|
||
Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy
It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?
And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?
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
unwithwarcrimes.com says -- I'd love it if the election was a little more settled. Then we could get back to focusing on a war crimes trial for Bush Administration.
Many superdelegates want to wait until the last two elections tomorrow are over before announcing their support for Obama.
However - Hillary's claims have failed to convince superdelegates and she knows it, so she will probably announce an end to her campaign tomorrow night in NYC, pledge full support for Obama and ask her supporters and donors to do the same.
Hillary can do this - she continued her fight until she ran out of options and now, will drop the theatrics that have characterized her campaign.
She was out maneuvered, out foxed and out campaigned. Let's hope her supporters are willing to forgive, forget and subscribe to the Vision for Change Obama offers.
Hil liary is now demanding that all the votes she received when she ran for high school class president and all the votes that her good friend Benazir Bhutto would have received be countered on her behalf.
Stay tuned, as the Clinton campaign is also looking into possibly including Bill's totals under the theory that their martial status gives her a half of all his votes.
By the way, it has been confirmed that Terry McAuliff will be named to the Clinton cabinet to head up a new office in charge of converting the electoral counting system to the metric system. This will ensure that no matter how things add up, Hil Liary will always win.
Political guy -- you are funny.
Hillary (and Bill) have certainly lifted the veils off this old Democrat's eyes. Things they are saying make them sound like mad people--guess that what facing defeat does to you when you are no longer capable of human feelings or rational thought because you've become nothing but a political animal. To think there was a time I would have supported Hillary without question. No longer. She and Bill show no class at all.
When it was still Obama, Edwards and Clinton in the race, I signed up on all three websites, to see what they had to say, rather than to hear what the media said they had to say. I got e-mails from Edwards and Obama all the time, along with requests for donations to their campaigns. I think I got two e-mails from Clinton. Someone ran a piss-poor campaign. Oh! I forgot! My ex-husband, from whom I have been divorced for 19 years, who has never lived in this house and is a Republican, got mail from Hillary at this address. WTF? Somebody needs to buy a new mailing list.
Where were you all in 2000? I'm no Clinton fan but these are all cheep shots at the end of the race. Obama is you choice, support him but get to the general election. Both D & R ran lame races. But remember you allowed Bush to take office which brings us to today.
By you I assume you me us. In my opinion, W was court apointed the first time, and computer generated the second.
That hasn't been my experience - email came in from Richardson's, Edwards, Clinton's, Obama's and Kucinich's (I'm a Clevelander) campaigns.
The problem was getting answers to concrete questions, and the only relevant responses received were from the Edwards and Kucinich staffs.
When it was still Obama, Edwards and Clinton in the race, I signed up on all three websites, to see what they had to say, rather than to hear what the media said they had to say. I got e-mails from Edwards and Obama all the time, along with requests for donations to their campaigns. I think I got two e-mails from Clinton. Someone ran a piss-poor campaign.
Keep shouting this from the rooftops Sutherland. Hillary is attempting to marginalize Obama's win by using fuzzy math. The facts are that Obama won the most states, the most popular votes, and the most delegates. Period. End of sentence.
Mr. Sutherland, I was reading along, nodding, until this line:
"anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?"
I'm sorry--what? DId you just call a sitting US Senator, and recipient of the second highest number of votes in Democratic history--"a terrible trifle", one is is "pathetically mad"? You're kidding, right?
I agree she can't win and her campaign needs to end--but--holy smokes, that sounds way too much like "who will rid me of this meddling priest?"
Not to mention it's horrofically sexist. I'm trying to imagine you calling Obama, McCain, or Guiliani or Edwards--"terrible trifles", pathetically mad ones to boot.
Way to reconcile the party, sir.
Don't you remember the part in "buffy the vampire slayer" in which Southerland aproaches Sarah Michelle Gellar at cheerleader practice to tell her that she is the new Slayer? She takes one look and says"Back off Matlock.". I found this profoundly ageist. But it's ok because she's young, cute and female, right? I respectfully submit that your time would be better spent protesting the antics of Jack Bower and his real life counterparts.
Don't you remember in "buffy the vampire slayer" when Southerland approaches Sarah Michelle Gellar at cheerleader practice to explain that she is the new slayer? She takes one look and says "Back off Matlock.". I found this profoundly ageist. But it's ok because she's young ,cute and female, right? With all due respect, I think your time would be better spent protesting the antics of Jack Bower@24 and his real life cohorts.
Thanks for this well-written article! Great to see you in the blogosphere Mr. Sutherland - I too am completely baffled. Is there a silent majority out there of Democrats who know how to count? Even the likes of Chris Matthews and Diane Rehm have been promoting this nonsense. Enough is Enough!
Looking forward to your next article...
The race is almost over and the Clinton campaign still hasn't realized that it's these type of shenanigans that have turned people off to her in the first place. She did best when she stuck to her message of helping working class voters and health care WITHOUT the ridiculous attacks and unsubstantiated facts. WHO'S RUNNING HER CAMPAIGN!?!?
"WHO'S RUNNING HER CAMPAIGN!?!?"
Terry McAuliffe, of course! “it is now clear that Hillary Clinton has gotten more candidates more than any person ever running for president.”
Better lay off the rum before an interview, eh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-strategist-terry_n_104680.html
The DP's Primary Elections and Caucuses for their presidential candidate are carried out at the state and territorial level (Democrats Abroad counts as a state), with a proportional number of delegates going to each candidate. A majority of those delegates plus the superdelegates choose the candidate.
HRC can try to persuade them that the results of the Primary Elections signify something or other but the fact of the matter is, the flow is not going nor is it likely to go her way. Fair or not, these are the determining factors and the Clintons knows it - that's why they're already laying off staff; and that's why HC for President staff members are hoping to join the Obama Campaign.
Those that want more of the same, can support John McCain. And those looking for a more substantial and nutritious political meal will support the DP's winning candidate, as Hillary herself soon will do.
"punditocracy of CNN and Fox"...that is so strange to see in writing that I still find it hard to believe, even though I've noticed their seemingly coincidental pro-Hillary stances myself.
Enough so, in fact, that I have begun to wonder if perhaps MSNBC's success is causing the two networks to merge their opinions together as a prelude to merging their financial futures?
Sutherland's description of the situation is accurate. Fortunately, the superdelegates are neither as ignorant, gullible nor manipulable as "the punditocracy of CNN and Fox".
Sen Clinton is happy to throw anyone under the bus as long as it fits her math, isn't this similar to Karl Rove's " I have the math"? Please keep writing, it waswonderful!
Bravo Donald Sutherland! The Clinton definition of votes that need to be counted are those that voted for Clinton - all those others are obvously not important for her or her campaign.
Obama should reach the 2118 threshold tomorrow and then Mrs. Clinton should go away - hopefully with more grace than she shown in her campaign.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
