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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Florida and Michigan don't like a provision of the Constitution, will you stand up for those voters and condemn the Constitution?
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.
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.)
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.
~ 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 think pure democracy is a naive ideal.
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
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.