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?

Comments

[closetodemfection]

Sorry about my typo, I meant "posting".­.. a bit embarrassing given the alternate meaning.

It was not intended :)

[closetodemfection]

Mr. Sutherland, a pleasure to see you posing here.

I ask you, what is the point of the Supers save their duty to pick the most electable candidate in the event that neither candidate can reach the majority of pledged delegates?

The popular vote would be meaningless IF Senator Obama had a clear margin of victory and claimed the nomination early on. Then again, if that had happened, we wouldn't be where we are.

If the shoe was on the other foot I have little doubt you'd be arguing differently. If Clinton was in the lead in delegates by a small margin and Senator Obama had a lead in the popular vote there would be long-winded articles about "the will of the people" and such and such.

As far as the caucus votes, we all know that they gave an inflated advantage in delegates to Senator Obama (2.9% of the total popular vote have accounted for 14% of the pledged delegates - in other words, Obama's whole delegate lead). But the rules are the rules and he ran a smart campaign.

The Supers should pick the most electable candidate after weighing all the information, including the popular vote. If they choose Obama then I will respect their choice.

But arguing the popular vote is meaningless rings a bit hollow. In an election this close, of course it has meaning.

[zeitgeist79]

You are absolutely wrong, actually. The popular vote has no merit in this instance. There is a reason why we have delegates in the first place and do not choose our nominee based on popular vote. If not, candidates would only focus on the big states and ignore the small states altogether. (hmmm... come to think of it, wasn't that Clinton's strategy from the outset? No wonder.)

But, if you think popular vote totals matter so much, you should know that Obama is winning in that metric as well. The only way Clinton is winning in popular vote is if you only give her MI votes (ie- give no MI votes to Obama). The Clinton campaign are the only ones who think that would be a fair thing to do.

The fact is, the superdelegates are not actually designed to decide who is the most electable of the candidates, they are supposed to prevent the party from nominating someone who is deemed unelectable. Arguably, the most electable person of the three main candidates in this primary was John Edwards. By your definition of their duties, all 800 should have come out for him at the beginning. Whether Clinton or Obama is more electable than the other is irrelevant. Even Clinton concedes that she believes Obama is electable. Unless something were to happen that would prove Obama unelectable, the superdelegates would be foolish to overturn the will of the people. That would make all Democrats unelectable.

[barriosbabe]

Nice!

[eastutican]

Sort of like cowbells to Christopher Walken, I cant get enough of Donald Sutherland.

Thanks for a little light where there is too much spin.

[DrMHW]

Remember that Hillary initially voted to "disenfranchise" MI and FL and, now that those states might help her win, she argues that they must be included.

What can women today learn from Hillary? To do battle with honor? To take your losses with dignity? Or, to fight like a roller derby queen, breaking every rule in the book, until you win the game. The game will be yours, but no one will ever play with you again.

I didn't really know much about the Clintons during Bill's presidency. But now I see how disgraceful they are. Cheaters, liars and crooks, just like Bush. Thank you Mr. Sutherland.

[AwakeinOregon]

Yes, Thank you Donald and also thank you DrMHW~

I couldn't agree more. To now hear those touting her as having run an "excellent" campaign are sadly not helping women any more than she has. The fact is, that with all her experience, she has had a poor and "old" campaign strategy from the start. She completely miscalculated her opponents, her funding and her premise that she was going to win. She had no backup strategies in place. The worst case scenario has been watching her realize that she is actually not capable of winning and then have to witness her turn into a whinny, poor me, I'm a victim candidate. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that happening. As you said I too didn't know much about them. I now more than I want to.

[TimeJumper]

After hearing about the Clinton’s call to apportion some of the 40 undecided delegates from the Michigan primary to her, I seriously believe that the definition of democracy is not in her dictionary. Now Team Clinton, in regard to Michigan, is arguing that no one told the candidates to remove their names from the ballot and that it is Obama’s loss that he did not participate in that primary. Is this not “Soviet Style Democracy” where only name is on the ballot, where oppositional candidates are eliminated, where election rules and standards are changed almost daily?

Senator Clinton, PLEASE STEP ASIDE! You are doing your constituency, your party, your country and the American people a great disservice by reducing your stature to that of a seven year who will do anything just to win. For you, it is well past the time to place the needs of this great country before your own personal ambitions.

[BigDan]

Nice writing, Mr. Sutherland!

[JimReed]

Don't let it bother you. Obama needs to run against the Republicans. There is nothing more to gain from fighting this battle.

[2351]

One thing that angers me is that she had all of these supporters go to the rules committee gathering crying and carrying on. When I saw this woman just crying and basically distraught, I just wondered to myself how selfish Hillary had been to set up all of this anger with people, making those people think that she had a chance of winning when she knew that she did not. These are the people that we have to be concerned about. Those people who believe what a person says without checking information for themselves. I am just disappointed with Hillary creating all of this drama. This is sad and I hope with all of my heart that Hillary is not selected as a vp candidate.

[kohoutek]

Exactly. Her supporters' outrage is being cynically nurtured by Clinton as she tries to manufacture controversy where none exists.

This is how Clinton is dividing the party, by making all her supporters feel that somehow they've been victimized along with Hillary. When nothing could be further from the truth.

But it is only by manufactured outrage that Clinton has any hope of convincing SDS to ignore the pledged delegate leader. And so she carries on burning bridges and turning Dems against each other.

I'm at a loss to explain who she thinks would be left to rally around her should these tactics work.

[Geauterre]

Mr. Sutherland's commentary is nothing short than excellent. It underscores what Hillary Clinton is, as opposed to what she pretends to be, and what she offers if given half a chance. Of them all, only Barack Obama can be trusted to do what he says he can -- and will -- do.

However, there's more. His insight into the character of the Clintons, reveals something ugly, and small, malicious and disengenuous. His grasp of 'Hillary Clinton' is a splendid trip down mayhem alley, where if there is a trash can even out of sight, it is handily upended.

[ckfan]

FINALLY. Someone put into writing what I have been screaming at the TV about for the past few weeks. When I hear her say she won the popular vote, my stomach turns. In December, she didn't care about disenfranchising the Michigan and Florida voters, in January she didn't care, in February she didn't care, in March, she didn't care. .. oh, wait, she realized in April that she was mathematically eliminated. So, NOW she cares about disenfranchising voters.

And now, she has blindly loyal followers chanting they will vote for McCain over Obama, their own party nominee. Gee, where have her followers heard that before??? Oh wait, she said it in March. She said SHE was ready on day one and MCCAIN was ready on day one.

She is acting like a selfish, spoiled brat. And no, that's not sexist, because brats come in in all sizes, shapes, and colors. The DNC and party leaders should be ashamed of themselves for not standing up and shutting her campaign down.

A vote for the Democrats in November will save soldier's lives. Why in the world would Clinton supporters who love this country not do that???? If Dems lose because of Clinton's supporters, then our soldier's BLOOD will be on their hands, too.

[Manchurian]

Not just the blood of our soldiers, but the blood of the Iraqi men, women and children who have been slaughtered (or disabled for life) because of the horrific, immoral invasion of a country that did nothing to us.

There may be a small, vocal, "hard-core" group of Clinton supporters who are backing her for reasons other than what is best for our country, but I think we can safely predict that the vast majority of Democrats and independents (and even many Republicans) will do what is right and vote not out of spite, but out of hope.

[olenska]

Thank you for articulating our sentiments, Mr. Sutherland. Our great fear is that Senator Clinton's ambition indeed knows no bounds, and that she will not take no for an answer under any circumstances. The nation simply cannot bear to lose another savior to the crimes of the perpetual war machine.

[nancytheragingliberal]

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed your wording and I could not have said it better. This woman has gone over the edge, what with her shifting math, goalposts, lies, and outrageous comments about Obama. She needs to exit stage left or right....H­er choice. I have not seen one iota of graciousness or class from this person or people around her. The Dems need to take control this this country because four years of McNut will complete the devatation of the W. 8 years. Twelve years of repub. rule will destroy the country. As you can see, we are well on our way now. W.'s war for oil, based on his pack of lies, killed, maimed, displaced millions of people, and bankrupted the country. Way to go moron.

[oncethere]

"Not one iota of graciousness and class." That says it all, sums it up. Thanks to Nancy for coming up with those words and that characterization of Hillary. I could never pinpoint what exactly it was about Hil that rubbed me the wrong way, like chalk on a chalkboard.

[Breni]

Whatever! Hillary will get the last laugh, though, when her supporters propel John McCain to the presidency.

[ckfan]

Yeah, but it will be at the expense of the Country and the lives of soldiers. That's nothing to laugh about.

[Daly]

if that were to happen instead of laughing Hillary will have solidified her legacy and will be mentioned with the likes of Imelda Marcos.

Hillary has done us a favor in shining a light on her team of enablers many of them will pay. Sad to say she alone has manage to bring about the displacement of many women office holders.

Starting with tubbs, jackson-lee both of whom had few in their base supporting clinton.

[Desdemondo]

Wishful thinking.

Sen. Mc Same-Bush will win the presidency just about the same time pigs and Hillary fly.

[midwestvoter]

Yes, a never ending war in Iraq, war in Iran, gas beyond the grasp of the majority of Americans and at least 2 more LIFEtime appointments to the Supreme Court who McCain promises will be in the vein of Scalito and Roberts to insure our daughters and their daughters will have absolutely no rights to their own bodies. Laughing so hard my ribs hurt...or is it my heart?

[Keith52]

The DNC and RBC (RBL?) are enabling HRC supporters to act like rabid animals. They are enabling HRC to distract us from beating McBush. And HRC is exposing herself as the kind of politician that will twist and parse any argument and so torture logic that she now resembles what has been described in every book written by every ex Bush administration official. She can no longer be trusted to tell the truth or deliver on a promise. Her campaign is bankrupt. She has demonstrated her disastrous judge of character and emphasis on loyalty over actual qualifications regarding campaign staff. In short she is fighting a battle she can't win with money she does not have and with a staff that is incompetent. Does any of this sound familiar to anyone?

[Daly]

Oh Keith52 - Hole in one. Perfectly stated.

[TripleDeuce]

Hillary is running for 2012, but for the sake of facts...

Obama will be the nominee. Hillary will not. So why continue to fight? Should Hillary get the nomination she would now lose to McCain. She knows that.

HOWEVER there is 2012! Hillary can take (she thinks) ADVANTAGE of an Obama LOSS in 2008. She is trying hard to see that if she can't be the candidate, then she's going to see that anyone else loses to that dolt McCain.

REMEMBER, presidents nearly always run for re-election. So if she waits for EIGHT MORE YEARS, she knows that no party has had two consecutive EIGHT-YEAR terms in the White House.

The Clinton plan: McCain in 2008. Hillary in 1012 and 2016

There are three parties: Republican, Democrat and Clinton. The least selfish of these is the Democratic Party.

[AmbroseChapel]

She would really have to do some major damage control. I don't see it. She's burned some bridges. The Clinton legacy has taken a big hit and it's no ones fault but there own. If I were HRC I would write a book, get all that money back, and run for governor. The executive branch is closed to the Clintons..­. too many mistakes.

[Daly]

perhaps 2012 is her goal; but Obama could return for 2012 too ... clearly any losses this round have Clinton’s fingerprints all over it.

Pundits will not be kind to her, women will find their voice with the realization of the loss of seats and power not to mention the impact of McCain.

Hill – lacked courage, her time passed by 4 years ago; why did she wait? She blew it

[BeingFrank]

Does anyone know of any Democrats that ran twice in the last 50 years besides Biden ?

Democrats have one shot, and Hillary knows this.
We don't give 2nd chances to losers.

Unfortunately many of her supporters, as usual, are blissfully ignorant of the truth, so instead of facing the reality that Hillary will soon be discarded into that dusty barrel of the 'also ran',… they comfort themselves with this pacifying theory of the 2nd coming of the wronged benevolent angel with her golden sword of righteousness , $28 gas cards, and the right apparatus below her navel.

I wish we could give them peep hole back stage access, to see Hillary during one of her many costume changes practicing her lines and accents between her bites of cucumber sandwiches and earl grey tea, and swearing under her breath about the uncouth cities and people she has been reduced to playing for, at least until her bank account has been replenished and her retirement secure.