Clinton admits she's ok with overturning the will of the voters
In her interview with Brian Williams just before John Edwards officially endorsed Barack Obama in Michigan this evening, she spun out a torrent of points in response to being asked about her overturning the voters will in the elections, but by doing so tacitly answered that she would be quite happy to do so.
Roll the "tape" to the 6:20 mark in the interview:
Brian Williams: For you to be the nominee, it would take a wholesale shift of superdelegates, in effect overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections would you be comfortable with that?
Hillary Clinton: Well I think that the superdelegates are there for a purpose that is to determine who they think would be the stronger candidate and the best President. Superdelgates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, they can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no ah... guarantee, and in fact it's equally true for pledged delegates for most states. Obviously people are going to look at the results but I think that it's also important to look at where the delegates came from, how many people actually elected those delegates, what the kind of.. ah.. outcomes were, who has a bigger base to build an electoral majority on. But at the end of the day Brian, you know I know maybe it's because we live in such a media bubble and it's 24/7 and there is SUCH an interest in this campaign, everybody should just take a deep breath, we're going to finish these elections, we're going to find out about Michigan and Florida and how they will be seated, and we're going to know a lot more in about three weeks than we do right now and that is more than enough time for us to unify our party, for us to be, you know absolutely committed to winning in November and I believe that's what's going to happen.
Shorter answer... yes.
That of course is the only conceivable path to the nomination, and is at the root of all the things she throws out in response to the question about if she would be comfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections.
Of course the reality is that Obama could lose all of the remaining races by the exact same margin as West Virginia, and lose all the remaining undeclared superdelegates by that same margin and still secure the nomination by 2,027 votes, however Hillary Clinton is tacitly admitting right there in the video, that she is not uncomfortable with overturning the pledged delegates and those individual state elections. So don't let anyone claiming that Hillary Clinton's campaign is so concerned about making sure all the votes are counted and all the delegations are seated, because she is admitting in this interview that your votes don't matter and that she is comfortable in overturning the results through convention maneuvers if it will get her the nomination.
She said as much, right there, right in front of the camera for the world to see and hear. Is the public willing or able to see her big lie about respecting the will of the voters and the party staring them right in the face?
And how can we distill this down and get this point across to the wider voting populace?
Hillary is absolutely correct about the Superdelegates. They are there to keep a rogue (but popular) element from usurping the party. They are a safety valve.
This "will of the people" argument is specious. The will is only for the GE. The Parties can operate however they want.
The only question, then, is if the Superdelegates believe that Obama represents a rogue element trying to steer the Dems in the wrong direction.
Now, this is where I part company with Hillary.
In fact, the superdelegates are reinforcing the idea that the Dems will grow in the direction that Obama is pointing.
May 15, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't really where I was going with posting this. It isn't about the minutia of the rules and mechanics of the nominating process.
My intent here is to show the inherent hypocrisy of her claims abut letting the will of the voter be heard, while simultaneously, and vital to her pipe-dream of securing the nomination, saying that the superdelegates (and pledged delegates/ should give the elections and everyone who voted in them the finger and give her the nomination instead because she believes she would make a better president and candidate.
Hopefully we can distill this point down to a quick, easy, bite-sized rejoinder to nullify the talking points and absurd arguments she and her supporters are pushing with this.
May 15, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was never any concern about Obama grabbing more delegates than his percentage of votes should give him - lots of high-5's whenever he squeezed out a few more. Isn't that going against the will of the voters as well?
And then there were the caucuses - lots of Democratic voters who will vote in the general elections did not go to caucuses. Might be out of town, old and can't get to the polls, too busy with kids to take that much time off, in the military, too far away from a caucus location or without transportation. Not much concern about the will of those voters either.
Then of course there are the voters in Michigan and Florida - whose votes were given away by the whims of the Democratic leadership who they didn't elect, as well as the whims of the Republican legislatures who they certainly didn't choose. Still not much concern about the will of those voters either.
But I'm happy you've found a toe-hold to spin for your candidate.
May 15, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
, might have supported a candidate who lacked the leadership skills to organize them into an effective cacus force.
May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because getting people out of their homes and into a local school gymnasium for a night of bickering is a skill we demand from our president? Of course not, it's an archaic throwback to ward politics practiced in the democratic party. It has nothing to do with determining the will of the voters and everything to do with finding the mean son of a bitch ward boss who should be in charge in that precinct for the next year or two.
May 16, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, you know better than this. Don't be ingenuine with your outrage.
They elected their Democratic representatives, and those representatives chose not to vote contrary to their Republican counterparts and instead vote contrary to their party's wishes -- a party headed once again by someone who was elected by his peers.
Was the decision to strip all delegates done hamfistedly? Yes. But nobody forced the decision on Florida/Michigan, they made their own bed here.
May 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Democratic party is now in the position to dictate to the Republican party when they should hold their primaries too? The Democratic party is the overlord of every state legislature when it comes time to setting their own primaries?
Perhaps since you're a new Obama supporter and have no understanding of civics or how the party system works this might help ... Each state pays for these rather expensive primaries themselves so the legislatures agree on the date for having every party's primary at the same time. And usually coupled with primary elections for state offices and initiatives/referendum. This is the same date for the Republican primary, the Libertarian Party primary, the Socialist Party primary.
I understand you think that Obama is god but believe it or not he isn't. The Democratic party cannot tell the Florida state legislature what to do.
May 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are saying that the Florida state legislature is made up of absolutely no one from the Democratic party? No one there to register a protest vote, huh? No Democrats? Seriously?
Please spend more time elaborating on that skewed perspective vs. telling me your assumptions about people on the internet.
May 17, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely about the inherently elitist caucuses - an explicit and deliberate disenfranchisement of the economically disadvantaged. Those who cannot afford to take time off work or pay for child care or take hours out of their day.
There is one thing I like about caucuses, though. They can be fun.
However, it's telling that Obama's lead comes from the disenfranchising of the poor by the caucus states and not from a true majority. Moreover, as agnostic as I am about counting MI and FL, it is a fact that more people voted for her, so where's the will of the voters there?
May 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it is not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_inestimable_popular_vote_e.php?page=2
May 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look again - She has more votes than him counting the votes in MI and FL. Whether they count in the convention is one thing - a legal distinction. In terms of the general sense, will of the people, they count.
May 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You not only have to count the votes from MI and FL, you have to leave them out from IA, NV, ME, and WA. Then you have to ignore the second article that I linked to that points out that it is imposible to come up with a good count of the popular vote. That is tortured logic carried to an extreme.
May 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to mention that you have to not count the votes against her in MI.
May 15, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And then there were the caucuses - lots of Democratic voters who will vote in the general elections did not go to caucuses. Might be out of town, old and can't get to the polls, too busy with kids to take that much time off, in the military, too far away from a caucus location or without transportation. Not much concern about the will of those voters either."
Did anybody agree that caucus votes wouldn't count? Hell, no!. Do you have any particular evidence that those people were under-represented, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
"Then of course there are the voters in Michigan and Florida - whose votes were given away by the whims of the Democratic leadership who they didn't elect, as well as the whims of the Republican legislatures who they certainly didn't choose. Still not much concern about the will of those voters either."
Did Hillary herself show any concern for those people when she agreed that their votes wouldn't count? Hell, no! Only when she got to run essentially unopposed, and then 45% voted for "anyone but Hillary" with no one in particular to vote FOR, did she want those votes counted.
"But I'm happy you've found a toe-hold to spin for your candidate."
And I'm glad that you have got 1/4 of your little finger on the color you need in your little game of spin twister. Pull hard for the Alzheimered woman who remembers being shot at when she wasn't, or is a bald-faced liar. Get a mirror and get over it.
May 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
College kids had classes to take and tests to study for, but they were able to show up.
May 15, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I agree with your comment about the hypocrisy because, as I said, the "will of the people" is something for the GE.
May 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"a rogue (but popular) element"
NOW, LETS DISSECT THIS OXYMORON...
if "popular" equals a majority, how does it get the "rogue" label, unless the dejected minority is doing the labeling?
May 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think that's a bugaboo. The purpose of the electoral college or delegates or any other republican form of voting is to protect the mob from itself. "Rogue element" is the least likely scenario. A more plausible one would be suddenly discovering that a candidate is unfit in some obvious sense that wasn't obvious when he or she was selected during the state primaries, or had some emergency medical condition that made them unfit for duty, but still eligible to hold office (and they refused to step aside). Both the superdelegates and the "pledged" delegates have a moral obligation to overturn the "will of the people" in those situations.
The existence of the superdelegates themselves is just a Democratic Party innovation. They are an "upper house" of electoral college delegates that gives Party bigwigs a chance to strut in public. Whether or not this "upper house" concept provides a useful extension to the electoral college model is a different question than whether or not the model is useful in the general sense (though I guess they are related --look at the controversy surrounding the 2000 popular vote vs the 2000 electoral college vote).
May 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly an oxymoron. Suppose an extreme left (e.g. socialist) element took over the Dem Party. The Dems do not espouse socialism. It would represent a real issue and would be seen as rouge. Now the party might morph into something else, but it certainly wouldn't be the Dem Party in terms of general platform anymore.
Go check out the history of the US in the 1850s and what happened to the Whigs.
May 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I would argue that the rogue element is Hillary.
May 15, 2008 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you're right. This isn't just a battle between Hillary and Obama. It's a battle for the heart and soul of the Party. It's a battle between the old "Big State" way of thinking, and Howard Dean's 50-State strategy. It's the DLC vs. the DNC. James Carville may try to create a smokescreen with his talk of "Party A Democrats" and "Party B Democrats," but this is really about whether we intend to forever abandon the South and the West to the Republicans, or get in there and fight for our votes. It's about an old, defeatist way of thinking, and a new, pugnacious, take-the-fight-to-enemy strategy that may well put us in power for a long, long time. It's a gamble, but it's a gamble I think is well worth taking. And we couldn't be in a better position to pull it off this time.
May 15, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for the DLC vs. DNC assertion, The Nation ran a great piece before the campaign even began about how Senator Clinton had publicly stated her intentions to set up an alternate (shadow?) DNC to manage her general election campaign once she had the nomination.
They really just don't get along, and it's because of vastly different perceptions of strategy.
May 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! And I think the superdelegates are sending that message most splendidly.
May 15, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The message most superdelegates are sending me, at least, is "We want to be on the winning side... whichever one it happens to be."
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she would have any problem with that. It's the only way she can win at this point and she's been setting the stage--arguing for a while now that perceptions of electability should the final arbiter in the process.
This is also a good example of the sort of doublespeak she's been doing starting with her speech the night of the NC and IN contests.
On one hand, she's saying what the party seems to want to hear: We'll have all this sorted out and be unified in a few weeks, etc.
On the other hand, she's also slipping in that "they can go to the convention and change their minds," etc., which kind of belies her seeming conviction that it'll all be worked out in a few weeks.
So this makes me wonder what her intentions would be between June 3 and the convention in August, even if she "suspends" her campaign. It just sounds like she hasn't resigned herself to truly stepping aside once Obama clinches the nomination (which looks like a certainty the way things are going), even though she's suggested she would.
Hopefully it'll just end up being a lot of sound and fury.
May 15, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would fundraising ability, and campaign management be factors in considering electability? Let's see. One campaign is floating in money; the other one is $20 million in debt despite personal loaning of around $11 million from the candidate.
Something for the Super Dels to chew on, I think.
May 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has also raised large sums for other candidates through personal appeals to his supporters. That will get a superdelegates attention in a hurry. As did the spontanious response in cash from his supporters when Hillary's doners threatened the DCCC.
May 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words Hillary is saying:
Voters are an added value only if they voted for me.
May 15, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. Sometimes Hillary can be a real... what John McCain called his wife.
May 15, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You spin her words the way you want, and then you feel it necessary to call her a cunt. Why? "Hey, there's a woman running for President, let's pull out our sexist anatomical slurs!!!" Probably in your feeble mind you think you're better than McCain - oh, you just alluded to cunt, he was crass enough to say it - or somehow because a political candidate happens to be fighting for the nomination - God forbid! - that she even deserves the label. Grow up.
May 15, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, see, you're making assumptions here. I meant that Hillary is a real honey. Like my math teacher used to say, "Don't assume. Assume makes an ass out of u and me."
I don't know how anyone could possibly think of Hillary as a cunt. After all, according to James Carville, she has three testicles. I'd say she's more of a monster.
May 15, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what McCain called his wife. Piss off, puss.
May 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm outta here, Sweetie.
May 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've been in this business a long time, and I'm well aware that things get taken out of context and twisted, in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of purposes, but still, it never ceases to amaze me when someone goes as far as this article does to distort the message of the candidate. Especially when that message is, really, so fundamentally unobjectionable, as it is here.
I wasn't saying that I am "OK with overturning the will of the voters". That's simply absurd. I am not OK with overturning the will of the voters. I am merely saying that I am OK with overturning the will of the voters who voted for the African-American.
May 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Har.
May 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what's going on NPR lately. The night after the PA win, they did like a two hour Obama bashing-fest. And I'm not a partisan for Obama, but the criticism was spewing Clinton talking points with no skepticism. Well again last night, they totally discounted Edwards endorsement and on a panel of 4 people including the host, the started patting themselves on the back about how Clinton will have the popular vote and the Superdelegates would never overturn the will of the voters, so she was assured the nomination, including bullsh*t about seating MI as it voted, with Obama receiving no MI delegates and not a peep of protest. It was bizarre. Then two panelists got together and started commiserating about campaign Obama had run. It was like listening to audio of Hillaryis44.org.
May 15, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The wingers took over the Corporation for Public Broadcasting quite a few years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902283.html
May 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imo Klick and Klack are the only people worth listening to on NPR anymore.
May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm NOT imagining it? I took the NPR political discussion off my podcast download after the PA episode. Just couldn't stomach it. Give me Rachel Maddow anyday.
May 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's disturbing. But really, given that the rules are the rules, you have to be angrier at the Democratic Party over this than you are at Hillary. One thing we all need to insist on after wed win the general election is that the Democratic party reforms its procedures to entirely eliminate the super-delegates and to explicitly require that pledged delegates remain faithful to the voters who assign them to the convention.
May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with the rules. It is her statements that are inconsistent within even the same paragraph that irritate me. She is absolutely correct that the Superdelegates should vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. Her only problem is that they agree with the voters and the pledged delegates in saying that it is her oponent. If she were the stronger candidate she would be winning. That is how one demonstrates electability, by winning. She has failed twice as often as she has succeded.
May 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh,to the first, and absolutely NOT, to the second. It would be like requiring electoral college to always vote for their candidate even if he's been charged the night before the electoral college vote with child molesting, and has already admitted to the charge in public.
May 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the votes counted or Superdelegates have more information?
Show this video in Hillary's own voice to everyone you know.
From the Jedreport
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xiiwWQSy8Q
May 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary would have no problem with overturning the will of the people as long as it is turning them in her direction. She has a problem with rules and results that work against her.
She would be screaming bloody murder if the talk was of supers turning Obama's way.
Oh the hypocrisy! the hypocrisy!
May 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's changed her position on this and reset her goalposts so many times that I don't pay attention to anything she says anymore.
May 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong woman at the right time!
May 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well sure when you create a simple example like this and cut off all explanation of where your logic is flawed it appears that Obama is "the will of the people" when of course he isn't.
But in your neat little scenario you forget to tell us that your 2,027 number is based upon Michigan and Florida delegations not being seated at all. You don't admit that if Hillary Clinton continues to win at the rate you suggest she actually will have the larger popular vote (again not even counting Michigan or Florida). Is that the will of the people to allow the candidate with the fewer popular votes to take the nomination?
The Obama supporters have been changing the rules every other week since Iowa. First it was all super-delegates from each state should agree to support the candidate that their state's voters selected. That was until Massachusetts' voters selected Clinton but John Kerry and Tedddy Kennedy backed Obama. Then it was the candidate with the most popular votes should win, until Clinton surpassed Obama on that one too. Then the Obama supporters decided that the race had to end after North Carolina. The eight remaining states should just agree that their candidate was the winner.
I'm sick and tired of the Obama supporters coming up with new rules every time their candidate fails to meet the prior claim to the nomination.
May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clear cut. Case. Of. Projection.
From what I can see, by the rules and bylaws of the DNC, Obama is substantially closer to the nomination than Hillary Clinton. So close, in fact, that only by having pledged and super delegates switch support from Obama to Clinton on the convention fllor would actually change the result.
The arguments over popular vote, pledge delegates, super delegates, and electability are pretty much moot. There will be no goalposts three weeks. None. Only a floor fight.
May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, what the Obama supporters will not tell you is that neither candidate has met the threshold for the nomination. They just keep claiming that since they've been able to manipulate the statistics to show some metric that they are ahead of at that moment then they are the winner. Today it's more pledged delegates. Last week it was popular vote. The week before that it was number of contests won.
What will be your next excuse for not achieving the threshold for nomination but presuming you should win regardless?
May 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mainly that Obama is ahead by every metric, and there is no possibility for Clinton to catch up. She will win the nomination only if the vast majority of undeclared superdelegates go for her, which they are unlikely to do based on the fact that she is behind by every metric.
This is not a conspiracy run by Obama supporters, this is an election. That's how they work.
May 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can keep repeating the same lie over and over but Obama is NOT ahead by every metric. He trails in popular vote, he trails in major states won, he trails in .....
You Obama supporters need to educate yourselves and quit parroting each other's lies.
May 15, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Popular Vote
Obama: 16,104,613
Clinton: 15,511,003
Pledged Delegates
Obama: 1891
Clinton: 1719
Super Delegates
Obama: 292
Clinton: 273
States Won
Obama: Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Democrats Abroad, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, Maine, District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina
Clinton: New Hampshire, Michigan, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia
Ties: Nevada, Texas, Missouri, Guam
And finally, please address me with civility. I'm giving you that benefit and expect the same in return.
May 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again repeating the same lies does not make them any more false. Where's the MI and FL vote?
Your candidate built his lead on repeating the same lie over and over since Iowa creating the false impression that he was in the lead. It's a great way to rack up undeserved votes. The whole latter half of the election is tainted because it was premised on Superdelegates believing your lie that MI and FL would not be seated despite the DNC rule that at least 50% would. When you lie about your candidate being ahead stupid people (like yourself) start to believe it and fall in line like the lemmings that you Obama supporters are.
Why do you keep repeating the 2025 number when you know that by the existing rules that's an outright falsehood? You repeat it because it makes your candidate look like he's winning. Simple as that.
You can fool all of the people some of the time ...
May 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you know so much about the rules, you're obviously familiar with 20.C.5. and 20.C.6 which give the Rules and Bylaws Committee authority to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate," and further
Here's an example of their good faith.
The state-level party screwed themselves. You can argue over how the national DNC interprets the bylaws and you can argue that they made a poor decision with increasing the penalty, but you're an idiot if you're going to argue that superdelegates don't know the rules or rulings of their own party and were so utterly flummoxed by the evil Obama campaign's rhetoric that they just felt compelled to vote for him instead of against him to right the wrongs brought about by this horrible and nasty decision by the nefarious national DNC!
Lastly, you're a vapid little troll and need to calm down and hold real grown-up discussions if you ever want anyone to take you seriously here.
May 17, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Overturning the will of the voters'? That already happened in the Texas primary.
May 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no overturning in Texas. It's a delegate count issue. Hillary netted a certain amount of TOTAL delegates from the Texas process, and Obama netted a TOTAL number of delegates from the Texas process. The final tally put Obama ahead on TOTAL delegates.
Those were the rules of the Texas primary and caucus. If you have an issue with them, I suggest you take that up with the DNC and Texas state legislature.
May 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying it all depends on what your definition of TOTAL is .... is.
Remember when the Obama supporters were wailing and gnashing when the Clinton campaign pormised to seek equitable enforcement of the caucus rules and enforce credentials at the subsequent selection meetings. If you were an Obama supporter this was proof that the evil Clintons were going to steal delegates. But now that this is exactly what the Obama people ended up doing this is just playing by the rules.
You Obama supporters make me sick with your ever changing views on the rules.
May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign hasn't called for Senator Clinton to withdraw.
The Clinton campaign (specifically Terry McAuliffe) has repeatedly raised new metrics by which the nomination will be decided.
If you are simply referring to the supporters of these respective campaigns, you're right - a fair number of Obama supporters have been issuing vitriolic demands that Senator Clinton withdraw from the race.
I'd prefer to focus on the campaigns themselves - arguably the only actors that actually matter - and not ignorant and spiteful supporters. There are always going to be angry and uninformed people trying to get combative about things they don't fully understand. It's unfortunate, and it's happened on both sides of this contest.
May 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for 'the will of the people'. Just more hollow words from the Obama campaign...
May 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmm both campaigns have been spinning....the "vote your constiuency" thing has been quietly dropped when Obama's camp realized they could do much better than that...
however, I think it goes without saying that Hillary's camp has been spinning much faster and faster each time they realized the new goalposts they set out are still within reach for for Obama.
May 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the more reasonable explanation is that the Clinton camp is merely responding to the constant rule changes from Obama and his supporters? Oh but of course that would go against the meme of the Clintons being evil incarnate and the whole boom of the 90's during Bill Clinton's presidency was a myth that we were lucky to have survived.
May 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might have it backwards. It's been the Clinton campaign changing the metrics by which the public sees victory in this mess.
I appreciate your Orwellian attempt to change what actually happened this primary season.
pmSanFran is DOUBLE PLUS GOOD!! FOR HILLARY!!!
May 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I really don't understand this argument about the "will of the voters" being embodied in the popular vote. If the only thing that matters is the so-called will of the voters i.e. the popular vote, then what the hell is the point of the delegates? Indeed, if the popular vote was the metric by which the nomination should be decided then the delegates would merely be superfluous. A mere side-show to the main attraction.
But this whole nonsense about the popular vote makes even less sense when you consider the fact that if the only thing that mattered was the popular vote, then the DNC must have the IQ of a rock. If they really intended for the nomination to be decided by the popular vote, then why did they create a system in which one person could win the delegate race and the other supposed nominee could win the popular vote; that's retarded reasoning at best.
Therefore, this whole "will of the voters" and popular vote argument is bull shit.
May 15, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the HRC interview
"Superdelgates are not bound to vote any way, they can change their minds, they can go to the convention and change their minds, there is no ah... guarantee, and in fact it's equally true for pledged delegates for most states"
I am hoping someone can help me learn. Are the pledged delegates free to change their minds in most states?
May 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
May 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Most delegates are selected by the different campaigns. They are as solidly in favor of their candidate as is humanly possible. The chances of even one of them changing his/her vote is minuscule. Further, I do believe most states insist that their delegates honor their pledges for the first vote at the convention, and some insist that they honor the pledge even longer. This subject is discussed during every broadcast of the convention and is always explained the same way.
The super delegates can vote for whomever they please, for whatever reason they want. But, all of those are elected to some extent, either by their state party committees or by the people, so they are answerable to those people. Don't expect to see an uprising by super delegates.
May 16, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for reminding all the 'will of the people' folks that it is a party and the votes cast for a party is not the will of an electorate for government office. Everytime I here that argument, I scream. A political party is truly a private entity.
May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political parties are us. At least this is true for the Democratic Party. We vote for local "Democratic Central Committees", which in turn vote for state Central committees. And, the state committees vote for national committees. Anyone who wishes to do the brutally hard work required can run for and get elected to any of those committees.
May 16, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its interesting to have this discussion about what would be a more democratic way of choosing candidates, and its OK to have it in the midst of an election when its problems become manifest, but its not OK to try to change the rules in the midst of an primary election. The Democratic local party officials in Michigan and Florida (elected by the local Democrats) decided to violate the rules. They knew what they were doing and counted on the fact that the national party would just roll over and give them what they wanted. The party didn't do that. They didn't get the "get out of jail free card". They lost the gamble. So now the Hillary camp says that it would be unfair to have the candidate chosen by 48 states and not 50. But it would be OK to disregard the votes of all 50 states and have the super delegates choose the candidate. Am I the only one who see the bald transparency of this ridiculous irrationality.
May 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you are not. It may harm her more than help, but there is nothing else for her to argue at this point.
HRC recently rejected the latest Michigan proposal, because it did not give her as many delegates as she wished. But are not according to her own words, they pledge delegates free to choose? More hypocrasy.
I think we need to also remember that Dean wants some type of arrangement to happen. But is also aware that some type of penalty apply. In order to prevent future problems. The GOP sanctioned both states 50%.
So the problem becomes more complex. I am not opposed to seeing a rational arraingment. But HRC wants them seated in the most adventagious way and that is not likely to happen. It may also piss of some undecided super delegates and she will lose more than gain.
May 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you are wrong. It was the (Republican controlled) state legislatures in Michigan and Florida that decided to set the primary dates, not local Democratic officials. But what more would we expect from uninformed Obama supporters.
Here's a little civics lesson for you Obama supporters who are just coming to the party. Primary elections are very expensive affairs that are paid for by the states as a "courtesy" to our two dominant party system. Because of this, the funding and timing are set by individual state legislatures. They are usually timed to include state office and referndum issues too. If the Democratic party had to pay for holding statewide primaries they would be bankrupted.
May 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may want to check how the Democrats in those Republican controlled legislatures voted before you start tossing around accusations of being uninformed.
May 15, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. The state Republicans may have controlled the legislatures, but that didn't stop the dramatic majority of Democrats in them to vote for the moves as well.
May 15, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
with the full support of the state's Democratic leadership and the votes of the Democratic legislators. It is dishonest to act as if this was done over their objections.
May 15, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's dishonest to pretend that the Michigan and Florida local democratic party officials brought this on themselves also.
For all of Barack Obama's claims that the voters should be heard, he would have us impose the Washington national party's edict of when and where individual states can conduct their own elections for state office holders and when they can vote on important referendum.
These primaries are not cheap affairs. Each state has to foot millions of dollars in costs for these elections. The details are worked out in a bi-partisan manner by the state legislatures to benefit the people of the state. Despite what Howard Dean would have you believe, the individual states are not personal cash reserves for the Democratic party. Their obligations are to their own residents, not Howard Dean and his personal agenda.
But of course, it's the Clintons who must be responsible for these state legislatures actually voting to serve their constituents instead of bowing before Howard Dean and his DNC.
May 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Sen Obama wishes to do is what was intended from the begining. When there is a nominee the nominee can have these delegations seated. It is only the Clinton lie that she wins if they are seated that is keeping this controversy alive. In the end the delegations will be seated and Obama will be the nominee. She would have had to do a less poor job of running her campaign for her to be close enough for these delegations to change the outcome.
May 15, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Obama supporters have created a new rule, huh? Hate to tell you but the DNC has rules in place already for handling this situation. The rule says that the individual states can seat exactly one half of their alloted delegates. It says nothing about the candidate who is ahead (but doesn't have a majority of delegates either) gets to pick the delegates for these states.
Yup, typcical Obama supporter, making up rules as you go along as long as they benefit Barack. But when Hillary Clinton asks that the whole state's delegation be seated or at least a proportion of the 50% equal to what she received in the voting well that's the evil-Bitch trying to steal Obama's birthright?!
You Obama supporters make me sick with all your constant rule changes and the gaul to claim that it's Senator Clinton trying to change the rules. Why don't you educate yourself before you pretend to comment on this site again.
May 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm glad you at least acknowledge Obama had no hand in the FL/MI situation.
Take a few deep breaths before you respond again, I'm worried for you and your blood pressure.
May 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea what you are talking about. I am not arguing that the delegation should not be seated. I am arguing that Sen Clinton's contention that it will give her the nomination is a lie. I have been consistently predicting that they will all be seated and she will lose in any case. Here is a link to my blog of Feb 13 saying that we will end up exactly where we are now with Obama far enough ahead that MI and FL can be seated and not change the outcome.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/michigan-and-florida-will-be-s.php
May 15, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh right, you're all just babes in the woods and you would never twist the rules to your advantage. The fact of the matter is that Obama and his supporters are the ones who changed the number of delegates needed to win the nomination down to 2025 and started telling everyone that he would get that number sooner than Clinton and started writing her obituary. Of course you're well aware that repeating that meme over and over and over and over in your blogs would makie if become the conventional wisdom and then Tweety and Big Russ Jr would start parroting your little lie and before long it was the "truth"
Obama supporters have been making up the rules so fast that no one knows what the number needed for nomination is except persons with an IQ above the average Obama supporter ... which in the democratic party only seems to be about 50% these days.
May 16, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The national democratic committee did not unilaterally determine the order of the primaries or their dates. The committee negotiated with all of the state democratic committees and got their unanimous agreements to a compromise proposal that resulted from the negotiations. Every single state democratic committee approved the resulting rules. It was then their responsibility to abide by those rules, or petition successfully to get the rules changed. A few states did petition for changes and were approved. Michigan and Florida didn't do that. Worse, they essentially gave the upraised finger to the national committee and laughed as they went their own way for their own reasons.
Furthermore, all of the Democratic presidential candidates agreed to abide by the decision of the national committee to enforce the agreed upon rules. Only Clinton, of the serious candidates, violated that pledge by refusing to withdraw from the Michigan race. Neither Clinton nor Obama could withdraw in Florida since state law prohibits that. But, both agreed not to campaign in Florida.
May 16, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, does this really need to make the rec list? Are we still *genuinely* offended by what Hillary is saying? Do we need to disseminate amongst the electorate that Hillary is a ruthless politician who will do whatever it takes to win, even though it's been the Obama talking point since Ohio? Hillary's scrappy, I get it, and I might be more upset by it if this was still any sort of contest. Can't we move on and focus on McCain? I mean, not only is this beating a dead horse, it's strapping that horse to a catapult and launching it over the city walls. Enough, yo.
May 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, let the people vote so she has a better case to overturn the will of the people who voted. Nice.
May 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's spinning this strategy hard, because it's her only hope. But, I don't think that the SuperDels are buying it. Obama's momentum is strong and getting stronger by the day. I expect that soon after June 3, there will be enough declared SuperDels and combined with his pledged delegate count, this argument won't matter anymore. She'll have to concede and we'll be ready to move on.
May 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's dishonest to pretend that the Michigan and Florida local democratic party officials brought this on themselves also.
For all of Barack Obama's claims that the voters should be heard, he would have us impose the Washington national party's edict of when and where individual states can conduct their own elections for state office holders and when they can vote on important referendum.
These primaries are not cheap affairs. Each state has to foot millions of dollars in costs for these elections. The details are worked out in a bi-partisan manner by the state legislatures to benefit the people of the state. Despite what Howard Dean would have you believe, the individual states are not personal cash reserves for the Democratic party. Their obligations are to their own residents, not Howard Dean and his personal agenda.
But of course, it's the Clintons who must be responsible for these state legislatures actually voting to serve their constituents instead of bowing before Howard Dean and his DNC.
May 15, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just four years ago the voters voted for Bush. I'd have been ok with overturning the will of those fools.
May 15, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post
Hyprocrisy and dissemblance have been running themes in her campaign. I just have two words-- Stockholm Syndrome. It's the only explanation I have for the actions of someone so smart and talented.
With regard to rules:
I sure wouldn't want to play scrabble with her. Can you just imagine that? Scary.
May 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be pointed out that electors don't have to vote with their state, either. It's only expected (or was there a law passed? I'll have to check up on this)
Maybe that's why she thinks she's more electable.
May 15, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an Obama person and, pmSF, your braying tenor and constant sense of victimization does little to make your points.
I'm an Edwards supporter, I can read and I've followed stuff closely, and from this vantage point -- mine only -- the constantly shifting goalposts, the Rovian tactics, the incessant triangulation, have mostly been brought to the table by Ms. Clinton's campaign. It is not to give the Obama campaign, or his surrogates, a pass — I have gigantic issues with him and them — but her meanness, disingenuous posturing (ex: anti-NAFTA? no, sorry, that's a non-starter) and her seeming sense of entitlement to the presidency, whatever the cost, have done her image little good in many people's minds.
I'm sorry you feel victimized. A lot of people out here do. Your yelling at us for looking for redress someplace you don't, however, will do little to bring us to your side.
May 15, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink