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.

Comments

[nosanity]

Hillary would have never stood pat and allowed the election to be stolen she would have fought tooth and nail to get that vote counted . Al Gore on the other hand Capitulated {see: Nancy Pelosi , Tom Daschle , John Kerry , Harry Reid} totally and completely . And then he abandoned the American people after saying during his whole campaign that he would fight for us , some fighter he turned out to be . I want a real fighter someone who's not afraid to bloody their knuckels because thats what it takes to take those guys on . Just like she's fighting the whole damn Capitulation {reach across the isle and bend over} wing of the democratic party .

[MsLiz]

After the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush, there were no longer any *legal* means available to contest the election. What exactly do you think Gore should have done, led an armed insurrection? That isn't the American way.

Where is that isle you speak of? Could you mean aisle?

[Camel54]

One thing I was not aware of until recently is that the issue of moving the Florida primary to January and break DNC rules was perpetrated by the Republicans who dominate the FL state legislature by 2:1. The Democrats in FL wanted a Feb. 5 primary but were forced into supporting the bill because the Republicans attached a paper-trail amendment to it. Any Dem who voted against that would have committed political suicide as they say. So instead they voted for the move because it was going to happen whether they voted for it or not. Should the people of FL be chastised for another dirty Republican trick?

When Superdelegates are chosen, their judgment is chosen not their ability to count votes and cast accordingly. A machine can do that. The system is not a bad one and it exists to prevent potentially catastrophic nominations.

With that said, I am an Obama supporter 100%. I believe the superdelegates will support Obama because enough of them have the judgment to vote with their districts, enough of them understand what is needed for the people during this critical time and not enough of them are going to vote for Clinton strictly out of loyalty to a by-gone time or a pay-off.

[nosanity]

Obama'bots trusting that their votes won't count , theres a new kind of hope in town ... uh ah uh new type of Democracy ...uh ah uh ...if you want your vote to count you better vote for Obama . Yours truly Howard Dean

[Citizenofreality]

So I guess the gist of your posts is that even if Obama wins the most delegates, Hillary should still be the nominee? As an Obama supporter I have stated that I would support Hillary if she became the nominee in a fair manner, you are apparently threatening not to reciprocate. Are you another "I'm gonna vote for McCain then" type of person? If that is your attitude then perhaps you should vote for him, then should he become POTUS and this nightmare we're in continue, you would have no one to blame but yourself.

[nosanity]

Yes we can ... deny representation for 18 % of democratic primary voters without batting an eye . Obama'bots are scarier than the GOP lock steps .

[ianrey]

Before the Michigan and Florida primaries, all candidates agreed that the delegates would not be seated if their states did not hold elections under party rules. All candidates. That's far from "not batting an eye", it's agreeing to play by the rules, and not wanting to throw out the rulebook ex post facto. Every Democrat I've talked to agrees the fairest thing to do in this case is to revote. Oh, and the "bots" suffix was already claimed by Ron Paul supporters, you are going to have to find another cliche.

[nosanity]

Obama has won a bunch of meaningless states {red states that will never support a democratic presidential candidate} And with help from party insiders like Daschle and Dean {two big losers} will attempt to steal the primary from true democrats with the single largest voter disenfranchisement in U.S. history . I expect such things from the Republican party .

[Fabienne]

Funny that the popular vote in all those "meaningless" states (I live in one of them) adds up to more than the popular vote in Senator Clinton's "meaningful" states. This kind of elitism is just silly and has contributed to the Democratic Party losing Congress and the Presidency.

[cameoz]

So you think if he's the nominee, he can't possibly win California or Oregon or Washington State. And of course, NY and Massachusetts will go for McCain. Not!

[nosanity]

Gore lost for multiple reasons but mostly because we did not count the votes that were cast . Obama seems to have no problem stealing the election the same way Bush did { by helping to make sure the votes are not counted , taking his name off the ballot to avoid certain defeat in a certain state } I want and expect all Democrats to count the votes . Count the votes , count the votes . I have friends and relatives from Fl. and Mi. , Ma. , Tx., Pa. and California and we are all very upset with the democratic party . And we will make our feelings clear in November if we are Bushwhacked by our party . Count the vote , count the vote , count the vote . {what the hell is this Russia} Obama bots are the perfect GOP christmas present .

[Nonamnesiac]

Hillary believes, with a great deal of evidence, that the rules don't matter -- if you take something from the American people, they will simply go into self-delude world and accept it. They accepted the theft of the 2000 election with nary a peep -- actually blaming the loss on Nader rather than their cowardly refusal to demand the winner become President. They have accepted a never-ending barrage of documented high crimes and misdemeanors from the two bit, treasonous thugs who are the President, VP and their cabinet.

She realizes this country is so cowradly that it makes believe an act of national cowardice like invading Iraq, a country that never could have been a threat to us, becomes "heroic", even though our opponents don't even have body armor, bunker busters, etc.

So of course she'll use the FL and MI illegal delegates and Superdelegates. And in the end, the same Democratic voters who would vote for her or Obama even though they will continue the war, will vote for her.

We live in the land of the formerly free, the home of the cowards.

[MsLiz]

"rather than their cowardly refusal to demand the winner become President"

Please explain how a demand would have persuaded Republican electors to support Gore?

[Nonamnesiac]

Gore refused to use the tactics necessary -- massive, non-violent civil disobedience. Not one Democratic Senator would challenge the result. All Democrats should have shut down Congress and the Supreme Court.

Instead, Gore said he wanted to avoid a Constitutional crisis, evidently believing that allowing the election stolen was avoiding a Constitutional crisis.

Hillary has learned the lesson -- it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Bush has extended it to mean just define treason and high crimes and misdemeanors as legal and attack those who want to end the treason and you don't even have to ask for forgiveness.

Hillary has adopted the Bush model of the lawless state -- and she'll push to get the illegal FL and MI delegates, as well as a large number of superdelegates to steal the nomination from Obama.

[Realbluesky]

Although I would hate to see it happen in the short term, the best thing for America would be for the Democratic party to be broken down and dismantled and a truly progressive party be established. As a life-long registered democrat, I am ashamed that the democrats took power in 2006 and capitulated every step of the way. They would not stand up to impeach the most vile criminal in the history of this nation and cowardly took the whole impeachment process "off the table." The vast majority of the current batch of elected democrats are a pack of shameful cowards who will say or do anything to keep their job. I hate republicans, but at least they have backbone. Nobody likes a wimp. And that's the dems for you. So cowardly and so afraid of what might happen or what somebody will say. We need leaders who will step up and do what is right regardless of what anybody else says.

[WorkingClass]

Bluesky: I agree. I would like to see Hillary "win" with money and lawyers and super-delegates. It would hasten the demise of the Democratic party. Both parties are hopelessly corrupt. Bush, Rove and Cheney have stupidly destroyed the GOP. One down and one to go.

[Fabienne]

Amen to this, bluesky, though I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, as he offers a modicum of hope simply because he inspires people to get involved.

[pottylikearockstar]

Governors Napolatino (D-AZ) and Patrick (D-MA) won't be following the lead the of their constituents because, as Gov. Napolatino pointed out on the Sunday talkshow, she endorsed Obama before her state voted for Hillary. The same issue arises with Senators Kerry and Kennedy. Without parsing and carefully selecting rules and intent after the fact, Obama cannot win the nomination.

[DasBoot]

Wrong. Obama is ahead 1374-1275 even when you combine pledged delegates and superdelegates. It is HRC who is carefully picking and choosing the rules she likes and dislikes. Why is anybody surprised by that?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[pottylikearockstar]

Let me see if get this straight. We must ignore the FL and MI votes so a vote of the people will not be subverted by people who are legacy Democrats. As we all know, crossover Republicans and Independents voting in open primaries and caucuses have the best interest of the Democratic Party at heart. Ha Ha Ha Ha.

[Anastasia]

How could the votes of 19,680,937 Democrats, be construed as arbitrary?

This is all, very Alice in Wonderland.

[DRaymond]

It is really quite simple. Florida and Mich should have another delegate selection that follows the rules. The voters deserve a campaign and a ballot that involves all the candidates. If it really is a matter of cost then wealthy Obama supports should start a charitable fund to help out 'poor' Florida and Michigain.

But the biggest reason to NOT seat those delegations has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama. The DNC rule was the only thing that put the brakes on a nomination calendar leapfrogging to absurdity. If, when it really matters, the DNC caves in then the people of Iowa and New Hampshire won't have to worry about how much snow there will be next time because they will be voting in July...of 2009

[urfree2speak]

The sad reality of this whole mess is starting to sink in. Hillary is not going to accept the reality of the situation,and it appears more and more that she is also working with the republicans to (A) introduce the "race" card into the picture..w­ittness shawn hanity,glen beck, etc. she appears to have signaled by using the "native" pictures of obama to the republicans to get an early start,if she loses to badly batter and bruise her oponent. Having said that, in no way after( seeing what I have with regards to her behavior) that I will ever vote for this woman. The democratic party can "survive" Hillary and bill the party can "live " with a republican president and a democractic controlled house and senate.

[TimSearl]

Yep. She has made it simple for the republicans to run any kind of racist, fear-mongering campaign against Obama. She has really lowered the bar. All they have to do is say "well if HRC did it, HRC said it". Why did HRC employ the odious Mark "4 million dollars" Penn? I guess you can judge people by the campaigns they run, and those they choose to work with.

[mommadona]

"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."

But, that is what this is all about.

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, Rahm's DLC will be dust.

No more BUSINESS as usual...at least we are all crossing our fingers on this.

Clinton is there for da money, honey.....­that's Bill's legacy....­LOTSA "I get buy with a little help from my friends"

He's learning at Old Man Bush's proverbial knee.

It's good to be king.

It's better to own one.

[slow2]

Amen, md,

The Clinton machine is always on the prowl.

And if they can't distract or derail, then they'll probably try to destroy.

[Herrington]

So the strategy is revealed.

Out of the Republican playbook. Go negative and the crossovers, the independents and the young people will stay home and not vote at all. Your core will turn out. And if your calculation is that your core vote will out number the core vote of the other side, go negative as fast as you can.

Hillary cannot win the Democratic nomination by this means. It is too late. But what she can do is so alienate the marginally committed that they stay home in November. Obama, with the nomination, will then lose to McCain without strong youth and independent support. Hillary will then be back in the drivers seat with a not too subtle I told you so. She can run again in four years with a fresh backing, as we will be gnawing our legs off to get out from under Republican rule.

I conclude this because of the facts. She must know that, by beating down the turnout with negative campaigning, she will destroy the movement for change on which the Democratic party so depends to retake government. This will in turn cause her defeat if she were to make it to the general election. But in the calculus of a politician, a ‘battle tested’, ‘experienced’ politician, putting Obama out of the picture for good and then losing the general will do her less harm than ceding the nomination to her most impressive political rival, Obama.

So with perfect disregard for the good of the party and the people, it is as follows.

If Obama gets the nomination and loses the general, Hillary wins.

If Hillary gets the nomination and loses the general, Hillary wins.

That’s as cynical as I can be. Excuse me while a go puke…

…Try and rise above me and Hillary.

[GordonDR]

I'm sorry to say that I agree with you! It is clear that the Clinton campaign decided after the Texas debate to take a different tack. Thus Clinton's sarcastic mocking of Obama, her comparison of him to George W Bush, etc. -- remarks that will not win her favor but will supply lots of ammo for the Republicans in the election campaign. I don't think the calculation was about how to stop Obama from getting the nomination. I think the Clintons know he will get the nomination. I think the Clintons calculate as follows: If Obama loses the election, McCain will royally screw the
country, the armed forces, and the economy even further, and 4 years from now Hillary can run and win. If Obama wins the election, he's in for eight years and Hillary will be too old. It is very plain now that the Clintons care only about ambition and power. What ugliness..­..

[WorkingClass]

There ain't gonna be no president McCain. Somebody would have to vote for him.

[Fabienne]

I don't think Obama supporters are paying much attention to Senator Clinton.

[zebra3]

I'm for Obama.

However, even though I believe Obama is the better leader and more likely to win against McCain, and even though I am working hard to help him become our president, I can honestly say that if HRC ends up with more pledged delegates than Obama (NOT INCLUDING FL OR MI), then I STILL think the supers should fall her way. In other words, if Obama loses the race for pledged delegates, I for one would NOT want the supers to make him the nominee anyway. That would not be fair and would be bad for him as a candidate (like Bush in 2000) and for the democrats (HRC supporters would rightly be indignant and feel betrayed).

Do HRC supporters REALLY think seating MI and FL delegates is about protecting the franchise? What about all the people who didn't bother to vote because they trusted that it didn't matter? What about the fact that democratic turnout in those states was so far below the level that we've seen in all the other states, thereby proving that people didn't vote?

Is it really possible that HRC supporters care so little about the rest of us democrats that they don't agree with what seems like a basic exercise in fundamental fairness?
We Obama supporters really are not deluded kool-aid drinkers, guys. Hillary saying it is just words. But her words don't make it true.

[DasBoot]

zebra3: We are way beyond the scenario of Obama losing in the pledged delegate race. HRC would have to pull of 20% plus wins in all the upcoming states to get even there. That just won't happen.