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

[AdobePhsyko]

Well Put Donald
Looking forward to second season of Dirty Sexy Money

[GeorgiaOrwell]

Great concise analysis, Donald. The questions you raise are relevant and reflect the anger and frustration so many feel towards the Clintons and Hillary's candidacy, which has become irrational and venal for some time. Everything Hillary has done in the Senate was just a lead-up to this campaign - I don't see Hillary as anything more than a political opportunist and egotist. So many women are just looking at the glass ceiling they envisioned her breaking, but they fail to see her shortcomings in the broader picture as many of her positions are more in line with McBush.

Btw, I loved your acting in Commander-in-Chief with Geena Davis - loved the show and was so sad when it wasn't renewed. Thank you for posting your sensible thoughts - I'm a big fan.

[jeanrenoir]

Thanks, Mr. Sutherland, for telling it like it is. Except for W himself, the Clintons are the most shameless, dishonest, cynical, and swinish politicians since Nixon himself.

[thatvisionthing]

Best thing about this blog is I can HEAR Donald Sutherland saying it. Brings me a smile. Love ya

[aht772e]

if one were to accept that at least 75% of the people who voted uncommitted in the michigan primary were casting votes for Obama (not an unreasonable assumption considering that he wasn't on the ballot there) then there are ABSOLUTELY NO fantastical arguments that could be used to even suggest that HRC had won the popular vote.

Anyone who would dispute that of the 41% of the people who voted in michigan, who bothered to go out to vote for ANYONE BUT CLINTON, that at least 75% of them would vote for Obama would be just plain blind to the truth. ANy other method for calculating popular votes ALways ends with Obama on top, unless you count the 328,000 votes hillary got , and ignore the 238,000 uncommitted got, THUS DISENFRANCHISING THE "UNCOMMITTED" VOTERS! Seriously, they went to the polls, and voted for no one, rather than hillary, who do you think they are/were supporting?

[Sctt859]

if Donald Sutherland is good enough to vote for obama than i think its clear we should all vote for obama!

Obama/Sutherland 08!

[GiannaX]

Mr. Sutherland,

I love your acting AND your blog.
You nailed it!

Thanks.

[LawrenceL]

Mr. Sutherland,

While I greatly admire and enjoy your acting, and while I am disappointed generally speaking of Hillary's campaign, I don't know if Mr. Obama is tough-enough to repel the slime the GOP smear machine will surely fling his way.

Say what you will about Hillary, but when/if Mr. Obama gets the nomination, and if he is defeated by McCain because he cannot effectively counterattack with conviction, how will you feel then?

I think Mr. Obama is a person of good intentions. But he's a first term Senator, he can't point to a long record of doing much of anything (other than his personal achievement and education), and I don't find much passion in his speeches. Like Bush, I "tune him out" when he is speaking. In Bush's case, it is because he is completely dishonest. In Mr. Obama's case, it is because he does not command my attention.

I'll vote for Mr. Obama. To turn a phrase, "ABM" - Anybody But McCain, but there's no question that Hillary supports a woman's right to choice. And Hillary's health plan was to cover all Americans, unlike Mr. Obama's voluntary plan.

So, instead of demonizing Mrs. Clinton, please reconsider how you feel.

Finally, NOBODY runs for President because they lack ambition. If you think Mr. Obama is completely selfless, I have to wonder how many other people you have met with that attribute? No one? That's what I thought.

[JimR]

" I don't know if Mr. Obama is tough-enough to repel... the GOP smear machine"

Clinton's sleazy campaign tactics have prepared him well for that. The Obama campaign has responded quickly and effectively to all of her charges. What he has not done is gotten down in the mud and played her nasty game, which is what you seem to be looking for.

"he can't point to a long record of doing much of anything"

He has an 11-year record as a state and U.S. Senator, compared to Clinton's 7. She is an extremely competent person with good skills, but I don't consider being married to a public official for 22 years as experience.

"Hillary's health plan was to cover all Americans"

They both have plans. Big whoop. The question is, who will be better able to work with Congress to get that plan passed? We all know what happened when she tried to force her plan on Congress the last time. She alienated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and it energized the GOP, which went on to take full control of Congress for the first time in 30 years.

"NOBODY runs for President because they lack ambition."

There is ambition, then there is venal, all-consuming blind ambition for which a person will do or say or sacrifice anything. That's what we've seen from Senator Clinton. It is offensive and frightening, and I don't want a person like that in the White House.

[LawrenceL]

"What he has not done is gotten down in the mud and played her nasty game, which is what you seem to be looking for. "

I'm disappointed that, given that I have already said I would vote for Mr. Obama, rather than discussing this maturely, you have chosen to impugn my motives and misrepresent my words.

What's next?: That Hillary's supporters are sexists, because they might rather see a woman in the White House than a man?

[LawrenceL]

"when she tried to force her plan on Congress the last time. She alienated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, and it energized the GOP, which went on to take full control of Congress for the first time in 30 years."

I'm sorry, but this is your interpretaion of the reason the GOP took control of Congress. And you blame it all on Hillary?

Hillary's 1st attempt at a heath care plan failed because she tried to describe the complexity of the existing mess. And it is easy to ridicule complexity, even in systems that are in fact complex, particularly by people who either have bad intentions (the GOP) or who simply can't understand why there *is* any complexity.

[Bettysdad]

Guess since NARAL endorsed Obama he doesn't support choice. And since EVERY abortion rights group has given him a 100% on his voting record, he must be anti-choice. Keep in mind Mrs. Bill Clinton has repeatedly said she wants abortion to remain "safe, legal and rare." That instantly stigmatizes it, and gives comfort to the antis that she might "triangulate" on the issue.

I suspect that Obama has been pulling his punches during this primary so as not appear to be Like Mrs. Bill Clinton. When the time comes, especially against an idiot like McCain, the knife will come out, and there will be blood. I'm not the least concerned.

[LawrenceL]

"Guess since NARAL endorsed Obama he doesn't support choice."
But I didn't say that. This is a Reductio Ad Absurdum statement...of yours.


"And since EVERY abortion rights group has given him a 100% on his voting record, he must be anti-choice."
But I didn't say that. This is another Reductio Ad Absurdum statement...of yours.


'Keep in mind Mrs. Bill Clinton has repeatedly said she wants abortion to remain "safe, legal and rare." That instantly stigmatizes it, and gives comfort to the antis that she might "triangulate" on the issue.'
According to YOU, that stigmatizes it. If you want to discuss something meaningful, let's talk about this: I suspect people will *always* be ambivalent about abortion, because it is not exactly a leisure-time activity, is it?

[LawrenceL]

"When the time comes, especially against an idiot like McCain, the knife will come out, and there will be blood."

I thought one of the pluses for Mr. Obama was that he was going to get us past the politics of hate, and in doing so, be able to build coalitions with Republicans. If he starts acting (like Hillary) toward McCain, you think Republicans are going to forget that?

Calling her Mrs. Bill Clinton merely reveals that you hate her, at least in part, because of whom she married. Remember how YOU felt when the GOP jumped on Michelle Obama as a proxy to attacking her husband, when Mrs. Obama said, "For the first time in her adult life, she's proud of America." Pissed you off, didn't it? Was an unfair thing for them to say, wasn't it?

Then don't make the same crude second-hand attack on some one else by proxy (their spouse).

[aht772e]

when has hillary EVER fought off the slime of a national republican attack? you mean when they destroyed her attempts at healthcare reform? Or, when they week by week humiliated her by revealing a different woman that bill had supposedly slept with?
She won the senate seat in perhaps the MOST democratic stae in the union besides massachusets, so exactly when has she beaten them. If what you mean is that she still has the guts to stand there and fight even after all that they have and wil do to her, then you are right, good for her, but please tell me when she won, because i haven't seen healthcare reform, I haven't seen an end to the war, or an attempt to prevent it. I haven't seen extremist judges prevented from taking over the supreme court. HOW EXACTLY HAS SHE "STOOD UP TO THEM"(when she voted for the war, or for Kyl-Lieberman, or cosponsored a flag burning amendment) , and WHEN, and what makes you think that attacks on her will be less effective than those on Obama?

[LawrenceL]

Friend, you knocked-yourself-out with *this* statement: "She won the senate seat in perhaps the MOST democratic state in the union besides massachusets."

I have lived and traveled extensively in NY State, from NYC to Buffalo to Whiteface Mountain to Vermont.

Once you get out of the NYC area, the state is mostly rural, conservative, and Republican. EXACTLY like where I currently live, "famously liberal" CALIFORNIA. Like Mr. Obama said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Check the (D) and (R) congressional representatives by county; you don't have to believe little-old-me. Believe your eyeballs.

Hillary won-over a significant percentage of the Republican voters in NY State because of her hard work on their behalf. Read any fair-minded analysis of her Senatorial election results, country-by-county.

And I didn't say, "attacks on her will be less effective than those on Obama" I said, I didn't know if Mr. Obama could stand-up as well to rightwing slime. See the difference?

It is interesting/disappointing that Obama supporters attack Mrs. Clinton with vituperation, when they claim they are championing the one person who is "above all that."

I SAID I was disappointed in Mrs. Clinton's campaign. I SAID I would vote for Mr. Obama. But that's not good enough, somehow. What exactly is wrong? Do you think you are the only high-minded people? Do you think politics will never be mean again, after Mr. Obama is elected? What?

[bobbuck]

Dear Lawrence,

The important difference between Obama and Clinton, when it comes to counterattacking is this...
Hillary is quite prepared to attack one of her own (Obama) and even praise the enemy (McCain).
Obama has been prepared to defend himself against Clinton and not retaliate, and attack McCain as has been the case on a regular basis for the last few weeks now since it was a certainty he would win the nomination.
Do you see the difference?
Obama puts the Democratic Party 1st.
Clinton attacks Obama to the extent of stating McCain would be a better President than Obama...
She puts her ambition ahead of anything and anyone.

[ckfan]

TOUGH ENOUGH??? I suggest you do some research on Obama and how he won campaigns in Illinois. I don't know about New York, but I do know Chicago. And SOUTHSIDE CHICAGO politics is as brutal as brutal can be.

The one thing the media and onlookers haven't figure out is . . . Obama is SMARTER and TOUGHER than Clinton.

YOU NEVER SEE OBAMA COMING. He doesn't tell you over and over again that he is strong and tough like Hillary does. There's no need for him to do that. He ran a tougher, smarter campaign than Hillary. She shouts how tough she is, then cries, then blames, then plays the victim. He's done none of that.

Tell me how a Black person, growing up poor with a white mother, not be tough? He's lived 46 years being called racist names, ridiculed because of his race and heritage and still grew up to be a smart, successful and thoughtful man - even after being being rejected by some of his family because of his race, rejected by Black people because he wasn't Black enough, rejected by society because he's bi-racial, rejected by students at Harvard because they thought of him as an affirmative action student and not a "real smart" person like them, etc.

The proof is in the pudding. He withstood Chicago politics, withstood Hillary.

What do you think he's going to do, break down and cry if anyone attacks him? Oh, wait, that was Hillary. . .

[creekside]

Thanks for a great post Mr. Sutherland.

Tomorrow is June first. We from that date on just ignore Hillary and her delusional tactics.

It is time to speak of the serious issues that face our once great country and make sure that we don't get 4 more years of misguided republican rule.

[shamrocker54]

Call it like you see it. Hillary plays politics as though she's on a debate team... winning is the only option. Undermining the opponent is the objective... playing dirty is acceptable. Pay attention people! We don't need a President with the most clever tactics to undermine an opponent... we need a decisive fair-minded LEADER whose sole objective is to make ALL OF US winners. Hillary is simply too self-serving and egotistical to gain the respect of other world leaders. She's proven to be a habitual liar which hardly serves OUR interests abroad. Hillary is out to make history for HERSELF, and at this point, she's become so obsessed with the idea that she's actually beginning to fray at the edges because she sees that dream slipping away. Enough of this! Obama is a LEADER... the other two are merely 'GAME PLAYERS' out for their own interests. McCain is a war hero... he should stop while he's ahead...lol

[starrianna]

It is OBAMA who is power-hungry. His campaign has spread half-truths, untruths, and bribes to prop up his candidacy even though -- had MI and FL been counted all along -- he would have been in 2nd place for many months now.

It is possible that with Obama we will have:
*** a "uniter, not a divider";
*** a nominee who can't manage to win the popular vote;
*** someone who is going to change and clean up Washington;

Obama is actually looking more and more like the new face of George W. Bush.

Oh yeah and they both went to Harvard, and are snobby elitists with billionaire friends,
and both are 100x more concerned with how they SOUND and LOOK
than with actually working hard. Bush goes to beddiebye every night at 9, and Obama
can't be bothered with taking a shower or picking up his dirty socks and clothes off
the floor. Nice!

[terragazelle60]

GW went to Yale.
Obama was raised in a small apartment by his grandparents and single mom. He had to work his way to were he is... What he is, he did. He pulled himself up... just when did all the Millionaires dissappear from the Clinton life? When is it elitist to make something of your life? Why can republicans who sucked on a silver spoon be thought of as a good ole boys...but someone that had to work his heart out, who speaks well, who dresses as though he respects himself and who he is speaking to, is elitist?

Obama did not earn his money from going to foreign lands makeing speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars ...Obama earned his by work, by working hard in writing two best selling books. Obama is smarter..he knows how to play the game,. and play it in a fair way. he did not have to lie to his supporters...he knows we are smart enough to be aware of what is going on. He takes for granted we are adults and treats us as such. While Hillary is lieing about popular votes and how many people voted for her, while she leaves off the five caucus states that Obama won. Right now without Mi and Fl- Obama leads Clinton in total votes cast : 16,690,219 49.1% 16,229,691 47.7% - Obama +460,528 +1.4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[starrianna]

GW went to Harvard for his precious MBA.

And "without Michigan and Florida" doesn't count, honey.

When you use your brain, and count ACTUAL VOTES:

Al Gore should have won, which would have meant NO BUSH.
Hillary Clinton would be the frontrunner, and would win against McCain.

The course of history is again being changed in a BIG WAY by:
2000: a group of assholes in black robes (the Supreme Court);
2008: a group of assholes in liberal La-La Land (the DNC).

And what do we get? Surprise: Ding Ding Ding a Total ASS for President
2000: George W. Bush
2008: John McCain

Have fun, kids!
Hope you don't know anyone in Iraq!
Hope you have at least $1 million to survive the new economy!
Get ready for $8 a gallon gas!
Oh and don't even try to get your civil rights back!

[mrjonessr41]

That is sad, getting to the point that Hillay's supporters arguments or so ridiculous that it makes no sence to even argue facts with them.

[dana94591]

Right on, Donald!!! You said everything there is to say on this subject. Now I only hope that she gets out of the race by Wednesday!!

[littleblackcat]

At first with Obama, as with John Kerry, when attacked by subtlety and spin, the man did not defend himself out of a misplaced sense of decency - you do not respond in kind when someone does you down. It isn't the gentlemanly, well-bred, mannerly thing to do to sink to the levels of your attackers. It did not take Senator Obama long to learn from the mistakes of Senator Kerry. Whether or not it is the gentle thing to do, you HAVE to defend yourself and HIT BACK HARD! When your opponent has no decency you cannot afford to turn the other cheek. When your opponent is playing up to the lower levels of society, you cannot expect those levels to have the intelligence to sort the wheat from the chaff and so it becomes imperative to use some of the same tactics, because that is the only thing that will be understood.

[Sebastian11]

I must congratulate Donald Sutherland for your most excellent article. I always thought of you as a superb actor, but I see now that you are also a marvelous writer, with a clear and logical mind to match.

Thanks Donald, for your comments and thoughts. You should be replacing David Gregory on CNN. It is journalists like Gregory who are partly responsible for the state of affairs our country is in today. They never question seriously the "leadership" in the White House. They did not question forcefully enough this administration about the lies and deception they were passing on to the American people. The media became its accomplices by not challenging it. Now that Scott McClellan has revealed the White House behind the scenes "culture of deception," the meida is running scared and passing the buck.

We need more influential minds like yours, Donald, to better inform and educate the American public about what is really going on, so they wont sit passively by, like so many sheep and take all that deception as fact.

Hillary should come out of the closet and confess who she really is, a deceptive Republican who voted for the war and never retracted herself.

[CharlieMarlowe]

Sir, that is a very well-crafted plea and a fine example of the art of persuasive speech. I hope it finds its way into many classrooms. Although I am almost wholly ignorant of the American political process, it is easy to see that the Obama campaign has out-maneuvered the Clinton one easily: they, quite simply, are better tacticians and strategists.

[ThirdSection]

Popular vote? Isn't that how pledged delegates are chosen?

I guess that since Obama has the most pledged delegates, that means he won the popular vote too! Way to go Hillary for pointing that out!!!!