May 31, 2008

Clinton campaign becomes nothing but pathetic and destructive

I'm sorry.

I've tried very hard to be fair. The press has been effectively cowed and muzzled by the constant whining and complaining from the Clinton camp, so they continue with this bizarre otherworldly pretense that Clinton somehow has a legitimate claim, even as they change by the hour and become ever more ludicrous and convoluted.

Remember when the started saying that this prolonged race would hopelessly divide the Democrats into factions which would never reconcile? I thought that was ludicrous. I myself would never be so extreme that I'd not be able to gladly support either Hillary or Obama, however it came out.

Guess what? I was wrong. I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton for dogcatcher, and will have a very hard time ever respecting her again.

I loved Hillary. I defended her and was outraged at the way the right mounted a campaign to demonize both she and her husband using tactics not seen since the 1800's, so insane and over-the-top as to defy belief that they actually had the sheer nerve and lack of character to do it.

When the campaign began shaping up, I argued with friends that felt Hillary would be disaster for the party that I thought she'd be a good nominee, and I believed it.

When it came to Obama vs. Clinton, I was firmly on the fence for quite some time. It was only a while after Iowa that I began to feel that Obama was going to be the nominee for a variety of reasons, and wrote a post here saying so unequivocally. And this was far before the other Dem candidates began dropping out or that Obama had anything resembling a lead.

I didn't have a problem with Clinton continuing her campaign, and though I winced at some of the tactics she used against Obama, I kept trying to be fair-minded and believe that was just politics and that of course, she had every right to contest the race as hard as she could.

But there came a moment when things entered the twilight zone.

Have any of you had that moment with the Clinton campaign? When was it for you?

For me it happened in two (or maybe three) steps.

The first was when she started just getting creepy in her tactics against Obama. There wasn't just one instance which put me off her, but several. The one example that particularly turned me against her was her responding, "As far as I know." to being asked whether Obama was a Christian. Right about there was the first time I found out that I couldn't maintain my neutrality about this contest.

She was simply confirming, strongly, the rap against her and her husband that they'd do literally anything to get elected. She and her campaign took a decided turn to the slimy and dishonest, and of course, Bill was out there making even more odious comments. It wasn't that she was saying negative things against Obama, it was HOW she and Bill were doing it that I couldn't stomach.

Then came the la-la land phase where it became all but dead-certain that she simply could not win the nomination by any means commonly accepted here on this planet.

Then the ugliness and truly disturbing air of desperation and aura of tragic desperation set in.

Some pundits began noting the facts and began to (correctly) speak as if Clinton was all but doomed to loose to Obama. This of course spawned a massive campaign by Clinton and her surrogates to play the victim and suggest that the media en masse were unfairly "counting her out". This marked the resurgence of Clinton playing the victim card as she has so often in the past (with a large degree of truth, and success, I might add.)

But it's past time to state what the pundits and press are too afraid to say, and that is that the Clinton campaign, in addition to being long ago incapable of winning, is, in the service of NOTHING other than their egos and belief they are entitled to the presidency, doing grave damage to both the Democratic party and Barack Obama's prospects in November.

But now all the howls of unfairness and victim-ness were ringing hollow. It was transparently obvious that she was now plunging into a zone where reality would no longer do. The truth was telling her and everyone else that she'd blown it.

Through fatal blunders early on in her campaign, notably having assumed she was the anointed one and relying on the fatal assumption that she'd be crowned the nominee on Super Tuesday, thus having no strategy for a campaign beyond that, infighting between campaign principles, reckless squandering of campaign funds, and other blunders and mistakes that will no doubt be endlessly dissected in the years ahead.

But blunder she did, and for the last month or so as it's become clear that she can not win, her campaign seems to be actually trying the argument, as spokesman Howard Wolfson did recently, that she's won the campaign.... if you don't count the first month or two of it. Well, sorry you stumbled out of the gate Hillary, but there aren't any do-overs in this game.

As mad as it is, she truly seems to be trying to make that case. She's won the contest (if you don't count the first half), and so, believing that proves that she's actually the more popular candidate and the best able to win in November, she's set about trying to throw every rule out the window along with reality.

Yes, we're all sorry you were caught asleep at the switch. Yes, it seems plausible that had your campaign not relied on a grossly overpaid, sweaty, obese Washington insider to begin with, AND your opponent Obama hadn't run such a superior campaign and, (this next bit is critical, but never part of any discussion) if Obama wasn't preferred as a candidate by at least as many voters as support you, yeah, you may have been the nominee.

But it doesn't work like that. And the simple fact that Clinton refuses to acknowledge that is why she has crossed over from the dubious to the very ugly.

And while the press, intimidated into pretending Clinton is acting in any way sane, continues to treat her Quixotic campaign as if it makes sense (Clinton simply can NOT win this, but she continues to campaign, not that there's anything wrong with that. And this, as the Clinton campaign tells us, shows....er... what a great scrappy fighter she is......)

But today's meeting of the Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee and in particular the statement from Clinton's hit man Harold Ickes when Hillary didn't get ALL of the Michigan delegates (in a race where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot), and how he menacing announced that he'd been authorized by Hillary to challenge their ruling all the way to the convention, did what I never would have believed was possible; made me see the Clinton's and the Clinton campaign as every bit as venal, selfish, craven, and ugly as their critics have always maintained.

The motion which passed, thankfully, gave Clinton 69 delegates to 59 for Obama, with each delegates vote counting a 1/2 vote.

Note: Watch the historic and truly dramatic vote process on C-Span here. The section regarding apportioning Michigans delegates including Ickes preposterous statement begins just past the 32 minute mark of the clip.

After the statement of Tom Hynes, a member from Illinois, another committee member, Everett Ward from North Carolina, gives perhaps the best statement of the day in responding to Ickes divisive statement a few minutes later at around the 43 minute mark. (complete with Hillary supporters continually interupting. When someone finally tells them to shut up, one of them yelled back, "YOU shut up!", exemplifying the level of dignity they brought to the process. The fact that the Clinton campaign actually bussed in these absolutely ridiculous and disruptive goons is only another reason to believe they're lost grip with reality.)

C-Span will also rebroadcast the highlights of the meeting later tonight, and I highly recommend making the effort to watch.


It made me not have even a shred of sympathy for Clinton or her campaign, but it made me, let's say, passionately dislike them both.

These power-mad freaks are literally willing to tear the party apart, turning it to warring camps who will never unite, and in doing so is actively and consciously doing substantial harm to the prospect of electing a Democratic president.

This is not only ugly and disgusting when viewed from a personal perspective, showing as it does just how literally insane she must be in refusing to accept reality, even as it continues to do grave damage to the party which has supported her for decades, but it's past the time to call this what it is.... insane.

We are witnessing a woman and her campaign and a portion of her supporters literally losing their marbles before our very eyes.

And through all of this, the unanswered question remains, WHY??!! What does Hillary want from all this strife and division? What is it that she feels is worth literally blowing up the party?

I think the answer to that will prove to be so ugly that Hillary Clinton will have through her choices in this election, utterly destroyed both her image and her legacy in history.

She's blown it. Clinton is now like a Kamikaze pilot in WWII, like some pathetic person who can't come to grips with the fact they've lost and it's over, but worse. She not only won't deal with it, she insists that everyone else pretend along with her. And perhaps worst of all, it now seems apparent that she JUST DOESN'T CARE what the consequences are.

For Hillary Clinton, NOTHING is more important than her getting what she wants, which is her hands on power. She realizes she could have had it if she hadn't blown it in the beginning, she thinks she's owed it, this totally destroys her carefully plotted path to the White House, and she's gone stark, raving, mad.

Whatever Hillary Clinton gets out of this mad campaign, it can't possibly be worth the damage she's done and what it will leave behind in its wake.

9 Comments:

At 5/31/2008 9:29 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Precisely because you have endeavored to be fair throughout the process, those of us who support Hillary must now give serious consideration to what you say.

I guess I would be interested in what you think will be left "in its wake."

Continued Success.

 
At 5/31/2008 10:07 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

UMR,
I'll be the first to admit that I'm freaking out over what Clinton is doing.

I wrote about 56,000 words, but to answer your question, I think that the division between supporters of the two candidates will grow wider as the convention nears and as the fight gets more nit-picky and strident.

The graph of the potential division would look like your typical exponential curve, with the line getting closer to vertical as the timeline gets closer to the convention.

So by continuing to try to whip her troops and supporters into this battle mode, in a battle that THERE IS NO WAY SHE CAN WIN (short of her historical allusion to assasination) then she's only using these people in the worst way.

She's leading them on, giving them false hope, thus ensuring that they'll only be more bitter, more disappointed, and more likely to turn on Obama right when the party needs to present a solid front.

Hillary is deliberately blasting a hole in the party for purely self-serving and irresponsible purposes.

Frankly, I can not for the life of me figure out ANY good reason for her doing what she's doing. Can you?

That's the short answer. If you've got the stamina, you can read the stream of consciousness rant below.

I simply can not believe it. Every time they continue to refuse to read the writing on the wall, it just gets harder and harder and harder to accept, and now finally it's just gone shooting over the line into craziness.

I see people such as myself being extremely hostile to Clinton, and I see Clinton people being much more hostile to Obama than if Hillary would have done the right thing and freaking at least suspended her campaign the moment it became literally impossible for her to win using any but the most twisted and convoluted of arguments.

Frankly, I've long since failed to understand any conceivable logic for her continuing to prolong this fight.

And I sincerely believe that the longer it goes on, the wider and more difficult to repair the rift between the supporters of each will become.

What once was something that I felt could easily be repaired has now, due to Clinton's near maniacal refusal to stop what was long ago a doomed effort, become quite a bit more bitter, and with good reason.

Obama's campaign is nearly bending over backwards to be magnanimous and giving Clinton what many could easily argue she doesn't even deserve (delegates from MI based on votes when Obama wasn't even on the ballot? C'mon!)

And they're STILL being pissy and nasty and trying to twist every conception of reality in their favor.

It's also becoming likely, at least to me, that Clinton doesn't have any intention of doing anything but the bare minimum to help elect Obama. Sure, she'll do what needs to be done to give the appearance that she's supporting him, but does anyone now think she'll actually do a thing to actually help him? Maybe a few weeks ago I would have believed she would still help defeat McCain (I did) but with her recent actions, it's become pretty clear that she'll stop at nothing, and she can't keep driving this near the cliff and then decide to suddenly do a 180 and everything will be fine.

The simple fact that she's pushed things far beyond the point where it would have been reasonable to throw in the towel is what worries me.

To your original question, I feel that the actions and behavior exhibited by the Clinton faction today is shameful and will make all but their most ardent supporters think less of them.

Now the general public probably won't be aware of what went on, or at least couldn't care less, and perhaps that's good.

But now Ickes reveals that Hillary is NEVER going to bow out, and is going to argue this to the convention, thus passing up her LAST CHANCE to make a magnanimous and generous gesture and unite the party in one big emotional crescendo.

She blew her last chance, thus ensuring that Obama and the Dems lose a few MORE months of getting into the campaign against McCain.

She's making it all about HER, and it's beyond disgusting.

The argument about "hijacking" votes and all the hi-faluting talk about disenfranchisment and all that, complete with her having the gall to compare her weasely fight to get votes she doesn't deserve to the civil rights movement, for God's sake, is downright disgusting.

It's as if she's a spoiled little brat trying to make as much trouble as she can after someone dared to tell her she couldn't have everything she wanted.

So, having robbed Obama of all this precious time to run against McCain, she's now intend on robbing every damn minute she can until there's only a couple months before the general election.

And she wants to preside over a nasty display of protesters and yelling and chaos and all the rest for the sake of her own agrandizement. She's decided that making a spectacle out of the Dem convention and essentially pissing on Obama's nomination is what she wants to do.

To hell with that. She's had every ounce of respect and deference extended to her every step of the way. By comparison, the Obama campaign looks positively courtly and dignified.

You can tell a lot about a person by how they behave when they lose. Well, we're seeing a lot of ugly things about Hillary.

And believe it or not, I'm still trying to answer your simple question. HA! Sorry about that.

I think that the division within the party between Obama and Clinton camps could be charted in the typical exponential curve... the closer the timeline gets to the convention, the steeper the curve until it's nearly vertical.

So I felt it was tolerable as Clinton continued with her campaign. After all, rational Dems thought it was fine to allow her some dignity. Surely she'd take the next chance for her to "go out on top", etc. Then as each opportunity came and went, it went from watching this respected figure, this historic figure, go from a potential honored heroine to becomeing a ugly candidate obsessed with denying the inevitable. It's become pathetic.

There's still one more chance for her to get out, and that's after the last primaries are over.

And of course, she could suddenly realize what she's doing and not cause an uproar at the convention.

But the fact that she's deliberately signaled that she has every intention of demanding that someone drag her off the stage kicking and screaming is not good for party unity in the least.

She's prolonging it until literally the 11th hour, in essense LEADING HER SUPPORTERS ON in the worst connotation of the term. She's setting them all up for a fall. She's taking advantage of them, abusing their support, and willingly leading them all the way to the convention conceivably only to use them again in an attempt to throw one last fit before she's drug off the stage.

 
At 6/01/2008 1:20 AM, Blogger tiz said...

All of this troubles me too.

When it was close, I've said (probably said here) that, as an Obama supporter I would not vote for Clinton. That's BS saber-rattling more than anything. Maybe if John McCain was the same guy he was in 2000 I'd have to think about it. But he's not and I'd have voted for Hillary. I'd always assumed those on the other side saying the same thing were saber rattling too. Either they're incredibly stupid and don't realize it's over (I don't think this to be the case) or they're really not saber rattling.

I watched almost all of the meeting today. I was proud that my party can do these things out in the open under scrutiny and at the same time deeply embarrassed by the goons in the audience who would interrupt constantly.

I think she was ready to bow out gracefully a couple weeks ago and something she wanted of him as a condition couldn't be agreed upon (VP?) and that's why it's dipped back into nasty. Best to clinch the nom next week (I think he will) and simply ignore any sideshows she creates.

I also saw this analysis which indicates Michigan's turnout was quite low. Folks there obviously knew their votes weren't going to count.

 
At 6/01/2008 10:10 AM, Blogger Benton Harbor said...

Dope, you stated: "I defended her and was outraged at the way the right mounted a campaign to demonize both she and her husband using tactics not seen since the 1800's..." I think the Clinton's have shown that they are no different than some of the right when it comes to trying to get what they want.

While I've never been a Hillary fan, I was ready to cut her some slack until she and Bill began to go over the top with some of their comments and tactics against Obama. Honestly, my defining moment was the "sniper fire" comments she made to try to portray herself as someone who looked danger in the face while checking out progress in Iraq.

Superficial and infantile on my part - perhaps. But it signaled to me in her repeating the falsehood several times over, that she would stoop to nothing to win the votes. Her actions have proven this to be true.

I salute you for admitting you were wrong. But don't beat yourself up too badly. You didn't know that she and her entourage were going to make so many missteps, then turn to the sleazeball tactics that they have recently employed. It only goes to show how scornful she could and can be.

 
At 6/01/2008 3:26 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Let me see if I can slice this up into chewable bits. As I read it, your complaints are:

1. She is continuing her campaign, when defeat looks invevitable;

2. Her people objected to the Michigan DP compromise at the Saturday meeting;

3. One her people, whose initials are Harold Ickes, acted like a jerk;

4. She's doing all that notwithstanding how kind the Obama people are behaving toward her;

5. She is scratching a scab that should already be healing when she knows she's got no chance;

6. She may be intending to hang in all the way to the Convention in Denver.

I realize there are shades of grey between all of these but these seem to be essentially the big six. Can't possibly match your detail but I'll take a shot at each of them.

1. She surely is. She also has folks who have worked hard for her, gone to endless meetings and given about $120M to her campaign. They surely have a right to expect her to finish the primary season. In terms of the ability to heal, there is no difference between getting out last Friday and getting out shortly after Montana/S.D. It's an orderly breakpoint;

2. Yeah, they did. The MDP compromise was b.s. from jump street. If Obama had lifted a finger to promote the Michigan revote, it would have happened. If they would have extended the righteous 73, then cut them in half, the Clinton Supporters would not have had a leg to stand on and would have had to participate in uninamous vote to halve the delegation. Obama's people could have end-played Clinton into cutting off all her rights to appeal to the Cred's Committee. There are no heroes here but this was a genuine hosing (inconsequential hosing but still a hosing.). There is plenty of blame to go around for this desultory episode.

3. He was and he is. At least he is an open and notorious Clinton Supporter. The likes of Donna Brazille and Roland Martin label themselves "neutral" and blast HRC at every turn. Did you hear DB suggest to Governor Blanchard (no greater gentleman) that he was advocating "cheatin"? Never mind whether it was accurate or not for the moment. Is this behavior designed to heal wounds? I guess you can argue that, if only HRC had only surrendered, Brazille's thugish behavior would not have been "necessary". I am admitting your fundamental point here but adding that the unfortunate, hard to heal behavior is not confined to Clinton Supporters;

4. Some of what I just wrote in 3, above applies here. I agree that Sen. Obama has been personally gracious but his team, especially his conference call team has not gotten the memo. Is there a grownup out there who cannot trace the Vanity Fair article back to persons impatient with the current pace of the decision process? We have never seen a primary campaign where both candidates could actually afford to go this long. We're in uncharted territory and everyone's doing the best he or she can;

5. Let's assume that, after N.C., she could see that it wasn't going to happen. What was the harm with here merely finishing the primary cycle? At worst, it gave our party a much better voter "haul" list than would have occurred if she had "suspended". At best, it highlighted for BO the roadmap for success in the General (about which his people seem to be in denial--They'll just win Colorado and Virginia, then the catholics and suburban women in Ohio won't matter.);

6. I think you are partially right. The next move is undecided. She will meet some non-paid staff after the Tues. primary. These grownups will insist on a scenario that leads to victory. In the alternative, they will advise her to urge U/D SuperD's to come out, up or down. Nobody has listened closely enough to Carville here. He's always said the same thing "If you want her out, just beat her!" The number now appears to be 2118. She has an appealable issue about four of them, that's 2122. When he gets to 2123, there's nothing left to fight about. That's what the grownups will tell her and that's what she'll do. She's a smart lawyer. She sees what the advice of her paid staff has done for her. She'll be talking to Bill Nelson, Ed Rendell, Wellington Webb and a few Mayors. After that, 2123 and she's gone by Friday, graciously.

With respect, I think the "assassination" comment was just a poorly recited version of something she has been saying since Mid-Feb.--that it is not unusual for the nomination to up for grabs into mid-Jun. Did she pick the worst possible way to explain it? Absolutely, but it was really not new. I'd even concede that the argument is not as apt since California changed its primary date. Still, there was nothing racist or mean-spirited about the historically correct comment.

Finally, I think you underestimate the intellect and discernment of her supporters. None of us want Johnny Mack to pick the next four SCOTUS justices. Most of us are not turning handsprings at the prospect of 100 more years in foreign states, nation-building, outsourcing and imposing our view of representative democracy. We will vote with our respective feet when the right time comes to do so. She has to have some days after the last primary. The sooner she gets out, the sooner BO becomes the cable channels' target of choice. Be careful what you wish for here.

Let's be clear. I'm not saying your points are without merit. I share some of your worries. As soon as she gets off the campaign trail, paid staff loses its grip on her. Then the Real World will intrude. This is not 1968, and damn sure not 1972. Keep the faith.

Continued Success and Gratitude for the way you have tried to be fair during this primary season.

 
At 6/02/2008 4:14 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks to all for the excellent responses.

And thanks UMR, as I really found myself convinced that Hillary was driving this bus straight over the cliff, and it still may well turn out to be the case. (Mind you, I don't think it will "destroy the party" or completely doom Obama's chances, but it does appear to me that Hillary's actions, what appears to me to be her belligerance in the face of defeat, etc. definitely holds the potential to sow MORE disention and division than already existed, and could very well damage the party through the residual bile and hatred that her supporters now seem poised to direct towards any object unlucky enough to be handy at the moment, which could be the Democratic party in general, and those leaders at the top, to any super-delegate who dares throw in with Obama, or most disturbing, to vilify and take out their anger and frustration by directing it at Obama himself, who I think by any fair account has never sunk to anything resembling any unfair tactics against Hillary.

And to Benton Harbor, I'd point out that I'm not admitting I was wrong. (not that I wouldn't if I were.)

I had never thrown in as a Clinton supporter in this race. Clinton was never my "guy", so to speak.

I'm only saying that very early in the process, I held open the chance that I could support her and that she very well may have been the Dems best choice.

Early on, before any real campaigning had been done, I had my eye on either Obama or Clinton, and wasn't buying the pitch that I heard often that Clinton simply had too much baggage and negatives to win. I thought her skill as a campaigner would compensate for that, and the fact that the country agrees with Dems nearly across the board on policy would compensate for any negatives.

As the race continued, I found myself more closely alligned with the goals of John Edwards, and after much hesitation, I decided I'd support him. (or at least root for him.)

Once he dropped out, I then kept neutral and watched as Hillary and Obama and the rest continued their campaign.

As I said, there were many incidents that, though minor, started lowering Hillary in my eyes. But the "as far as I know" comment, started the slide, along with all the transparent attempts to jimmy the standards and spin things beyond reason in order to conjure up a case that she was winning or could win, and topped off with the remark about RFK's assassination.... just tore it with me.

I went from keeping an open mind and feeling that she had a lot going for her as a potential nominee, and truly feeling that I'd have no problem voting for her were she to prevail, to feeling/fearing that she's actually doing catastrophic damage to the party and to it's chances in November, and the truly ugly thought that she's doing it all for purely egotistical reasons, screw everyone else.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine her and her campaign acting to sabotage the Obama campaign in classic passive agressive ways, trying to appear as though they're supporting him, but really never coming through, or damning him with faint praise, though I sure hope that is never the case.

But if she's desperate enought to continue this Don Quixote quest, then why in the world would she then turn around and truly work hard to help elect the guy who not only defeated her (probably unfairly in her mind) and who, if elected, would then stand in her way for the race in 2012??

Hillary has shown that when it comes to personal ambition, she's not exactly sweetness and light.

Believe me, a woman scorned is not to be taken lightly, needless to say. It's hard to imagine how anyone with the Obama campaign could ever trust her.

 
At 6/02/2008 4:35 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

To UMR,
No wonder you admire Hillary, you yourself share her dogged tenacity as shown by the fact that you actually tackle my long and winding comments and make the effort to unwind and respond to them.

I appreciate that, for starters. I know I don't make it easy.

I appreciate all the points you make in response to me rather heated comments. I admit that I was a bit freaked out at the time, having just heard Ickes issue what seemed to me to be a clear and rather menacing declaration of war by the Clinton camp. And he didn't sound like he was in the mood to take any prisoners.

I tried to remind myself as well that surely the shouters and demonstraters and the "Damn the Democrats! I'm voting for McCain" folks represented just a tiny sliver of the most rabid (and perhaps unbalanced) Hillary supporters.

I think that's what happens when people simply project way too much of their private hopes, dreams, and perceived injustices onto a candidate or campaign, and allow themselves to believe it's the answer to all their hopes, dreams, and fears, as Tiz noted above.

Of course this is happening with Obama fans too, to a large degree, and no doubt were the situation reversed, there'd be just as many if not more people wrongly convinced that the Dems/Hillary were evil because they were denying Obama, and certain there was blatant racism involved, "they're never going to let a black man be president", etc.

I'm sure of it. I'm grateful that you brought me back down to earth a little UMR and made me realize that there's not going to be any wholesale revolt by the justifiably disheartened Hillary fans.

Of course, you represent the rational. I've learned however not to rely on the general public being quite so reasonable.

As Tiz mentioned above, there are no doubt a LOT of people, many of them women, of course, to whom the Hillary campaign rightly meant something more than just an ordinary campaign.

It's foolish to ignore the truly great significance her campaign held for so many women who had never before seen a woman not only running for president, but initially thought to be all but guaranteed to be the candidate.

They were filled with enthusiasm and excitement at the prospect of being able to truly have a "women's" candidate, and to putting her in the White House in no uncertain terms.

I too think that would have been a truly wonderful historic moment, and I would have loved it and revelled in it as much as anyone.

Perhaps that's what I'm missing, and maybe what many are missing, especially males.

And that's truly realizing just what a big thing it was to have a female poised to become president.

Maybe a large backlash is to be expected when you take that into account. It isn't easy to see a dream that you thought was in your hands slip away, let alone by so slim a margin.

So perhaps I should take a few deep breaths, try to stock up on more super-human patience, and wait for yet another potential date when it will finally be "over".

I worry.

But perhaps I should just relax. Realize that Hillary taking it every last damn centimeter of the way all the way down until it's nearly November isn't the end of the world.

Maybe she won't insist on taking her ball and going home, taking half the party with her. (the thought that she will chills me to the bone.)

At any rate, as always I respect your judgement and opinion UMR, and I'll try to chill.... if for no other reason than to avoid having a stroke at the prospect of watching what should be a slam-dunk election fall apart due to dissention and division.

 
At 6/02/2008 8:31 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Why should Obama get ANY delegates in a state where his name wasn't even on the friggin' ballot?! He shouldn't get any delegates if his name wasn't on the ballot.

The Hillary supporters and protesters ("you shut up", etc.) look to me like typical Democrats. These people are your core constituency!

Florida and Michigan legislatures did it to themselves when they moved their primaries back. That is who voters in those states should be mad at. Not the DNC. These states should have played by the rules and stuck with a later primary. These is the consequence. The other consequence is that Obama will not carry Michigan and Florida in the General Election. Many Democrats and bitter Hillary supporters are going to sit on their hands.

 
At 6/03/2008 2:07 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico,
First of all, those Clinton protesters are hardly anyone's "core constituency", though I'm sure you'd like people to think so, anymore than Klansmen are the core of the Republican party.

They're clearly just the most vocal and vociferous of a particularly devoted supporters of Clinton's campaign. Every campaign has folks like that. (they're certainly no worse than the flown in Republican staffers who yelled and screamed and shoved and nearly broke into the Miami county offices in an attempt to scare commissioners into stopping the ballot count in 2000. Were those paid for goons sent from Delay's and other hard right Republican congresional offices to disrupt the democratic process and prevent the counting of votes which would have favored the opposition party Bush's "core constituency"? At least these protesters were protesting within their own party, not attempting to subvert a national presidential election.)

As to Florida and Michigan, your'e right and wrong.

Florida's situation was fairly complex, with the Republican majority giving Dems a choice of either voting to require a paper record of ballots and moving Florida's primary date up past the official start date. If they voted to not move the primary, they would have lost the effort to have an accountible method of voting.

In that sense, it was forced on them, and therefore they don't bear quite complete blame for violating the rules.

Michigan is a different situation. The Dems there, as I understand it, just went ahead and brazenly decided to move their primary ahead of the legal deadline out of spite against Iowa and N.H. always having the first caucus and primary.

Secondly, your argument that Obama shouldn't get ANY delegates in Michigan because his name wasn't on the ballot is ..frankly, stupid.

Sure, that should be the case if no one's name was on the ballot. But Clinton's was.

Obama and any other candidates shouldn't be penalized because they choose not to participate in a primary which even Clinton stated "wouldn't count anyway."

How, in any concievable way, would it be considered fair to simply give Clinton ALL the delegates from Michigan based on the fact that she was the only one on the ballot?

The fact is that it wouldn't be fair, it would be insane. Some sort of compromise had to be struck, and the fact is that the compromise arrived at was settled upon by the Michigan Democratic party, NOT the rules and bylaws committee, who only approved of it and voted to adopt it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home