I still believe that despite everything that mathematics tells me, Hillary Clinton will defeat Barack Obama for the demagoguic nomination for President. Every indicator says Obama has it all but wrapped up. Yet the “all but” part makes me queasy.
To avoid rehashing past columns, I support John McCain, but like Obama as a person. I have little positive feelings towards Hillary. I fear that she will win.
The way the rules are set up, Obama looks like he is in the catbird seat. Yet Hillary will win because she will simply break the rules and get away with it. Rules have mattered to the Clintons in the same way that taxes mattered to Leona Helmsley. With all respect to Chelsea, I wonder if Hillary would leave her profits from commodities to Socks the Cat.
Hillary appears to have failed to be granted revotes to the democrats in Florida and Michigan. Some will say that because their is no do over, that this issue is now irrelevant. This line of thinking could not be more wrong. It goes to the very heart of Hillary’s “character.”
For those who actually have lives outside of politics, below is a recap of events that have left the democrats as confused and disorganized as the late Will Rogers remembered.
Both political parties had in their rules that the only states that were allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday, February 5th, were Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. It used to only be Iowa and New Hampshire, but those two overwhelmingly white states were given some diversity. South Carolina has a strong black presence, and Nevada has many Hispanics.
I personally find these rules to be completely idiotic. There is no reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should get to go first every four years. Why not Delaware and Nebraska? How about Vermont and Idaho? I support small states playing a role, but it should rotate. The gutlessness of presidential candidates is why this antiquated structure remains. Rudy Giuliani tried to bypass those states, and his strategy failed to break the stranglehold that Iowa and New Hampshire possess.
As I said, the rules are ridiculous. Yet they are the rules, and without rules, there is chaos on par with “Lord of the Flies.” Obama understands this. Hillary does not. Actually, she does. She just does not care. Everything is about her, not society.
Florida and Michigan broke the rules. They called the bluff of the national parties, and the national parties so far have not blinked. The democrats promised not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. The media keeps repeating the mantra that both Hillary and Obama respected and honored this promise.
This is not true. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary was. While that is not “campaigning” in the sense of running ads or knocking on doors, the playing field was not level. The ballots should have been torn up or altered to have all the democrats on them.
Florida was even more dishonest for Hillary. While she did not publicly campaign, she did hold private fundraisers in Florida. This was apparently within the rules. I mean after all, just because you ask somebody for a large campaign donation does not mean you are also asking for their vote. So fundraising is not campaigning. It depends what the meaning of “is” is.
Then immediately after the polls closed, Hillary held a press conference to declare victory and thank the people of Florida. This is not considered campaigning because the polls were closed. Nevertheless, she was still in Florida, and she was still claiming victory in a contest that was illegal. The woman does not stop.
Before going any further, another brief Lord of the Flies analogy can be found in the word “samneric.” Sam and Eric were two brothers, but by the end of the story, they were lumped together. Such is the same with Florida and Michigan, even though the situations are totally different.
Florida is a republican state. While both parties agreed to the rules, it was a republican legislature and Governor that sanctioned the move to a primary date earlier than the rules allowed. While the democrats would be lying if they said that they were against the move the whole time, that has not stopped them before.
Michigan is controlled by democrats. It has a strong union presence. The democrats of Michigan were behind the move, and can only blame themselves for their elimination.
Both states stubbornly went ahead and held primaries anyway. Hillary wanted the results to count because she won. Obama wanted the results not to count because he lost. So while both of them had a biased agenda, it is the truth that matters. The rules were clear, and Michigan and Florida broke the rules. They were stripped of their delegates, and the results from those two states should not count.
Hillary will not accept this. She speaks about disenfranchised voters, and alludes to the 2000 Florida fiasco. All fraud would be cleaned up if only we counted all the votes, which coincidentally would help her. She keeps saying that it is not about her. Yes, it is. If the poor suffering people of Florida and Michigan do not like what has happened, they can fire their elected representatives. That is playing by the rules.
So since Hillary was not able to get results that should never have counted to count, she then suggested that the states revote. A “do over” would satisfy everybody.
This is not feasible because no do over would be exactly representative of how the results would have been several months earlier. Candidates, and elected officials, have ebbs and flows. Unlike nations where the party in power can just call elections, our Presidential elections happen the first Tuesday in November every four years. Many of these elections would have had different results had they been held months, weeks, or even days earlier or later.
Again, both Hillary and Obama had rational reasons for their do over positions. Hillary felt she would win, and Obama was concerned he would lose. Since Obama is ahead, a do over is a bigger risk for him. Thankfully, both states have decided that a do over is not doable.
So since the rules are what they are, and the math does not add up, what is next for Hillary? Well, if the conventional wisdom holds, which it has not in this election, she wins Pennsylvania. Even if she win by a large margin, the next two states are Indiana and North Carolina. Obama will win North Carolina. It has a large black population, and he is currently pulling in 90% of the black vote. Hillary and her husband gave that to him by their race baiting conduct in South Carolina. The proportional representation allocation of delegates simply does not allow Hillary to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. So Hillary has to smash through any ethical line to win.
This is not about the Superdelegates, or as I refer to them, democratic party poobahs that exist because the party of the people is controlled by elites that think the people are too stupid to make their own decisions. It fits in perfectly with their philosophy of governing.
The only question about the Superdelegates is whether they loathe the Clintons more than they fear them. Many Superdelegates on the fence owe the Clintons for their political survival. If they come out for Obama, they had better pray obama wins, or their careers could be destroyed. Anybody that questions the power the Clintons have should ask the many people that have fought, bled, gone to jail, and even died for them.
Yet this is not about the Superdelegates. Trying to gain the support of the Superdelegates is within the rules. Obama may have the popular vote, but this is irrelevant. The Superdelegates are not bound by the popular vote. While pursuing them as the popular vote loser would make Hillary a hypocrite given her plans to abolish the Electoral College after Al Gore’s loss in 2000, she can be hypocritical without breaking rules or playing foul.
Her violating the rules comes in the form of the pledged delegates themselves. Despite her many denials that only fools took at face value, she has now admitted that she will be open to trying to poach delegates that are pledged to Obama.
This will not be a violation of the letter of the law. Pledged delegates were bound to their candidates until 1982. To avoid a repeat of the imbroglio between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter (if only they had both lost), the rules were changed to allow pledged delegates to back a candidate other than the one they had promised their pledge. This may seem odd, but a party has every right to change its rules.
Yet Hillary would be violating the spirit of the law by poaching delegates. The fact that it would create a civil war in the democratic party that would make 1968 seem like a holiday party is irrelevant. Being selfish is not a rules violation. What matters is that Hillary s asking people to deny what the intent of the word “pledged” means.
A pledge is a promise. It is an oath. It may not be legally binding, but it should be morally binding. Otherwise, we get the politics of parsing, and statements about “no controlling legal authority.” Any delegate that promises to support one candidate, and then votes for another one, has lied. To win an election by recruiting liars is noxious. It is odious. It is…Clintonian.
Some would argue that pledged delegates, like all voters, should be entitled to “buyer’s remorse.” This argument does not wash.
Buyer’s remorse can take place for individual voters. They have a deadline, that being the election. Any day they change their mind before the election is a decision made before the official deadline. This is within the rules.
What is not allowed is to wait until after deadlines have passed to try and change the rules. I can think of several defeated Presidential candidates that would have liked a revote. Two good examples of liberal rulebreaking were a pair of Senate races.
In New Jersey, where corruption is as self evident as water is wet, Robert Torricelli resigned in disgrace. The deadline had passed for a new candidate to be chosen. Nevertheless, a liberal judge broke the rules, and allowed Frank Lautenberg to be on the ballot. Some say he won fair and square. No he did not. He should not have been allowed to be on the ballot. He could have run as an independent.
In Minnesota, the tragic death of Paul Wellstone did not change the fact that it was illegal to put the name of another democrat on the ballot. Walter Mondale was allowed on the ballot, and only the backlash from a disgusting funeral turned liberal pep rally prevented the democrats from illegally winning this seat as well.
In Missouri, another tragic death took democrat Mel Carnahan’s life. While his wife Jean ran for his seat, his name was left on the ballot. The rules were followed with regards to this point. There was hanky panky regarding a judge allowing some liberal counties to have an extra hour to vote, but that is a separate issue.
So those on the left that complain about the 2000 election should look at their own conduct in the New Jersey and Minnesota Senate races.
Once an official makes a pledge based on party guidelines, those guidelines should mean something, even if the amended 1982 decision created an ethical pretzel.
In 2004, the democrats had buyers remorse about Howard Dean. That conclusion was come to before the primaries. Voters switched to John Kerry, which was totally ethical. Yet after Kerry won the nomination, many democrats had buyers remorse about him. Their hatred for President Bush united them around Kerry, but not with enthusiasm. Many democrats wanted John Edwards, and the republicans privately admitted that Edwards would have been the tougher opponent in 2004 (and I suspect in 2008 as well).
Yet to change the candidate after the votes are in would be akin to replacing the teams in the Superbowl because their star players get injured, making the game less attractive. Network executives probably wanted to let the Packers and Brett Favre be in the Superbowl, but the Giants won the right to play in the game fairly. They certainly wanted the Colts to play the Patriots a week earlier, but could not invalidate the Colts losing to the Chargers.
Without rules, everything breaks down. Bill Clinton did not commit a sex crime. He committed perjury, a legal crime. Excuses such as “everybody lies about sex,” and “well that’s just Arkansas politics,” and, “nobody is perfect, we are all flawed,” are complete garbage in terms of rebuttals.
I cannot tell if Bill learned his ethics from Hillary or vice versa. Yet either way, this is a couple that will play the race card and then justify it by stating that republicans will do it later on anyway in the general election. The republicans are scared to death of this approach, but that is irrelevant.
Everybody does not violate the rules. Many people work within the system that is in front of them. Otherwise poor people would be allowed to rob rich people because they are hungry or homeless. Sympathy for those that did not get a fair shake in life is a value judgment. It is not a legal justification for crimes, which are violations against society.
I remain unconvinced that either of the Clintons care about society. It is for this reason that no trick is too dirty, no charge too scurrilous, no words too hateful, no action too vengeful, and no lie too brazen for this pair of moralists with little morals of their own.
If there is a way that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination without violating not only the rules of politics, but the rules of decency, then she should persist. Yet given that the numbers simply do not add up, she should for once in her political life show some grace and class. She fought a tough race, and she got beat.
There are people in America that are not disgusted with the Clintons. Those numbers are dwindling. It is not due to sexism, racism, or anything other than the fact that Hillary Clinton is finally being seen under the prism that William Safire described her.
Hillary is a congenital liar.
Unless we can go back in time and reverse the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, which I am against doing, then Hillary should embrace Obama publicly, stab him in the back privately as she did with John Kerry in 2004, and prepare for her comeback in 2012.
The Clintons will most likely never be gone from the scene. Yet if the rules are obeyed, we might get a two year respite from them.
eric
“So since Hillary was not able to get results that should never have counted to count, she then suggested that the states revote. A “do over” would satisfy everybody.
This is not feasible because no do over would be exactly representative of how the results would have been several months earlier. Candidates, and elected officials, have ebbs and flows. ”
Yea ! After this fiasco with Obamas Pastor, things definatly would of been different the second time around.
The cockroaches of American politics aren’t going away just yet. I curse myself every time I begin to believe they are.
I don’t know what law is being referred to here. The Democratic Party is a private entity. They can do whatever they like. Whether what they do is wise or not is another matter. Either way, once again, the Democrats have found a way to probably lose an election. In their pie-eyed view of the world, they have convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton – a woman perceived to be liberal and smeared with years of GOP dirty tricks – or Barack Obama – a black man named Barack Obama – can win the national election. Though neither is all that liberal, and though either of them would maintain a status quo that should be amenable to the Republican Elite, and though the Bush administration and “conservative” politics in general are now proven failures in almost every respect, neither Clinton nor Obama are probably electable. Misogyny and racism trump voting in one’s self-interest, for the most part.
JMJ
JMJ;
“and though the Bush administration and “conservative” politics in general are now proven failures in almost every respect, ‘
What a load of garbage.
With or without the Bush administrations “percieved” failures Hillary and Obama beat themselves.
If anything is a proven failure in the last 7 years its the dems with that poor excuse for a congress that is no doubt always held lower approval than Bush and then theres the pathetic batch of candidates they choose to run.
McCain at least has the ability to appeal to some libs and dems.
But the top tier dem candidates have never been able to attract any cons or republicans.
And I seriously doubt its hatred for women and blacks that drives peoples votes. Hillary nor Obama has what it takes to lead.
But of course the left can never see anything for what it is.
Our enemies, ans even our citizens.
We are not stupid jersey.
People are actually able to make decisions based on ones merits. And just because you cant see that doesnt mean we are voting out of misogyny or racism.
This is how race gets played and is brought forth when people say these ridiculous and careless things.
Eric,
I must disagree with your “fear Hillary” assessment. I do not fear her as much as I fear Obama. The man was a member of the Christian equivalent to Nation of Islam for 20 years. We cannot have that man in office. Hillary might be horrible and a liar and an opportunist, but she is not that horrible. And Obama has already shown he is a liar, because he lied about whether he heard Pastor Wright’s comments. He heard them and still sat in church this whole time.
Micky, if you voted for people on the merits, GWB would never have been elected.
Michigan’s senate has truned down the revote there. This subject is now moot. The best Hillary can hope for is some kind of delegate split at the convention. It probably won’t help her.
On another happy note – Scooter Libby has just been disbarred. Hehehe.
JMJ
How do you know if I voted on merits or not ?
People are allowed to determine what is a merit and what is not.
For some its character, for others its experience, for some its the company they keep.
But we are not shallow.
We are actually a better people than you give us credit for.
Like a typical lib crybaby. You scream racism ans exism when something is not up to your expectations.
Of course, i would be as unhappy as you if I thought I was surrounded by idiots
“How do you know if I voted on merits or not?”
Did you vote for Bush?
Otherwise, I have no idea what you’re talking about, Micky.
JMJ
JMJ;
” if you voted for people on the merits,”
And you have no idea what you are talking about.
How do you know why anyone voted for Bush ? ( tell me)
You assume too much based on your own feelings dude.
I cant vote. but I supported Bush on his merits.
I often asked people why they voted for Bush. I got a variey of reactions… “I don’t know, I just like him,” “He’s cute,” “He’s a good Christian,” “Anyone but…,” “He supports Israel,” etc, etc. It seems to me that people voted for Bush for a variety of reasons. Merit seems to rank pretty low on their agendas.
Oh, and sorry about that. I forgot that you couldn’t vote.
JMJ
Jersey,
What do ‘merits’ mean to you? Does it mean that you have to only support intellectually brilliant people?
Bush is not the most brilliant man and never was. Is that the only way you define merit? You already said that “support for Israel” is not something that falls within your definition of merit. Why not?
And why is a brilliant but wrong person necessarily “better” than a regular guy who is right?
Merits to me are your accomplishments, your outstanding attributes, and your ethics and personability – your virtues. Bush never lived up to any of those standards for me, neither before nor during his presidency.
“You already said that “support for Israel” is not something that falls within your definition of merit. Why not?”
That, I hope, is an honest mistake and not a sleazy, sleazy misrepresentation. If it’s the latter, I suggest you try out a career at Fox News in Hawaii.
I said, “I often asked people why they voted for Bush. I got a variey of reactions… “I don’t know, I just like him,” “He’s cute,” “He’s a good Christian,” “Anyone but…,” “He supports Israel,” etc, etc. It seems to me that people voted for Bush for a variety of reasons. Merit seems to rank pretty low on their agendas.”
The point here is that people who support Bush tend to be people who either don’t pay much attention to politics, or are issue-centric. Positions can be born of merits, but are not merits themselves (If you noticed, I used two examples of each; know-nothings and single-issuers). People of great merit can differ on positions. There is no right answer to everything that we know of.
“And why is a brilliant but wrong person necessarily “better” than a regular guy who is right?”
I don’t know. Why? Lot’s of “brilliant” people have been half out of there minds. If anything, dumb people are often the nicest folks you’d ever want to meet – the most “normal” and “congenial.” But that’s not what you’re asking here. So I don’t know, Micky, got a particular brilliant wrong person in mind?
JMJ
Oh, and let me add, I am really tired of people throwing around the term “pro-Israel” when what they really mean is “pro-Likud.” I’ve known quite a few Israelis in my years with the container lines – they are not all pro-Likud. Americans are more pro-Likud than Israelis are, and I’m quite sure our good host knows what I’m talking about. You can be all for the health and happiness of Israelis without being pro-Likud.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Micky, got a particular brilliant wrong person in mind?”
No , but I have a dumb wrong one in mind.
Tulips and i are right.
A merit is whatever gives reason for something.
It doesnt have to reflect your values to be right or wrong.
As far as the people you spoke to who said Bush was cute etc…
Just like with Obama, most of the country feels that the company you surround yourself with defines your character.
Did you do this interview at a high school ?
Bush got re elected because his previous term had merit enough to grant him a second one. 4 years of previous service and record had nothing to do with his looks or his faith.
Oops – sorry Tulips! I thought you were Micky. I’m losing it.
Micky, yeah, yeah, I know, Obama hasn’t much of a resume – but at least he doesn’t have a long, long negative resume! At least give him that.
I don’t think Bush was reelected so much for his merit, but for animus against his opponent. I believe this animus was successfully generated by people who wanted Bush to be president, again. No victory this man has ever achieved seems to have been of his own merit.
JMJ
Not totally of his own merit, honestly. i dont think anyone believes anyone has ever done anything totally on their own.
Bush was re elected simply because his merits outweighed the other guys.
And the support he got was to his merit.
And really, how you can bring Obama into a Bush conversation, or Bush into an Obama conversation is beyond me.
Bush is not running for office.
And if we must compare the two. not having much of a resume` is a negative.
you dont like bush, so how could you call what I believe to be positives for bush anything but negative.
I think Bush is a noble warrior to his credit.
You would probably say he is a war monger.
You think chocolate ice cream is the creme` de la creme`
I think its dookey
“Not totally of his own merit, honestly. i dont think anyone believes anyone has ever done anything totally on their own.”
Congratulations, Micky. You are now a Progressive.
“Bush was re elected simply because his merits outweighed the other guys.”
Perhaps.
“And the support he got was to his merit.”
No. Subjective opinion is not merit. Lot’s of people are popular or well known but not many people of great merit are popular or well known.
I don’t think Bush is a “warmonger.” I think he’s an idiot.
JMJ
Jmj;
“Congratulations, Micky. You are now a Progressive.”
No I’m not, I just wasnt born yeterday
JMJ;
“No. Subjective opinion is not merit. Lot’s of people are popular or well known but not many people of great merit are popular or well known.”
Accumulation of attributes in the form of support is merit, people voting at the polls is merit. people like me arguing on hid behalf is to his meriit. He should be proud.
Whatever you think of him is my point exactly.
I have chicken grease on my hands, sorry.
Congratulations, you are now a Progressive as of some point before yesterday! ;)
Cumulative merit does deserve priority consideration. When I look at the cumulative results of the late Republican majority, I see a CBA that is far more C than B.
You shouldn’t wrestle with Italian chickens! LOL!
JMJ
It was Portugese. It quacked like a duck with a accent
“Congratulations, you are now a Progressive as of some point before yesterday! ”
Yea, when I became a conservative about 8 years ago.
The most progress I’ve made in my life has been in the last 8 years.
Im sorry, I see more “A”s in the dems than anywhere else.
And I aint talking about no 4.0s
Well, yeah, there’s more analysis than cost/benefit considerations these days, so to speak, The Democrats are great just talking about things and digging holes (while the Republicans stand in holes and ask people to jump in). ;)
JMJ
At least if thats the way you see it you have some idea of what you’re getting into.
And at least they asked.
But I see the Dems digging holes and dragging people into them.
Entitlements that perpetuate dependance on the government, bail outs, broken promises.
Example, blacks have been voting dem for 50 years now and what has it gotten them ?
Global warming, out of fear and guilt so many freaks are being dragged down into that abysss of BS its not even funny.
Right now the dems in this election, they’re digging holes and asking voters to jump in.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/21/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
JMJ,
Let me get this straight a two term Governor of Texas and President and CEO of a multimillion dollar corporation has less experience than a 3rd year senator with no executive experience or a 7th year Senator with no experience but was married to an excutive. Apparently experience doesn’t count as merit and issue positions don’t count as merit. What does?
sorry i left out the word executive when talking about the 7th year senator
Another point, based on your logic, to vote for merit on the Democratic side you would have had to vote for Richardson, Biden or Dodd. So I guess on that side nobody is voting on merit either. That logic is really hard to buy. Merit is based on experience, issue position and character, and unfortunately is largely subjective in most cases.