again that she does not believe actions taken now will have any effect down the road. Her objective is to take down Obama, that's all. Obviously Chess is not her forte since she does consider her future moves. We need to have a commander in cheif who can look beyond their own nose and see long term effects of their actions.
To illistrate this point, lets compare Hillary's preparation for her campaign and GWB's prep for the Iraq war:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men' and appoint incompetent loyalists to important positions.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
The list can go on and on. Scary, isn't it?
March 10, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone should use the form at
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues
to send this argument to the Democratic Party.
With luck, we can purge our party of this neo-con traitor and reclaim progressive values.
March 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the scorched earth continues. In 2012, Hillary will be as relevent as Ralph Nader.
March 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found the text of the "Zell Miller Rule". Go here:
http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/
then follow the link for "Delegate Selection Rules" to a pdf.
Then search in that document for the word "endorse" and you find this clause:
So invoking this rule doesn't require an official endorsement. The rule can be invoked against someone who has "publicly expressed support for the election of" a candidate of another party.
Saying that McCain has "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold" and implying that Obama has not, comes awfully close to publicly expressing support for the election of McCain. Close enough to raise the issue and point out that at the very least, Hillary is skating very, very close to the edge of what could get her superdelegate status revoked.
She won't get her superdelegate status revoked, of course, but it's another illustration of just how disgusting her behavior has become.
Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller. With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
March 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone running for an office shouldn't be able to be a superdelegate anyway, but this rule should certainly rule her out.
As for Lieberman, shouldn't the fact that he left the Democratic Party have been enough to boot him out? Just saying he "caucusses with Democrats" when every word out of his mouth and vote he makes is republican should not qualify him. Anyway good riddance, Joe. Please let the door hit you in your butt on the way out!
March 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is one of the centerpieces of her claim to having the "experience" it takes to be commander in chief. Admiring a teapot."
Ah, now the "china experience" in her resume makes much more sense....
March 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funniest comment of the week! "china experience"
Unfortunately, according to the story in the Belfast paper the next morning, it was a stainless steel teapot that she was admiring that day. So she can't claim this as part of her "China experience."
They gave her the teapot to take home, BTW, because she liked it so much. She said it kept the tea nice and hot. If she still has it, I think she should carry it on the campaign trail and hold it up during her speeches as tangible evidence of the work she did to help the peace process in Ireland.
March 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Boston and all, I wouldn't dare underestimate the epochal history-altering potential of a "tea party". Into the resume it goes! Lest the Clinton Darjeelings come a-chiding....
March 9, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Boston and all, I wouldn't dare underestimate the epochal history-altering potential of a "tea party".
Excellent point! Although this may be more of a "teapot dome" situation, metaphor-wise.
According to the story in the Belfast paper, she claimed that a stainless steel teapot was excellent at keeping the tea nice and hot. But stainless steel is an excellent conductor of heat and so tea in a stainless steel teapot actually cools more quickly than tea in a ceramic teapot. The evidence suggests that in her discussions over tea with several women who were peripherally involved in the peace process, the most important part of the conversation, the part that the local papers thought most worthy of quoting, was in fact, a lie.
Since this is one of the key events in her claim of experience that qualifies her to be commander in chief, the details matter. She said recently that the meeting was in City Hall, but it was actually in a cafe. She said at the time that the teapot kept the tea nice and hot, but stainless steel conducts heat much better than ceramic.
Hillary supporters will probably try to say this is just tempest in a teapot. I say they're right, and it's time to get this tempest started.
March 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep coming back to Walter Karp's screen on politics. He said there are only two kinds of people in politics, hacks and reformers.
Hillary, McCain, Obama, Lieberman are all coroporate centrist hacks. Thus the McCain/Hillary ticket is not really absurd and not really a joke. It points out the underlying similarities of all these candidates.
That being the case choosing on the base of race or military service or gender makes as much sense as anything else. Babtist? Methodist?
Carter, Bill Bradley, Dr Dean, John Edwards were reformers. Nominating them could or did make a difference.
This election is over already. We lost.
March 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So will the DNC allow this?
Where's Al Gore, Jimym Carter, Edwards, Richardson, Pelosi?????
If they allow HRC to STEAL this nomination, they are all finished.
Democrats > Cheatocrats
March 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is no hack, which is why the Hacks Club (DNC) seems to be intent on stealing the election.
Note that Bradley is an Obama supporter, and Dean is probably leaning towards him too.
Carter made some hints as well.
Edwards is a fence sitter.
If any of these DNC folks have any pride in their party, they have to put a stop to this scorched earth strategy.
March 9, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, Obama has this locked up. The superdelegates who haven't signed on with either campaign will go with Obama because of his broad-base appeal, and his ability to help gain seats in the House and Senate (please see Foster for an example). Very few with tough matchups vs Republicans will want the monster campaigning for them. That's a deathwish, and Dean, Gore, RIchardson, etc know it.
March 9, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoost, I know it is a deathwish. Clintons have gutted this party already, and 2000 was a massacre on the whole party in the senate, house, governorships due to them.
But then why are there so many lapdogs out there for them? Why such an astounding member of weasles they bribed or threatened to roll over for them? Just about every state party is riddled with Clinton supporters, even when it goes against their own voters.
Stealing the nomination for HRC would mean disaster and losing an entire generation of voters. Could this party be this stupid? I'm nervous the answer is yes.
March 9, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many reasons why Hillary's praise of McCain on the crucial "CIC" issue is destructive. Gary Hart recently wrote about this (see, Truthout).
It also occurs to me that the recent Clinton campaign (and Bill Clinton speech about the "dream ticket") (with Obama as VP) has been completely undermined by Hillary saying (repeatedly) that Obama isn't qualified to be CIC. How could she possibly have him as her running mate, now?
McCain and the Republicans would devastate that ticket by saying Hillary chose an unqualified person simply to either get the nomination and/or to play for the "special interests" in the GE.
It also calls into question the "sincerity" of the idea that she'd pick Obama as her running mate.
March 9, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this a brilliant and fair suggestion.
I will not vote for any Republican for President this year, not even if the Democrats are suicidal enough to nominate one!
And I will support anyone running against this disgrace to womanhood,the US Senate, the human race and things that breathe whenever I get a chance.
March 10, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a diary over at dailykos on Feb. 25th making this same suggestion before the McCain/Clinton ready to be commander-in-chief rounds. Some of the comments then made it sound like I had just suggested blasphemy. My poll only got 21 votes about this issue, but only 4 of those votes were no, no rule should be applie which means 17 said yes.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/25/142824/728/546/463200
March 10, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment