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

[messy]

It's possible that Hillary could do well enough to deny Obama the nomination, but she can't do well enough to get it herself at this point.

That's the conundrum everyone's forgetting. There are enough superdelegates to force a second ballot, and then some third person might get it.

Hillary is, at this point, radioactive.

[Lisette]

Good Article!

[BJMS]

I don't know how any Democrat in their right mind could vote for Hillary Rove Bush...I guess this all depends on your definition of "rules."

[MIHOP]

For those who think that Hillary is only following the rules and therefore deserves to win if she can do so by following the rules:

1) Howard Dean, the party chairman, RULED that FLA and MI would not be allowed to seat their delegates at the convention if they did abide by a primary schediule approved by him.

2) Regardless of any personal opinions they might have had on this topic, none of the candidates objected to Dean's decision, supporting him for his effort to maintain some order in the party.

3) Only Hillary is the one now rejecting Dean's decision, which stands at this point as the RULE.

4) Hillary is asking to change the RULE in order to win.

As for Clay Shirky's point regarding the use of superdelegates to override a majority vote, no one is saying Hillary couldn't do it, simply that that would not flush with the majority who have had their votes disenfranchised in the recent past...

[YcCoSQ]

Clintons are once again tearing apart The Democratic Party. Isn't there and adult in The Democratic Party that can advise the Clintons to stop doing The Republicans work? Perhaps it is time The Democratic Party was torn apart. It always was an odd coalition. Clintons cannot win. Clintons can not win - hello? Clintons can not win.

[slow2]

YcCoSQ,

Your point is well-taken.

There are many, many older/younger wiser members of the Democratic leadership (NOT the 'DLC') who should convene a meeting with Hillary and counsel her to get out, and get out now, and get out with some shred of civility.

She is on the brink of going so ballistic that she, her campaign, the Democratic Party are going to look worse than fools or clowns.

Surely there are one or two people the Clintons respect and listen to who could advise them of the folly of Hillary's remaining in the race?

[Jimbo62]

I live in Michigan and voted for "Uncommitted" because I couldn't vote for the person I wanted to, Obama. If she attempts or succeeds in getting the Michigan delegates, I will march, I will write letters, I will absolutely not vote for her if she gets the nomination. I may actually campaign against her, it will make me so mad. The mere fact that they are talking about stealing the votes for Michigan has me fuming.

[DoninJoisey]

Lucky you're in a "big" state that matters...
to the Clintons..­.........;­-)

[hank48188]

Obama and Edwards can split 40% of the delegates that they deserve because of the votes received. hillary should get 55% of the delegates, that is what she received from the voters. Nobody FORCED Obama and Edwards to REMOVE THEIR NAMES FROM THE BALLOT, that was THEIR CHOICE.

[DemandTruth]

Yeah. Their choice because they CHOSE to play by the rules. Are we in Pakistan now? Are you seriously telling me that we should seat delegates from a state who ONLY had ONE name on the ballot? The voters are who matters. And THEY were not given the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. FLA is slightly different, because at least all the names were on the ballot. But then we have to consider turnout. How many people didn't vote because they were told their votes weren't going to be counted? IF this is still a Democracy, Democrats ought to respect the voters enough to allow them to vote for their candidate of choice. Not Hillary Clinton or nobody!

[ecotopian]

They played be the rules and removed their names. She didn't and now wants the delegates. If memory serves,all the candidates, including Hillary, agreed to the arrangement before any voting took place. It's only when she realized that she's losing that she wants to break the rules.

The Democrats should stick to the rules and not seat them. It would look far worse if they did.

[DasBoot]

hank: so what you are saying is: ha, we tricked you, get over it? Is that how it's supposed to work?

By the way, Hillary is lying. The other day in Texas she said that she only agreed not to campaign in MI and FL (depending on what the meaning of "agreed" is I suppose), while in a radio interview in NH she declared, "It's clear: This election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."

Is it really so hard to understand why so many good Democrats despise the Clintons?

[erikh]

The agreement was that the delegates would not count. The candidates were all supposed to take their name off the ballot. But Hillary "never got around to it" because she didn't think it would matter. Now she is claiming somehow that this is a legitimate election. If she is so concerned about Michigan's representation, why doesn't she agree to having a caucus later in the process. In that way Michigan's Democrats could be represnted by the delegates and no rules would be broken. Oh, that's right, she doesn't "do" caucuses. It's really pretty pathetic.

[spacealien]

I understand your fury. I live in Florida and we were told our votes would not count. Had we been told to come out to vote because the delegates would eventually be assigned, I think the outpouring would have been different. People seem to miss the point that we were specifically told OUR VOTES WOULD NOT COUNT...EVER.

Clinton also illegally campaigned in Florida.
She appeared here on Sunday before the tuesday election. That was not after the polls had closed. That is two days before they opened! (Polls had her winning of course she was going to come and do a victory lap)

The Clinton campaign claims that the senator from New York is abiding by the no-campaigning pledge because Sunday's two Florida events were technically closed to the public. But the stops were treated as major news events in this state where many Democrats have expressed anger over the absence of the party's presidential candidates during a period when Florida is overrun by Republican contenders.

The truth of the Clinton strategy was writ large in a memo from top strategist Howard Wolfson, who announced on the day of the campaign's DISMAL showing in South Carolina that, "Regardless of today's outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday. Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5."

If she were to get the nomination she is in for a surprise, she will NOT win the general...she will have made to many enemies beforehand.

[CindyV]

Hillary is still playing by the rules. The rules set up by the democratic party---a private organization. All the candidates were on the ballot in Florida. None of the candidates campaigned there in person, although Obama ran commercials in violation of the agreement. The candidates did not have to take their names off the ballot in Michigan. They chose to do so to appease New Hampshire democrats unhappy that they might not be the first primary of the election season. boo hoo New Hampshire. Hillary chose to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan just in case the delegates would be seated. That's a smart move on her part. It's not underhanded. What is underhanded is the way the Obama supporters want to change the rules in the middle of the game. What's underhanded is all these people who are NOT members of the democratic party trying to influence the way the PRIVATE organization does it's business. Obama knew the rules going in. So did Hillary.

It's unlikely that Hillary will get enough delegates to win the nomination outright. But if she has the skill and knowledge to win by following the rules of the organization, then why shouldn't she? If Obama went to the convention with fewer delegates than he needed and used his skills to win, you'd say all kinds of wonderful things about his strategy. What a double standard. Chalk it up to one more Hillary Hating post on the Huff.

[grendl]

What about the will of the people?

You don't seem to factor that into your equation. You say if she plays by the rules, and has the wherewithall to sway these undemocratic votes her way, she should rightfully win the nomination.

Is that ethical, or in keeping with the spirit upon which this nation was founded. No, technically you're right. She's playing by the rules as were established nearly thirty years ago in some smoke filled room, by party elders, something the public ( who do actually vote for these candidates ) were not privvy to.

We've gone through eight years of men looking for loopholes in the system, well Hillary has certainly found one in the superdelegates. That doesn't make it right. And we need a leader who has our support, and our will in mind.

[MIHOP]

Excuse me, but Hillary is the one trying to change the rules.

Howard Dean made the ruling that FLA and MI would not be allowed to seat delegates if they persisted in holding their primaries outside the approved schedule format. Howard Dean. As Party Chairman, he runs the party apparatus. That is the system. Those are the rules.

Hillary did not object to Dean's decision. She has only chosen now to ignore it and pretend it's irrelevant.

Now that we've established that, contrary to your claim, Hillary is in fact the one NOT playing by the rules, what is your defense?

Thought so.

[grendl]

I suppose mentioning the will of the people can be construed as abusive.

But I'll mention it again, for posterity.

Where does the will of the people fit into yours or Hillary's equation, in this calculated effort to wrest the nomination from Mr. Obama's hands.

Technically you're right, she's playing within the rules of a game established in a smoke filled room nearly thirty years ago by party insiders. She can overturn the will of the electorate by swinging a percent of the 796 superdelegates votes her way, but is that in keeping with the tenets this democracy was founded upon. Would our forefathers approve?

Or don't you care?

George Bush and Co. have managed to find loopholes the last eight years in our democracy, beginning with the Supreme courts help in pilfering the election. Do we want that sort of mindset to continue?

[kingshmoopy]

Again, Obama did NOT run commercials in FL in violation of the agreement to not campaign. He had national ads running at the time so they were all over the country, including FL. He was running a national campaign, hence the national ads.

Hillary claimed that her name still being on the ballot in MI was an administrative oversight on the part of her campaign. She said it wouldn't matter anyway because those votes would not count. Either this is true, and now she is reaching for the delegates because she is losing (which make her unethical and underhanded), or this was a calculated move on her part and she always planned to reach for these delegates if need be, knowing her name would be the only one on the ballt (which makes her a liar). No good either way.

[ebbtide]

I don't know if it is a million pieces moment, but it is clear to me that Bill and Hillary are having some kind of a real bad moment.

Especially Hillary and her crazy speeches about Obama, attacking not only him, but the gaddam people who attend his rallies and listen to his speeches.

Sheesh. She and he, are indeed having a "moment" it is a moment of sheer craziness. Neither of them is showing any sense at all,

[GH]

Actually they, the Clinton's, are acting like themselves. Instead of protecting them as they have for over 15 years gone by, the media, which for a long time has wanted Obama (and the rest of the media which has fallen head over heals over him - more recently), the media simply finds itself in the position of not only not censoring all bad news that comes out about the Clinton's, it's actually willingly reported on a few.

[Querent]

Hillary knows she's going to lose. She's going through the stages of grief in public. This is denial.

[NABNYC]

At the end of the CNN debate the news people kept saying how conciliatory Hillary was, that when she said don't worry about the superdelegates, they thought she meant she wouldn't try to steal the election.

But I read it differently. First, Hillary's new theme has been "No matter which Democrat gets the nomination, we all must agree to be unified." Sounds to me like a warning, not a concession. As for the Superdelegates, yes, I think if the Clintons can bribe enough of them they will steal the election.

The problem I have is that both Obama and Clinton are bribing the superdelegates. Apparently the entire system was set up to allow party insiders to collect a heap of bribes in exchange for their votes (or their 10,000 votes, more like it).

So if both sides are bribing delegates, where do we go from here?

[vcthree]

If the DNC were worth it's salt, next year they would ratify rules to at least bring to a close the proportional delegate system that allows for this type of gerrymandering to occur by the candidates. The fact that this could come down to "superdelegates" who have been actively bribed by both candidates can't be a good thing for the public interest.

[mthespian]

I don't classify giving money from your campaign warchest to other like-minded lawmakers in an attempt to get them elected as bribery.

Since people like to throw around the numbers from the 2006 election cycle, you might noticed that Senator Obama gave over $4,000 to the junior senator from New York's re-election bid. Does that sound like he was trying to pay off super-delegates to vote for him over her?

Only in a party as confused as this one has become during this primary would trying to help elect other Democrats be considered a negative.

[lisakaz]

Awesome post. I'm not sure what the direct or indirect relationship is between the Clinton ppl and the website. Could you clarify?

All of this has been attributed to the campaign before. I cannot understand how HRC would expect to win a general election if this represents their views on gaining the nomination. Wouldn't all but the most ardent of supporters for her show up? Given the anti-Clinton folks and pro-McCain as well as pro-Nader folks, how does she expect to win?

[vcthree]

I looked it up on a whois search, and the administrative contact is, specifically, Hillary Clinton for President. Even at the bottom of the page it reads, "Paid for by Hillary for President". So the direct relationship is that the campaign is paying for this subterfuge.

[KPinSEA]

We don't know which way the popular vote and delegate count will come out when it's all said and done in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

But everyone I've spoken to, whether they support Obama or Clinton, has agreed that the superdelegates arriving at a different result than the voters would be an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.

[DoninJoisey]

Well, Pennsylvania is a "closed" primary - if you're an independent, you can't vote in the democratic primary. The Clinton strength is in party hacks, while Obama draws independents (like me).
NJ allowed me to vote by changing from "Uncommitted" to "Democrat" for the primary, but if I had been "independent" - which I and something like 38% of the people are now, I could not have changed.
Texas is "open", so Obama has a good shot, Pennsylvania will be Clinton (as was NY & NJ)

[messy]

Pennsylvania is over a month after Texas and Ohio.

Obama is way ahead in Missisisisppi and Wyoming, which are a week after TExas and ohio.

If the polls are anywhere near accurate, Obama will be something ike 250 delegates ahead on wednesday, and Hillary cannot win at this point.

Jesse Jackson went all the way to the convention in 1988, and looked like a stubborn fool, demanding all sorts of shit because he came in second. If Hillary acts like Jackson did, then there will be chaos.

[Ides]

Obama won Democrats in Wisconsin.

[MIHOP]

Hillary needs something like two-thirds of the vote from here on out in order to win. Thus far, only Obama has had victories so tilted as to have 65-75% of the vote. In large states such as TX, OH and PA, this is virtually UNDOABLE.

I have no problem with her continuing to run, but this all-out effort to destroy the person who is undoubtedly going to be the party's nominee is incredibly selfish and destructive.

I have always been a huge Clinton booster. No more. No more.

After her votes on the War, her flag-burning ban efforts, her utter refusal to speak out against the war until 70% of Americans voiced disapproval...and now this destrucive, selfish campaign...

No more, no more.

[OtayPanky]

Dear Hillary -

First, let me say what an outstanding job you are doing. Your performances this weekend were AMAZING!

I especially liked the one where you talked about the heavenly choirs looking down upon you. Inspiring, to say the least!

Now, I'm not a professional politician like you and your crack team of experts - but even so I want to urge you to ignore this pantywaist bloogster Clay Shirky (rhymes with JERKY).

Your DELEGATEHUB web site is informational AND inspirational - just like you. You have every RIGHT - indeed you have a sacred RESPONSIBILITY - to ignore the popular vote and the regular delegate count so that Thy Will Be Done.

Most people - especially in those stupid, small states that Obama loves to eat - are just too stupid to understand politics, economics, geography or history. They just want to play Tiddlywinks 3.0 and sip on their lattays, and listen to speeches.

The hell with them..REALLY.

Keep reaching out PAST those stupid people so you can do a meaningful "meet and greet" of the real workers who make this a great country. If you need some inspiration for that kind of "hands on" campaigning across the highways and byways of America, can I recommend the recent movie of Borat Sagdayev's journey across the US and A.

I loved that scene where he first got a hotel room in an American Hotel. He was so taken by his greatness that all he could do was repeat, "KING OF THE CASTLE, KING OF THE CASTLE" - like a mantra - over and over again.

Of course, with you being of the gender you are (no offense), your mantra would be, "QUEEN OF THE CASTLE", rather than KING.

But that's OK. America is ready for her Queen. So keep up the great work on DelegateHub, Your Majesty - and those great Obama impressions, too. And by all means go on Saturday Night Live.

You can do it, Hillary. Yes you can!!!

Sincerely,

Your Friend OTAYPANKY

[Phideaux]

Dear OTAYPANKY: Thank you for your kind words. If only there were a few million others like you who understand that I was born to be Queen of the World, my life would be so much easier.

But alas, there isn't. Thus, I must continue to browbeat and berate everyone around me and do my utmost to make that O-BAM-A Bubba look bad by using dirty, underhanded tricks that would make Nixon blush. But as you obviously understand... when it comes to politix, the end trumps the means every time.

Now, I realize the majority of people don't really want me as president, but that will all blow over after I'm installed by the Supremes (and you thought the Repugs were the only ones who could play 3 card Monty with the votes, ha!). My consultants tell me that by my second year as Queen, I'll enjoy the accolades and adoration of my subjects that I so desire.

OTAYPANKY it looks like you certainly understand what a future Queen needs; do you want to join party? Please call my number one and let them know I want you as an operative.

Your friend and future Monarch,
Hillary

[DoninJoisey]

You two are great! Thank you. Beautiful.

[MIHOP]

LOL!!!

[grendl]

The candidates need to state for the record right now their intentions with regard to the issue of superdelegates.

Of course its a taboo subject, as both desperately need those disproportionate votes in Colorado. But the time to show some integrity, by rejecting out of hand this undemocratic system of candidate selection.

These people need to be asked, to state for their record exactly what their position is on superdelegates. If they think its fair that some 22 year old Harry Potter looking kid is being courted by ex-presidents and their daughters personally.

I have yet to hear from the know it alls and scholars on the Huffington post why Hillary Clintons vote should carry more weight than mine. And don't say it doesn't.

They talk about change, well its time to change this antiquated relic of an electoral system. And no softball questions in the next debate that they can simply dodge with tired rhetoric.

Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, the question is this. Why should your vote count more than Mr. grendls.

The Mr. will be optional.

[Querent]

Well, for one thing, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are members of the party who are also US Senators. I think that makes it perfectly appropriate that they should have more say in what the party does than you.

[grendl]

Howso?


I'm an American citizen. This country was established for "We the People", and never in the Constitution is it stipulated a distinction be made between politicians, power brokers, or the elite and the average American citizen.

So Hillary should wield the right to overturn your vote is what you're saying.

Your answer was not satisfactory, nor informed.

D minus

[najablah]

According to the Clinton campaign, the only voters that matter are the ones that voted for Clinton. Unless Clinton lost the state, then those voters who did vote for Clinton can be dismissed as well because the state's primary/caucus doesn't count for some arbitrary reason.

[clevelandchick]

And isn't that exactly what we've had the last 7 years in Bush? A president who didn't give a crap what half the country thought, a president that only acted on behalf of his fans?

[DoninJoisey]

And one who keeps saying Iraq was the right thing to do...
I don't despise Hillary as I do Bush, but her tactics of imitating his campaigns are troubling, to say the least.

[jsarets]

At least Oprah could pick up the "million little pieces" of her reputation and keep on doing her show and building her "brand that is me". By coming to terms with her unprincipled and self-contradictory delegate math, Hillary Clinton would effectively resign her presidential ambitions, forcing her to reconcile them with a career trajectory that doesn't involve her sitting in the Oval Office by this time next year.

In other words, to heal her reputation, she has to surrender her lifelong goal. It's what she ultimately has to do, but I can imagine it being very difficult for her to come to this realization of finality. Bill must have already had "the talk" with her. After March 4, she's either riding an extremely improbable wave of momentum, or she's done.

[richardsgirl]

"...to heal her reputation, she has to surrender her lifelong goal."

I agree that this must be very difficult for her, but what good is it if she realizes her lifelong goal, and squanders in reputation in the process. Hillary has made an absolute mess of her campaign and is heading toward making an absolute mess of this election and of the Democratic Party.