Lanny Davis And Hillary Clinton On Fixing The Nomination

Lanny is the voice of a past that Americans want ended and his argument, and Senator Clinton's, that the will of the people can be overturned by the arrogance of insiders, is wrong, and will lose.

Would Senator Clinton propose we cancel the primaries, the caucuses and the convention if she does not like the verdict of the voters? Perhaps the insiders can hold the convention in the Capitol Rotunda without the interference of elected delegates.

It is revealing that Lanny quotes the history of the past, not even the 1990's, but the 1980's. He quotes the dead hand of a past that is abhorrent to the enormous majority of Americans who want business as usual in politics ended, and want the future to begin, now.

In Lanny's world, and Senator Clinton's world, the primaries mean nothing. The caucuses mean nothing. The surge of voters in record and historic numbers means nothing. The American people, except for party insiders, mean nothing. Democracy means nothing.

They quote the 1990's, and they quote the 1980's, and argue for a restoration of the past, a coronation of the insiders, a contempt for the voters of America. Voters do not exist in this world of the past, unless they serve some tactical and manipulative purpose for those who seek power for themselves and those who believe they are smarter, and more worthy, than those who go to the polls.

If voters want a future that is different they are ignored, disgarded, thrown away as though the primaries did not happen. As though caucuses did not happen. As though voters did not vote. As though elections have no meaning. As though democracy has no purpose.

This is the kind of elitism and arrogance of power that the American people reject in record numbers. It is an elitism that argues that a few Americans in the inner circles of power are morally, intellectually or politically superior to the American people who are not invited into, or respected by, these insider circles of power that are so out of touch with America in 2008.

In this view, the American people are rabble who cannot trusted, their dreams for America are refuse to be discarded, by those who claim to know better than us what is right, when in truth the only thing they know is what gets them the power they crave, regardless of the cost.

I know more than my share of superdelegates and propose that both Hillary and Lanny are wrong. The supers will not throw out the verdict of those who attend the primaries and caucuses. They will not stomp on the democratic rights of those who vote for their candidate. We shall see, who is right.

I will let Lanny claim the mantle of the 1980's and let Hillary stand for the restoration of the 1990's with the tactics and attitudes that are held in near universal disrepute by the people of a nation who want true change, authentic change, and a better future.

This is the year when the people are right and the politicians are wrong and the future is now. Barack Obama is winning this nomination because he embodies the best of the past, the movements of the present, and the hope of the future.

Sooner than the experts believe the superdelegates will join the people rather than resist the tides of history and the aspirations of voters.

In America the people rule and those who do not honor this, will be left behind.

Comments

[Doofus]

Demos may be looking for a way to lose, more or less gracefully. Far better to be watching from the sidelines for another four years than to be struggling to find an 'honorable' way out of Iraq, or actually struggling to *implement* universal healthcare.

If Americans are serious about doing either, best to just get a veto-proof Demo Congress, see what happens over the next 4 years. Obama is probably way too nice a guy to be stuck with the Presidency anyway.

But, whatever happens, I'm not voting for the Repo Man.

[lgillooly]

I respect and admire the Clintons and cannot understand the hatred towards them. They worked tirelessly for America while constantly being attacked and they are still standing and still working to help this Country. We need a strong,experienced leader in 08 and she would be the best. Clinton/Obama 08' Obama 2016'

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Lanny Davis already used the "Where's the beef?" line today as he spewed lies and mischaract­erizations about Obama on Sunday TV. He even went as far as saying that Obama's message to superDs to not go against the will of the people was changing the rules whereas Hillary's blatant play for Michigan and Florida was not changing the rules. Talk about a warped sense of reality!
He threw up the Exelon crap without mentioning that Mark Penn worked for them and Hillary cosponsored the bill he was ranting about. He spat forth a list of votes that Obama made in the Senate without acknowledging that Hillary voted for those same things. The real list missing was the ones that Obama didn't vote for and Hillary did like the ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas and the instant replay of the Iraq vote aimed this time at Iran. Also missing were these very real bills that Hillary couldn't be bothered to sign on to:

S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack
No Hillary

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack
No Hillary

S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack
No Hillary

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Or these stories that show how much Lanny was mischaracterizing Obama completely in what I perceived to be outright lies:

Obama, McCain and Clinton and tax form release
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Obama earmarks versus Hillary's
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

Hillary Clinton a porker
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Obama and environmental issues
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/

Obama and Pakistan and Hillary's naivity
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/06/navarrett...ref=mpstoryview

Obama's economic plan gets an A- and Hillary's a C.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Obama's health care plan preferred
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...7353949449.html

Obama's legislative achievements:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8010303303.html

Where's the beef? The beef I have is with the fact that the Clinton campaign has once again stooped to lying and belittling the very real campaign of Barack Obama and his real experience that goes beyond that hot air filled 35 years that Hillary claims. That is where the beef is!

[Budh]

The true democratic party, if there is one should break all relations with the DLC and label all its members personna non grata in the democratic party. Rabun66 is is 100% right and I concur whole heartedly.

[BeeOplentee]

The whole superdelegate thing is an albatross around the neck of the dnc.

[darrren12000]

I HAVE FINALLY HAD IT. I AM A LIFELONG DEM AND IF HILL DOESNT WIN, I AM STAYING HOME. AND YES- I'M IN A PURPLE STATE. OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS AND BIASED JOURNALISM HAS ABOUT CRACKED MY SKULL. I HAVE NEVER BASHED OBAMA ONLINE. YOU PEOPLE ARE SPLINTERING THE PARTY -- NOT HILLARY. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. THE TERM BILLARY IS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. THANKS. BTW -- I'M A VERY PROGRESSIVE BLACK MAN. I DESPISE STEREOTYPES AND BIAS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. I DO NOT TRUST PEOPLE WHO PRETEND TO BE PROGRESSIVE BUT STAB A WOMAN IN THE BACK FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN SEXISM AND HATRED. GOODBYE DEMS. YOU WILL LOSE AGAIN IN '08. PATHETIC.

[horacekent]

E! True Hollywood Story: Hillary Clinton

"Young Ambition"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

Great Luck!
~HK

[Eternal]

It's a farily simple equation. Hillary cannot win the general election if supers overide the pledged delegate's at the convention. It's not a matter of "can" or even "if", her already 50% negatives will move into the 55% negatives and she can't win under those conditons. This isn't to say Sen Clinton can't win or should not win, only that a win that has the super delegates reversing the elected delates would be a sure fire road to defeat in November. If she can sweep the remaining races with the 60% she needs to take the pledeged delegate count, I will support her in November. If she looses and the party politico do it I and many others won't. I don't think I'm alone in this position.

[lynnn]

She can't win now (Black people live in Ohio) if they just stay home, she can't win it.

I don't see her picking up many states (since most of them don't matter). Heck I even see Washington state going all in w/a third party.

[siegfried]

"In America the people rule," Get real the rich people rule, they always have. Vote Green.

[axelgrease]

If the superdelegates will decide this thing, why bother having the vote?

[TwoCentsWorth]

Come on B. Budowsky --

Don't talk about "fair" assignment of super delegate votes -- Obama has given over $600,000.0­0 to super delegates to buy their endorsement and Senator Clinton has spent about $200.000.0­0 in the same way.

All the more reason why the rules governing super delegate votes that have been in place for over at least the last two decades must stay in place. Namely, super delegates can cast their vote for the candidate they want whether the people in their home state voted for or against that particular candidate.

[honeybee49]

All you people foaming at the mouth about "following the rules," you smirky people with your bogus, cynical complaints that the Clinton camp is "moving the goalposts"--guess what. One of "the rules" is that the superdelegates call it the way they see it. (And, yes, those would be the same superdelegates whose votes Obama is busily attempting to buy with donations to their campaigns.­) Clyburn has reaffirmed the role of the superdelegates, and he got it right. If YOU don't like the rules, then don't YOU go trying to change them in the middle of the game--and please stop projecting that wimpy behavior onto people who actually are following the rules as they now exist. You sound like James Baker in Florida in 2000, trying to game the system with his false claims that the votes had all been counted, and twice. If you don't like the rules, step away from the keyboard and get active in the party so you can change the rules in time for the next election. Yes, you can!

[DemandTruth]

Foaming at the mouth, huh? Since when is presenting a reasonable, rational point of view and opinion about what America SHOULD be foaming at the mouth? The only one here being derrogatory and demeaning is YOU, bud.

I'd be willing to bet you'd be singing a different tune if YOUR candidate was the one to benefit from actually allowing the people to choose who they want for president. Do you mean to say that, the rules being what they are at this point, Clinton has every right to woo ("buy") Superdelegates, but Obama does not?

Which is it. Are we playing fair or not here? Are we playing by the rules or not here?

[sugarmac]

The rules are the rules are the rules. If we don't like them, we can probably change them. For the NEXT election.

[2LaneIA]

So then you will be standing strong for excluding Florida and Michigan?

[BlueinTheFirstRedState]

The presence of Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe and others of that corporatist and/or Liebercrat ilk in the Clinton campaign is one of the reasons I'm for Obama.

[grendl]

The fact that insiders could steal this election underscores a fundamental flaw in the process.

Superdelegates were an undemocratic idea from day one. I'd like to know the name of the individual who first came up with the notion that some lucky chosen individual might receive a call from some multi millionaire politician, go on a date with that millionaires daughter, be interviewed like a giddy sixteen year old American idol finalist on CNN by Anderson Cooper, all to court their vote, which as it turns out carries more weight than mine.

Every American citizen's vote should count the same, and the fact that Hillary is now scrambling about trying to work the numbers her way is rather sad. She wept, saying this election is too important to blow (not in an intern sense ) and I believe that too. But blowing the election this time doesn't mean losing the presidency, it means trampling democracy, which has been trampled ad nauseum lo these past eight years.

People say you can't change horses in mid stream, well we're on a drowning donkey with this system of superdelegation. The Democratic party has always been the party, at least to me, that represented fairness, and justice, and all I can see with these superdelegates is a system rewarding the elite with more power than they already wield.

No one has accepted the challenge and answered my question. Why does Hillary Clinton, a fellow American citizen's vote, carry more weight than mine.

No, once again, don't explain the superdelegation system as C.S. Lewis said " An explanation of cause is not justification by reason ". Why is it fair these new American Idols are even in a position to sway an election in the first place. This is the single biggest hypocrisy facing the Democratic Party today and must be reconciled, and resolved or this donkey is going to drown.

[grendl]

One more thing. To the idiots who keep saying you can't change the rules now, when exactly do these rules get changed? After the election when its too late?

There's only before the fact and after the fact, and we're in the before the fact phase, months away from the potential disaster in Colorado. When do these things get resolved, the faulty Diebold machines, the existence of these creatures of outrageous entitlement called superdelegates?

IT has to be before the fact. Some will say yes, but four years before, but there's no sense of urgency following an election. After the theft of the presidency in 2000, people needed time to fully reconcile what the hell happened.

The answer is for these superdelegates to be removed from the equation. To have their status demoted. Of course it won't happen, but thats what needs to happen. They must be terminated.

And the candidates, who themselves possess super delegate status need to do the right thing, in the eyes and name of democracy, and rescind, revoke, reject, repudiate their super delegate status. Show the American people an act of courage, for once, and stop calculating the numbers, or worrying about losing the election by alienating those who relish their roles as enemies to democracy, the remaining superdelegates.

Some say that would be burning bridges, but I've always held the bridges to hell should be burned, and that is the kind of nation we're heading towards if we don't do away with such hypocrisies as the system of superdelegation.

Not after the fact, but now.

[indie17]

Great post! My understanding is that the convention could actually vote to NOT count the superdelegates. If Gore and Pelosi do not succeed in attempting to get the superdelegates to vote with the will of the people (the pledged delegates), then there is the possibility of getting rid of the supers votes altogether. I have not yet read up on the rules of how this would happen.

[grendl]

It shouldn't matter which way they vote, their votes should be disqualified regardless, simply for carrying an inequitable amount of power.

That is the only way for a fair and democratic process. People seem to be staring at the numbers, concerned for whom the superdelegates will choose, when the entire system itself is inherently unjust to begin with. And those who take part in it should feel ashamed for the hypocrisy.

As long as Hillary and Barack continue to walk around wielding superdelegate status, wielding a vote with more power than any ordinary American citizen they are enemies to democracy. And the GOP can have a field day with that, should they need any more ammunition.

The super delegates must be stripped of their super powers, or we need to invent a new "super tar" and "super feathering" system for them.

[BigBen]

Brent: Give us a break. Either we go by the rules or not. We don't go by the half that suite us and ask for the half which does not to be changed.I say we don't but of course you do.
Secondly everyone wants change in the country not just your candidate.
"The dead hand of the past that is abhorrent" how poetic but the past has given us Martin Luther, Bobby Kennedy and Nelson Mandela so lets play the dead hand and see how it works out instead of despising it. What happens if the tide of history(how romantic) and the voters,including those in Florida, happen to support Hillary? Will you be still playing that romantic tune?Or will you be playing the blues?

[ATLiberal]

The rules are not the point. They can and will vote for whoever they wish. The question is, will they be stupid or will they recognize what the right thing to do is, and do it??

The right thing is to obviously give the person who has won the most delegates within the rules. Otherwise, they will wound their own party in a potentially mortal way. That would be stupid.

[TurnThePageGA]

That was exactly Congressman Clyburn's point and that the superdelegates should sit back and see how the voters vote and them affirm the PEOPLE. They shold be silent to them. No one should be adding them into any count that is being computed or tracked. The focus should be on "PLEDGED DELEGATES" and not Superdelegates or Automatic-delegates (haha).