Clinton's Million Little Pieces Moment?
Senator Clinton's campaign has launched one of the oddest bits of political propaganda in the history of modern politics. Called DelegateHub.com, it is a web site that does nothing less than lay out, in glorious policy-wonk detail, their rationale for stealing the Democratic nomination.
DelegateHub is a mix of tone-deaf assertions about superdelegates ("FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party") and endorsements from politicians who support her goal of thwarting the will of the voters ("Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) says automatic delegate support should not be based on election results.") The idea that the campaign would spend its precious time, money, and energy in a public rebuke to voters in their own party suggests that they really don't understand what we are objecting to. If they keep this line of argument up, it may lead to a "Million Little Pieces" moment for Senator Clinton.
Remember A Million Little Pieces, James Frey's 2003 memoir? When important chunks turned out to be fiction, the most interesting public reaction didn't happen to Frey, it happened to Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey had praised Frey's book on air, selecting it in 2005 for her prestigious book club and adding millions to its sales. When the scandal broke in early 2006, she went in front of her adoring fans with what might be called the Hollywood defense: "Everything done for public consumption is a little bit fictionalized anyway. That's how it works. If Frey went farther than most, well, what's the big deal? As long as the book made you feel real emotion, what does it mater if the events didn't all actually happen?"
This did not go over well. Winfrey's audience turned out to care a great deal about the truth; writing about being in jail for three months, while never actually having spent even a night there, struck them as a violation of trust. Prior to 2006, Winfrey might have been able to weather the discontent she created in her audience with classic political techniques -- go publicly silent and deal with the complainers in private and one at a time ("Dear long-time Oprah fan, We were very sorry to get your recent letter...") A couple of months of that, and the whole thing should have blown over.
But it didn't, because of the internet. Winfrey had embraced the internet as a way to talk to her fans, and to let them talk back to her (or at least her staff). What she hadn't understood, 'til Frey, was that her fans were also talking to one another, not just in book groups of five or eight, but by the thousands, in mailing lists and bulletin boards all over the net. When her fans reacted, they reacted in public, and once they could see how general their anger was, it emboldened them. They didn't back down, it didn't blow over, and in short order, Winfrey, the most universally beloved television figure since Walter Cronkite, had to call for a do-over, this time going on air and castigating everyone involved on behalf of her fans.
Which brings us to Senator Clinton. Faced with fears that she may be planning to ignore our votes, she has gone public with what we might call the Washington defense: "Of course I'm planning to ignore you if you don't vote for me, because I want to win. That's how it works. If I get elected by seating the bogus Florida and Michigan delegates, and convincing party members to vote for me no matter what you want, well, what's the big deal? As long as the process selects a candidate, what does it matter if it isn't the one most of you want?"
This will not go over well. Democratic voters turn out to care a great deal about process; Gore's Electoral College loss in 2000 was a calamity, and the idea that that sort of end-run might be perpetrated on us again by a member of our own party strikes us as a betrayal of trust. And there is no way to integrate Florida and Michigan after the fact, because no competitive election took place there, so no one knows the will of the people in those states. Even worse, not only are Clinton's rationales for increasing the delegate count anti-democratic, they are mutually contradictory. DelegateHub explains her goal to seat Florida and Michigan as a question of fundamental fairness, but in explaining superdelegates, they call the popular vote an arbitrary metric. So which is it: fair, or arbitrary? The campaign never says, because of course, there's no actual principle here. Things that increase her delegate count are good, period.
And of course, the Democratic voters are starting to talk to one another about this, not just in groups of 5 or 8, but by the millions and in public. Given the Clinton campaign's willingness to use the rules of the election to undermine the its purpose, that public conversation is going to get louder, and when the voters see how general our anger is, it will embolden us, forcing a reaction. Winfrey handled her Plan B swiftly and completely, understanding and aligning herself with her fans wishes after her initial missteps. We'll see how Clinton handles herself with the voters.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So he made a speech and then he uh...ah... uh... reached across the isle and capitulated . AND HE TOOK HIS OWN NAME OFF THE BALLOT IN MICHIGAN TO PREVENT LOSING AND HELP PUT THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE VOTERS
We're all freaks now ...in the vote show . More fun than fantasy basketball .
To count or not to count ? That is the question . What would Stalin do .
Texas Blowout
There is an electoral blowout underway Texas, the magnitude of which will put Hillary Rodham Clinton's fading Presidential campaign on the ash heap of history. I am predicting a 20 percentage point advantage for Barack Obama both in the popular vote and the delegateds awarded by Texas' convoluted primary/caucas hybrid system. Here is a preview of what we will likely hear from HRC.
"Last January, I was the Queen of Inevitability, today I bow before the might O. This election is not about plagiarism, electability, experience, 'Day one' abilities, or even Somali costumes. It's always been about my public persona a one of the most crooked and corrupt politicians of the modern era. Not since Marie Antoinette was dragged as a wretch through the mud-spattered streets of Paris has there been so deservedly hapless a fate meted out as my defeat today at the hands of an African American 44-year old, whose middle name is "Hussein" and last name rhymes with "Osama."
Let me start with where I went wrong in my quest to become the first woman elected President of the United States. In 1972, I became the sucubus of a half-bred hillbilly named William Jefferson Clinton, becoming the witless consort of a philandering, backwater political hack with the morals of a hooker bingeging on angel dust. We quickly formed a power cabal whose sole purpose was to rule the known and even unknown or unknowable universe. Who'd have thunk a nice mid-western girl form Chicago and a bigoted, blowhard from Hope (sic), Arkansas would have set out on so ambitious a course of mind-numbing historical proportions?
We soon gave birth to the unwholesome concept of electing first Bill and then me to the highest elected office in the United States. Using several pages borrowed from the Liber Nixonium, we set our sails for Pennsylvania Avenue and the rest is now, thank God, history. Scandals? We authored many, and blamed them on our enemies. Corruption? We wrote the Book of Crooks, and still screw our clothes on every day. Modal deception? I am a Children's Advocate, and Bill is a skirt chaser.
Today, that legacy has come undone, and I leave with the unfulfilled delusion of an inaugual oath of office to screw the hell out of the American People one last time. I was ready on day one to do that, but now my beautiful wickedness has been destroyed by the who has come to lead, I will do my utmost to destroy our party's chances to re-gain the White House by throwing mud at my ideological twin, Barack Obama. On to Denver!"
When I first saw the headline of this Blog I thought, finally someone calling Donna Brazile and the DNC out on the carpet for corrupting the election process. Instead I saw another attack on Hillary who has every right to a vigorous campaign.
Well, we all know about this little issue of the DNC attempting to disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan. From the voter’s perspective, the vote was held fair and square. The people in those states voted to make sure their voice is heard and they are not disenfranchised.
Contrast this fact with the current debate’s false morality for those claiming to simply want to count the will of the voters in regard to the delegates is even more outlandish.
How about putting all of this in perspective, since the mischief started almost a year ago. Maybe the justice department look at the DNC instead of the media and pundits attempting to deny the voters sacred right to be heard.. I mean they investigated steroids when MLB violated the public trust.
1. Legally it is the states that have standing over the DNC. The states elected officials have every right to hold their respective elections on any day they wish. Of course we know that the republican controlled Florida and Michigan moved their primaries just to annoy the DNC. From the voter’s perspective the only material rule change here was the potential for their votes no to count. This is the definition of disenfranchisement.
2. Mistake number one: The DNCs unilateral decision and not to count the votes infers corruption within the party attempting to delegitimize elections and the will of the voters. Frankly it does not matter who said what and who agreed to anything. A vote is a vote. You must count them all or you are not representing the people.
3. Mistake number two: Were certain candidates’ decisions to pull their names off the ballot actually another attempt to corrupt or otherwise delegitimize the election in Michigan.
4. Mistake number three: Finally is the debate over delegates another corrupt attempt to change more rules.
If this was a Republican activity the democrats after years of battles against voter suppression and disenfranchisement are likely guilty of doing just that, and in Florida of all states.
The campaigns are not to blame, they are suppose to put on vigorous campaigns and to try to get an edge any way possible.
The reason this is important is that the Obama, he cannot campaign for the people when you disenfranchise voters, turning dozens of years of democratic moral high ground on it’s head.
The DNC wants Clinton to fold because they are otherwise caught with their hands in the corruption cookie jar, something reserved for Republicans will no longer be beneficial to the Democrats, especially if any legal review of the facts occurs.
So there you have it, the DNC morally and legally wrong and violating the public trust. Democrats are guilty in Florida (irony is amazing) and Michigan. What a boon for the republican smear merchants.
You're so wrong it's frightening. At the time that the DNC ruled that the delegates from FL and MI would not be seated at the convention, all of the major players in the race agreed that they would not campaign in those states, and Edwards and Obama even had their names removed from the ballot in FL (MI does not allow names to be removed from their ballot). Clinton did not go so far as to remove her name (perhaps smelling a later opportunity? Who knows...).
The voters in FL and MI got screwed, for sure. But the issue that is of greater importance than counting the results of a held election is making sure that the election was even fair in the first place, which these were not. Asking a group of people to vote on something which ultimately will not count for anything cannot yield accurate results. I'm sure thousands if not millions did not bother to attend a vote for essentially nothing (I wouldn't have).
So now that it seems that counting the votes in both states will result in a boost to Clinton, she and her campaign and supporters are making a big stink about it. What she is really doing in this instance though is breaking an agreement that she made in good faith with the other candidates. She's going back on her word. And she's being dishonest as hell about it, trying to portray it as the will of the people. I'm pretty sure that if the results were not to her benefit, her campaign would be expending just as much energy trying to make sure that those delegates never saw the floor at the convention, but that's just my suspicion.
Thanks for the comments but all remarks cut both ways. It is quite messed up for sure. Both campaigns and supporters will rationalize and justify their points of view, as is expected and perhaps, not as they should.
What I think is really so wrong and frightening is the ease at which the rhetoric that the FL and MI voters were screwed, all 2.3M. Kind of you snooze you lose. Few voiced public outrage at the illegitimate decision. The voters could care less of the DNC and Legislators’ bickering.
Clearly, of all the arguments and rationale, the only real right and wrong is counting the people’s votes. I can debate all the details as well, and have, but on this issue others can debate amongst themselves.
The DNC's behavior in disenfranchising Florida and Michigan is appalling, yes, but that cannot be undone by seating those delegates, since no competitive campaign was run in those states.
I'm also not sure how you can rationalize wanting "count the will of the voters" as false morality? It seems to me that wanting an election determined by the will of the people is a moral stance pretty much in line with democratic ideals.
And as for running a vigorous campaign, well, some of us have principles that we care about other than vigor, like a preference for fairness. If the Clinton campaign wins despite losing the popular vote, that will be a calamity for the party.
The issue is, objectively, the moral, ethical and legal high grounds are not with the DNC on this one. This has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton. This is a democratic principle. The DNC messed with the election and others piled on. They were wrong and are still wrong.
What ever the results turn out to be many populist issues that the democrats have championed over the years are gone. The party created the potential calamity. Any other revenge tactic on FL and MI would have been appropriate except not to count the votes. Any other rationale disenfranchises voters.
Thanks for the comments but all remarks cut both ways. It is quite messed up for sure. Both campaigns and supporters will rationalize and justify their points of view, for sure.
Clearly of all the arguments and rationale, the only real right and wrong is counting the people’s votes. You can debate amongst your selves about everything else.
I know people who did not vote in the primary
because we were penalized and disenfranchised.
"Why bother if it doesn't count?"
Not fair and not representative.
Michigan was fair and square? Really?!?
Last I heard their was only one name on the Democratic ballot.
Tell us all again how that is fair or square.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
"From the voter's perspective, the vote was held fair and square."
Really? With Barack Obama's name not even being on the ballot in Michigan? With no actualy campaigning taking place?
I don't know what survey of the voters you've seen, but my definition of "fair and square" is to (a) have Barack's name on the ballot and (b) have a real campaign... not just some Twilight Zone version of one.
To answer the question with a question, was Barack Obama's decision to pull his name from the MI primary a corrupt attempt to delegitimize the election?
Leave them out. We will get to vote again in November.
Let them count the electoral votes, not the delegate votes.
Stop these stupid rules regarding when
states vote. It should be up to the states, not the DNC.
Enough flip-flopping in politics.
Lose the Deibold voting machines.
Make election day a national holiday so people will find the time to vote.
Elect our presidents through popular vote.
Give the elections back to the people and keep
the crooks and liars out of the process.
Obama will stand up for you ... but when it comes to the votes ... he took his name off the ballot in Michigan ... can you say surrender , quit , give up , did he stand up once for the voters {the people he wishes to represent} in Michigan or Florida . Why did he not use his power of oratory to insist that The Voters Ought To Come First , and ah... uh... ah... ought to have there votes count . Obama = four more years of capitulation .
Do the voters in Michigan and Florida matter more than the voters elsewhere? We can't all be the first state to hold a primary. An effort was made to control the chaos, and Michigan and Florida decided not to abide by the agreement.
If Florida and Michigan don't like a provision of the Constitution, will you stand up for those voters and condemn the Constitution?
The point of course is that the timing and dates of the primaries are up to the legislators of the states. Usually there is agreement on the order. This time there was a power struggle between establishments. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. They bickered for so long that I thought the primary was to happen before Christmas. There must be some accountability and investigation so this does not ever happen again.
All these shenanigans and back room bickering (cigar anyone?) have nothing to do with the voter’s right to a voice. They must not be penalized.
Uh, yes, he did in fact stand up for the voters. I believe the quote from his campaign was that they "detested" the DNC decision on not seating delegates.
The Obama camp has said all along that they would rather have campaigned in all 50 states -- the dilemma now is that _no competitive election_ took place in either Michigan or Florida. There is thus no way to know the will of those voters unless there is a second election in the future (an idea the DNC is toying with.)
"No competitive election" except for the TV ads that Obama ran in Florida. Nor should we discount his statement at a September 2007 fundraiser that he would fight to have Florida seated at the Convention.
Let's face it. They are both politicians who want to win. Does anyone doubt that if Obama had won FL and MI his supporters would be making the opposite case?
The sensible solution is to seat both delegations and allow them to vote. FL, where all names were on the ballot and where the Dems were railroaded into the early primary, would get its delegates as the vote came out. MI would have its delegates divided 50-50. Such a move would actually advantage neither candidate, but might keep the Dems from losing support in those crucial states in November.
"Everything done for public consumption is a little bit fictionalized anyway. That's how it works. If Frey went farther than most, well, what's the big deal? As long as the book made you feel real emotion, what does it mater if the events didn't all actually happen?"
~ Oprah Winfrey on James Frey's scandal.
I think Barack Obama is Oprah Winfrey's political James Frey.
The American Dream is both fantasy and reality.
We would have supported Obama even if Oprah ignored him.
I have a dream ...One person one vote and all votes are counted . We do not seek to justify rules that omit the common man from the process . How about it Obama'bots care to accept a challenge . I will support the winner of the popular vote if we simply count all votes . Is any one out there man or woman enough for a truly fair election . Insist that the democratic party Count the votes . And then support whomever the winner is . Count the votes ... yes all the votes and let the chips fall where they may . Do you Obama'bots have the stomach for it .
If I am an Obamabot, you are a Hillaroid.
I have a dream, That HRC agree not to go back on her word. Ha. That'd be the day!
Now apart from anything else, do any of the fanatical HRC supporters truely believe that if she cheats to get the nomination (or is simply perceived to have cheated in order to get the nomination) that she has ANY chance of getting elected in November? Given the Hillarites have been accusing Obama supporters of drinking the Kool Aid, what in the world is it that you guys are drinking?
Hi All: I don't see allowing the Michigan and Florida results to be official AS ANY DIFFERENT than the allowing undemocratic caucuses to be legitimate vehicles for the democratic process of picking a nominee.
You could legitimately argue that caucuses tend to attract the activists in the party. The same could be argued for "unofficial primaries." The activists tended to show up (you know, being activists, they vote in spite of what their screwed up DNC tells them to do).
So, quite frankly, unofficial primaries are really NOT much different than caucuses in terms of what population shows up to cast their vote.
In that regard, if we don't legitimize the Florida and Michigan "unofficial" primaries, we should also nix all the results from any caucuses. Geezzz... DNC....
I am SO MAD AT THE DNC, my beloved party, for its OLD SCHOOL POLITICS. The DNC wants to be in control, wants to keep doing things the old way (behind closed doors, power brokering, etc.)
What the heck ever happened to one-person, one vote? If you can't have something close to one-person, one-vote in the nomination process, when your voice is, arguably, the MOST important, then how can you call this a democracy.
The DNC is outdated and should be totally reformed. The Republicans actually do nominations better and more democratically. I am ashamed of my party, AND, I will be working as hard as I can to get the DNC to outlaw all caucuses and make it mandatory for primaries.
I want my vote to count in the nominations process. If you can "old school" a nominee into office, it ain't no frickin democracy, people.
Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden were not on the ballot. Who was on the ballot in Michigan? Clinton and Kucinich? Gee, that's democracy in action. It's like a dictator running against himself. At least Clinton was on the ballot in the caucus states. She could compete there. Counting states where the candidates did not compete is blatantly unfair. It's crazy that Michigan and Florida held these primaries even though the Democratic Party warned that they would not count if they held them early. But I still think the Democratic Party reacted stupidly to the issue: they should have counted the states at the outset and encouraged candidates to put their names on the ballots. Since the Democratic Party did not do that, the votes cannot count (how many people were no-shows because they were told that the vote wouldn't count or that their candidate wasn't on the ballot in Michigan . . . the whole process was tainted there).
The Florida and Michigan primaries were tainted. In both instances the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC's ruling that the delegates would not be recognized. Hillary publicly acknowledged that they "wouldn't count." In short, a very dumb, foolish agreement was entered. Holding to agreements is a fundamental attribute of integrity. By no means will Hillary earn the respect of most Americans if she resorts to trickery to get the nomination, claiming the phantom delegates of Michigan and Florida.
To resolve the problem the Democrats should pay for another election in both states. Failing to do so at least some sort of statewide caucuses should precede the convention. If neither takes place then the stupid, autocratic, un-democratic, counter-productive ruling of the DNC stands. No delegates get seated from sham elections. Not since the 1964 convention refused to seat the Mississippi FDP has the party been so gifted at self-destructive behavior. The November election will not go well if chicanery produces the candidate.
That changes the dynamic of the election since there was differnet MO and more candidates on the ballot.
There are certainly issues with caucuses vs. voting, but the case in Michigan and Florida isn't the same kind of issue. The problem with Michigan and Florida is that *no one knows* which candidate the voters prefer there, because several candidates names were off the ballot, and because no competitive race was run there.
Caucuses are not a great way to run an election, but in Michigan and Florida, no election took place at all.
You see that is where the argument is incorrect. The voters voted and there was an election.
This is a great example of why this nomination is over. It's a sign of poor judgement, and poor stratigic planning on Clinton's part. Her biggest mistake was to allow the public discourse to ever go to the super delegate conversation. She should have vehemently denied it, as well as sticking to the rules rather than asking for Michigan and Florida to be seated. She should have then began to work doubts from into the Super Delegates minds of Obama's danger of taking over the party. She should have insisted that this is a national election and it was going to June 4th and worked to secure votes as well and create doubt in the Delegates minds about Obama. I think with her pushing the Nuclear button so quickly on this process, showed lack of planning,panic, and failure of getting good intelligence on what the situation actually was before making her decision. The lack of stratigic critical thinking based on logic, is not one of Senator Clinton's strong points. . If you really think about if for a second, regardless of whom you prefer, through this election cycle Obama has been the best canidate in either party on this issue. It's not just his speaking that has gotten him this far, it's his planning and how he is handling the day to day situations which are as critical as speaking abilities, and maybe more. Senator McCain graduated 894 out of 899 in his military class, He's a symbol of the ultimate over achiever. His stratigic, decision making skills based on logic are also, extremely questionable which makes me question his ability to grasp the bigger picture. This is probably why he is seen as a flip flopper, he molds his ideas to the moment rather than looking ahead to the big picture. His statement of staying the course for 100 or 10,000 years clearly indicates the inability to be forward thinking and thus a poor selection for President. I believe that underneath the discontent of the Republican party and claiming that McCain isn't conservative enough, they also feel that he's not smart enough. There is always from the Right, "What was he thinking", his inability to articulate his positions as it relates to the Right has generated a profound distrust in his leadership, and by implication, his intelligence. They would never say, "He's Stupid, don't vote for him" but it's implied in their reactions to him.
You may be right. However, the point in my post was to have some accountability to the public and the voters. It is happening as we speak and standing by is unacceptable. Changing the process immediately before and during an election solely lies are the feet of the DNC. An investigation may help prevent future betrayals of the public trust.
It would be outstanding if a side result of any investigation would finally result in changes to the DNC primary process, so it more closely reflects the general election. The EC is so ridiculously close and the DNC has exposed itself to corruption, loss of two major swing states and the legacy of fighting for the disenfranchised. All this controversy even as the party had at least five outstanding candidates capable of beating the generic Republican.
So, blowing another presidential election by pulling defeat from the jaws of victory may be what it takes to wise up. Hope it does not happen.
I wish to abolish the delegate system all together . Its just another way to make sure that certain votes count more than certain other votes . One person one vote and all votes count . I know it sound's just crazy enough to be fair .
Wouldn't that mean abolishing parties?
I think pure democracy is a naive ideal.
If you count the votes all the votes senator Clinton has led all the way and has never trailed after Iowa . But if you use GOP vote counting methods {enron accounting 2.0} and selectively count only those votes you wish to count {2000,2004 election} and count the other votes off the books Obama wins . Go Obama'bots . Prove to be as lock step as the GOP .
From RealClearPolitics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular vote count (including MI & FL; Obama Not on Michigan Ballot; Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)
Obama: 10,878,796
Clinton: 10,577,650
no argument here.
Hillary stood up and helped dethrone Nixon {second worst president in history} and her reward is having GOP talking points being used against her by her own party .
I helped dethrone Nixon too! It was my birthday wish!
This is what is beating Hillary Clinton. Democrats have been duped again.
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/358
http://www.againsthillary.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Her_Now
Republicans win again by playing the Democratic system. They get to select both the Republican and Democratic candidates and we let them.
You can't face the facts that the majority of Democrats want Obama, as well as some of the independents and Republicans. Show some grace, for crying out loud.
Sometimes you have to blow it up to fix it . And if the Democratic party doesn't want to count the record number of votes that turned out in the primary in Fl. or in Mi. It is they who have thrown me out of there party . If on the other hand the votes are counted according to the constitution {as certified by the secretary's of state respectively} I will be happy and excited to support the nominee . Count the vote ... there really is no just reason to deny 2.5 million people their vote .
I assume that when you cast your "vote" you knew it was meaningless?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
