For years many Americans have bemoaned the fact there is not a viable third party in this country. Ralph Nader capitalized this angst against a two-party system dominated democrats and republicans in 2000 to run what many have called the most successful third party campaign thus far. Nader's Green Party is still seen as an insurgent group still struggling to find its sea legs in America's political waters. Surprisingly, a new American political party has done within the course of three months what the Green Party could not manage to do in eight years: which is develop a well oiled political machine capable of winning a presidential election.
Who's this new third party? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton's victories last night in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas were miraculous not because she had been knocked down and got back up as she suggested in her Ohio victory speech, but rather in the fact that she was even competing in these three states. After losing eleven straight contests and being faced by a virtually insurmountable deficit in delegates any other candidate would have been pressured by party leaders to concede the election. Instead, Clinton loaned her campaign five million dollars, borrowed her opponent's organizational strategy and his "We Believe" ethos, and then cruised to victories in three out of four primary contests.
Clinton's resiliency was made possible by the fact that she and her husband are the two most powerful people in the democratic party--and as many people fear--treat the democratic party as their own personal fiefdom. That assessment was logical prior to last night, but as the dust settles and people begin realizing that in spite of her victories she was no closer to winning the democratic nomination than she was when the evening started, it becomes clearer that the Clintons are no longer competing for the democratic nomination, and likely never were. The Clintons were merely lending their names to the democratic party, giving it a viable candidate in an election year prior to Obama's emergence they thought that they would not have one. Bill and Hillary Clinton knew that they had the resources to win this election without the Democratic Party's support--but were kind enough to not turn their backs on the party that gave them their start.
Think of it this way, if this were a three party election with John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the candidates of their respective parties, and each state was winner take all, then Clinton would have bested her counterparts in Ohio, Texas, New York, California. Throw in her victories in New Hampshire, Nevada, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and disputed victories in either Florida and Michigan and we would be a few months away from crowning this country's first third party president.
When all the primary votes are counted there is a slight chance--but a legitimate argument that the person who won the popular vote is not one of the two candidates running for president. Ironically, Clinton recently chastised Ralph Nader for spoiling Al Gore's 2000 bid. But if she goes on to lose the democratic nomination, Clinton may deem herself prey to the very system that Nader is continually challenging.
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
Yep, anyone who didn't feel entitled to be crowned queen of the US just like bush has played King would have seen the light a few primaries ago and dropped out. Not Hillary she is banking on lying cheating and stealing the election so she has to do whatever they can to win. I really think rove could learn from these two as they have written the book on winning no matter what the cost to anyone else. They honestly have never cared how the way they are campaigning will destroy the dem party and how if she doesn't sleaze her way into the nomination she has given mac the whole playbook to win. While she has pounded Barack on NAFTA she went around and said to the canadians not to worry and the words she was using were not worth "A grain of salt". Yep shes lied, cheated and they have stolen before and it only takes a look back in his white house to see it. The guys she has slammed Barack on just knowing her husband pardoned them or their friends on the way out. Barack has been too civil and much too nice to her in my opinion. I think he should just bring up and list those things we have all known about, HSU and all of those "little people" who work at menial jobs who have found thousands to give her. The list goes on and on and it's out there and should be used. MSM has not been fair as they enjoy this slaughter and they could care less what damage it does to anyone as they have stories true or not for the news cycle all day every day. Just look at the damage they did with SNL and the Canada bit and the misrepresentations being cycled all day like it is the truth when it hasn't been the whole truth. Biased? You bet!
Hello, Ljsfolly..
Ahhhh...No
What happened to CHANGING the way that Washington works???? Quite simply, Obama was caught "talking out of both sides of his mouth", so now he's trying to deflect the ugly truth away from himself and back to BILL CLINTON - WHO ISN'T EVEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE....
SMILE...HO
Furthermore, here's a little more information about your PRECIOUS DEMOGAGUE:
1. Senator Obama CONTINUOUSLY LIES (i.e., deliberately DISTORTS) his own record on supporting NAFTA, while SLAMMING CLINTON on NAFTA in every debate!!!
North Texas Daily - Posted 2/21/08
Source URL: http://www
event=disp
". Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]
Yet - The Obama Campaign Continues Dishonest Attacks On Hillary and NAFTA
2/14/2008 1:13:20 PM "
2. Obama's been playing the "race card" for at LEAST 4 YEARS!!! More specifically, when he was running against Alan Keyes - ANOTHER BLACK MAN - He actually accused Keyes of "black on black racism"!!!
THE SKIN GAME:
DO WHITE VOTERS LIKE BARACK OBAMA BECAUSE `HE'S NOT REALLY BLACK'?
Souce URL: http://www
__________
THE TRUTH HURTS SOOOOO much, huh?
Yvette W.; Princeton, NJ
Hello, Ljsfolly..
Ahhhh...No
What happened to CHANGING the way that Washington works???? Quite simply, Obama was caught "talking out of both sides of his mouth", so now he's trying to deflect the ugly truth away from himself and back to BILL CLINTON - WHO ISN'T EVEN RUNNING FOR OFFICE....
SMILE...HO
Furthermore, here's a little more information about your PRECIOUS DEMOGAGUE:
1. Senator Obama CONTINUOUSLY LIES (i.e., deliberately DISTORTS) his own record on supporting NAFTA, while SLAMMING CLINTON on NAFTA in every debate!!!
North Texas Daily - Posted 2/21/08
Source URL: http://www
event=disp
". Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA. He said, at the same time, there must be recognition that the global economy has shifted, and the United States is no longer the dominant economy. 'We have competition in world trade,' Obama said. 'When China devalues its currency 40 percent, we need to bring a complaint before the WTO just as other nations complain about us. If we are to be competitive over the long term, we need free trade but also fair trade." [Decatur Herald & Review, 9/9/04]
Yet - The Obama Campaign Continues Dishonest Attacks On Hillary and NAFTA
2/14/2008 1:13:20 PM "
2. Obama's been playing the "race card" for at LEAST 4 YEARS!!! More specifically, when he was running against Alan Keyes - ANOTHER BLACK MAN - He actually accused Keyes of "black on black racism"!!!
THE SKIN GAME:
DO WHITE VOTERS LIKE BARACK OBAMA BECAUSE `HE'S NOT REALLY BLACK'?
Souce URL: http://www
__________
THE TRUTH HURTS SOOOOO much, huh?
Yvette W.; Princeton, NJ posted 03/06/2008 at 10:45:56
What strikes me as illogical is the assumption that the Obama campaign strategy would not have been changed if the 'big' states were winner take all. Obama is running a campaign based on the rules that exist within the democratic party. There is no additional weight to delegates from 'big' states. I find it laughable for Wolfson to suggest that a solidly democratic state like Mass. would suddenly vote for McCain if Obama and not Clinton was the candidate. When is the last time Mass went Republican?
Hello, Mslindab..
Ths logic of the "big states" arguement is that the "big states" have more "Electoral College members"..
Hence, a presidential candidate MUST win the "Big States" to get to the get majority of Electoral votes...Th
Total Electoral Vote: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270
US Electoral College:
Source URL: http://www
Regards,
Yvette
Hello, Mslindab..
Ths logic of the "big states" arguement is that the "big states" have more "Electoral College members"..
Hence, a presidential candidate MUST win the "Big States" to get to the get majority of Electoral votes...Th
Total Electoral Vote: 538; Majority Needed to Elect: 270
US Electoral College:
Source URL: http://www
Regards,
Yvette
Geeez, Mr. LaFargue, I'm completely at a loss to your purpose or logic in what you have written. Simplicity is usually the preferred route when composing something of this nature -- why not boil it down to: Hillary is bad, Obama is good -- I like good.
Remarkably, when you take your own scenario into account you make an excellent case for Sen. Clinton. You see, but I'm sure you did no research beyond your visceral pronouncements of glittering generalities, but you see, if you take the states won by Sen. Clinton, throwing in as you have MI and FL, in a general election, she would have won 264 electoral votes out of the 270 needed for the Presidency. Hmmm....me
One other point, fore I would not want to overwhelm you with these pesky little facts -- as we sit tonight, the difference in delegates between the two candidates is around 70 out of around 2,600 about 2% -- is that the actual argument you wish to make? Neither candidate can attain the 2,025 in the remaining primaries so it is up to the superdelegates.
When the super delegate system was created in 1982, the super delegates were not envisioned to be mirrors of their districts or state, but they were created to exhibit their best judgment. Perhaps that judgment will be for Sen. Obama, perhaps not. Don't try and fashion an argument that is self-serving (see comments above, I like good) to ensure an outcome in Denver.
Finally, while you have proclaimed some evil nature of Sen. Clinton to have the audacity to continue to participate in this primary, let me ask but one question:
Which candidate is strong-arming super delegates by telling them, "If you don't vote for me, you will have a primary opponent?" That candidate is not Sen. Clinton. The delegates being strong-armed are African-American members of Congress.
Sir, tell me how that is helpful to the America that many of us have spent a lifetime working toward?
Oh yeah right, you think Bill Clinton isn't strong-arming superdelegates? It's just the party isn't bending to him right now. Try not to believe everything the Clinton camp says. I assure you, they are doing everything in their power to get superdelegates too. It's politics not a tea party.
Huh?
I agree - huh?
I have to agree with AC500 - what are you talking about?
The Clintons only leant their name to the Democratic party b/c they did not know there would be a viable candidate and they wanted to help? Are you kidding me? Nothing against Hillary, but I am sure that she ran for the same reason as everyone else, she wanted to be President. If what your saying is true, why hasn't she dropped out.
Make know mistake about it, if Hillary had run as a third party candiate, she would not have won the presidency. In total refutation of your article, she is in great danger of losing the primary in which you assert that she and Bill hold court. I guess the serfs didn't get the memo. Also, as a Green party candidate, she may have spli some votes with the Demo nominee, but not the Republican. All she would have done is make sure that McCain got electd.
Earth to guy who wrote this blog. What is wrong with winning. I am sick , I mean sick and tired of people who want Hillary to play dead so Obama can get to the white house. I would be equally sicken if it was the other way around.
This is an election, if she is not allowed to compete then why did she bother run. People are so enraptured with Obama they don't know what up and down. Hillary had to do something to bring them down to earth, somewhat. Obama is not the messiah. He is not going to solve all wars and feed the hungry around the world, cure Aids and on weekend find time to give millions of people hope to keep living their crappy lives.
Every candidate that has won the White house has had to fight their way there, but Obama refuses to fight. He wants everyone to just lay a path for him covered with flowers and just gently lead him to the white house. Hillary did him a service. Politics is not Priesthood. It's not meant to be saintly. If Obama wants Hillary to hold his hand than he'd better quit now.
Nothing is wrong with winning. Obama is winning. Billary is losing. No one is asking her to play dead but people are expecting her to play smart and the math shows that the majority of the people's voted delegates will go for Senator Obama. She can't win without a steal. Marinate on these facts.
I fully expect that if she doesn't get her way, Hillary will run third party independent.
"After losing eleven straight contests and being faced by a virtually insurmountable deficit in delegates any other candidate would have been pressured by party leaders to concede the election."
Give me a break! The earliest a Democratic candidate has ever secured the nomination was in 2004 and that was because John Kerry had won every contest up to that point except South Carolina! Even then, John Edwards didn't withdraw until March 3rd! Bill Clinton's campaign stretched into June, and even Bill Bradley held on longer than HRC would have if she were to leave the race tomorrow (and he didn't win any states!).
On the subject of the insurmountable delegate lead, that really isn't that meaningful of a statement when in the end, the difference between them is likely to be around 50 delegates out of at least 1500 each. That is not a meaningful enough separation for either to claim any kind of mandate among the superdelegates. The Democratic nomination process is set up like it is with the pledged delegates and the superdelegates precisely for this circumstance. If Hillary can stay close and, most importantly, win decisively in Pennsylvania, the value of those 50 or so extra pledged delgates will be drastically weakened. Obama's claim to the nomination will be bolstered by votes largely earned in the questionable caucus process (the fact that HRC won the primary that saw over 2 million votes cast, but is probably going to lose a caucus with far less participation in the same state on the same day raises some serious questions about the legitimacy of caucuses. I am not saying that caucuses should be abolished, but his claim that he has earned the support of more Americans than Clinton, especially when his advantage is so small, is further weakened by the fact that caucuses had a lot to do with that.
Regardless of your opinions of caucuses or Hillary Clinton in general, it is completely ludicrous to call for a candidate that won 3 out of 4 primaries the night before to drop out of the election.
In none of the contests you describe, did the failing campaign lob GOP-style grenades at the other. It's called "doing John McCain's grunt work". Hillary's rhetoric at this stage in the game is alarmingly indiscernible from McBush. There's nothing preventing her from taking the reins in 2012 or 2016, but the longer she insists on drawing this mess out -- the less chance there is of that happening.
Hello, Efranklin.
The same assertion could be made regarding Senator Obama...He
At least that will eliminate the "lack of experience" arguement that McCain & the rest of the GOP are CORRECTLY making....
IMHO, Mrs. Clinton has to stay in because it's probably the sole justification for her marriage. People always joke around about his "girlfriends". If she were to lose, why should she remain married to the man? Synkopen is spot on (great post)! I would add that rabid Clinton supporters dislike Obama because he is genuinely liked by more people; which isn't his fault. Obama supporters are smart enough to see the unseemly tactics she has to employ, and dislike her on that basis.
P.S. :What's the matter with Ohio?
It's interesitng how the 11 straight victories rhetoric is being tossed around like it's valid. Virgin Islands? Americans Abroad?
The fact is that the author's candidate was unsuccessful in Ohio and Texas. And that indicates a clear problem.
Take a look at the counties won. The map on CNN makes the issue starkly clear.
What's not valid about the victories? Are people that live in those areas not to be represented? Are they less American than people living in CA, OH, etc? I know you want your candidate to win (just like everyone else) but why would you argue that other people shouldn't be represented b/c of where they live. The Clinton campaign had every right and opportunity to convince those people to vote for her, and I'm sure they tried. Should her votes in Texas be discounted because they came from sparsely populated and less affluent districts in the Rio Grande Valley and West Texas, of course not.
Actually, if you look at the delegate count, he won Texas. It is not his fault if his campaign does well at caucuses (caucusi?) and Clinton knew full well ahead of time that his campaign has handled those contests well and she needed to get her people out to vote in the caucus. Additionally, the argument that Hillary won in these states and therefore Obama doesn't have a chance in those same states during the general election is bogus. Quite to the contrary, he did quite well in those states, just Hillary did better. The number of voters and the revival of Democratic interest actually has the Republican party quite concerned. Not only for the presidency, but also all other candidates which are running in those areas.
People continue to talk about the 11 straight victories mostly because of the number of delegates it netted Obama and the momentum in gained for Obama, just the same as they are reporting at the momentum gained by the Clinton campaign with taking the Texas primary, OH, and RI. That momentum also proved him as a viable candidate and allowed him to lure some supers his way. Why wouldn't they talk about it, just b/c you don't like it?
I appreciate you want Hillary to win, but why in the world are you crying foul like something unjust has happened to her? Bill was able to navigate the system twice successfully. Clinton speaks of her experience and being tried and true, well then, who better to perform well in the primary than someone who has already been through it twice?
Your analysis is too true. Her early unnecessary demand/expectation that Florida and MI be seated is mainly to flaunt her dismissal of Dean, publicly daring the left wing of the party to insist on abiding by the rules that were agreed upon. Hosts of Clinton voters actually believe she is the most progressive democratic senator; the content of countless blogs reveal how clueless tons of Dems are about the DLC and the ramifications of these power struggles. Hosts of other Clinton voters lock onto her gender. The enthusiast
In addition to exposing the Clintons' addiction to power and dirty tricks, what's happening these days says more about social issues than people care to admit. The taboo concerning the number of racists in the Democratic party is still just that, an unspeakable backroom blight. Too many people don't know these types personally, they simply cannot believe that pockets of white voters all over the nation will never vote for a "black man." I grew up in a state where they hang around in great number. And yet the existence of this ugly truth is publicly denied on all sides. Like a hot potato, call it the race-card-
The Democratic primary was moved up by a REPUBLICAN governor and a REPUBLICAN state congress. Why should me and every other Florida democrat be punished for a decision we have no control over?
Hello, Synkopen..
Hmmm...ver
Let me ask you a few questions:
1. What makes you any less racist than the White people that you are referring to in your commentary?
2. I've met DOZENS and DOZENS of blacks who support Obama JUST BECAUSE he's black...Is that less racist than Whites who won't support Obama because he's black???
3. Why was is okay for Obama NOT to OPENLY reject Farakan? How do you think that African American community would have felt if Clinton had accepted the endorsement of David Duke, even after denouncing his idealology? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REJECTION (to refuse to have, take, recognize, to discard as useless or unsatisfactory, etc.) AND DENOUNCEMENT (To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible). The difference may seems subtle, but there is a difference
Yvette W.
know that racism is "alive & well" in America,
They are powerful only because Clinton was the ONLY Democrat in my lifetime who really made a difference.
It's the record, stupid.
No, they are very powerful because the have a fund raising juggenaut that gives money to congress member who are cash strapped and unable to run their campaigns. These same people have sold their soul to the devil and become beholden to the hands that fed them.
That is the reality of it.
Well, Obama outspent her by a lot. Still didn't win the voters over.
Made a difference? Like when they pardoned the FLAN terrorists or bombed Iraq or ordered a missile attack on the Sudan or passed NAFTA or allowed the crack-powdered cocaine disparity to continue or destroyed the welfare safety net? They sure did make a difference much like the one Ronnie and Nacy made.
The views held or at leasted espoused by the author of this article are indicative of the general ignorance of American politics and more specifically the Democratic Party. Their have always been political power brokers in the political parties...
The ignorance level of the Obama supporters and the use of that ignorance by some very shady polkitical characters posing as Obama supporters will be the ruination of his candidacy. The Clintons, unless Bill has been very active the last 4 years are fully vetted and 15 year old scandals don't touch Hillary anymore than they did George Bush the junior in 2000...not so far as the general electorate goes.
The second problem that Obama has and it may be the most damaging of all is the usurpinjg of the media by so called Black leaders for their own purposes..
Bill has been very active. He refuses to divulge the names and nationalities of donors to his library and foundation. He recently acted as a broker in a shady uranium deal. The media cuts Bill tremendous slack in regard to his dark dealings. Also, remember how quickly the Buddhist monk fundraising scandal and the Hugh Rodham/Roger Clinton lobbyist stories disappeared. Who knows what he's really been up to since he left office.
Who cares, he isn't on the ballot, Hillary is
This is just plain old fashioned envy speaking. Obama missed getting his knock out punch
AGAIN! Three strikes and you are out. You Obama mamas keep forgetting that only a handful of delegates separate the two candidates and the popular vote is less than 100K out of the MILLIONS of votes cast so far. Obama isn't the ONE....Hil
Yes, and any other candidate who failed to close the deal would have been jeered out of the race by now.
Instead, his apologists keep chanting 11 straight wins.
I really don't know how to respond. "A handful of candidates?" You do know that even people in the Clinton camp have publicly expressed concern about the math. In fact, Clinton's campaign has admitted that their chance relies on showing enough viability in the next several contests to convince the supers to elect them. She would have to win every contest by a greater margine than she has won ANY of the previous contests to even have a shot. I mean, do you really believe what you are saying?
As for being jeered out of the race, Ann, name me any frontrunner who has been asked to leave the contest. I mean, I don't know how to respond to the argument that the person with a 100 delegate lead should quit. It boggles the mind.
And quite frankly, several pundits have come out and stated that if anyone besides Hillary was that far behind this late in the game, they wouldn't be getting any attention at all - see Mike Huckabee.
What planet are you living on?
Obama followers are on drugs, I swear. The guy inspires the youth (who are mostly clueless regarding the way the voing system works) gets rock star status from celebs (since when do they have the corner of the market on brains?)Has this entire, celeb worshiping, doped up from the consumer machine, demographic of wannabe's souped up like sports cars, revving their too loud engines gone mad?! Mrs. Clinton is winning the big states. i.e the popular vote. Obama can whistle away all he wants to his young gung ho followers (who are just jealous THEY didn't grow up in the 60's and have a JFK moment!) but it's gonna be Madame President this time around, unless Al Gore can be convinced to roll up his green sleeves, and get to work!
How exactly is she winning the popular vote? Obama has about 500,000 more votes than Billary. Number two, his people are educated, her's... well, not so much. She wins rural areas with old folks who are so scared of anyone who doesn't look like them and who doesn't pray in the same church.
There is no person named Billary. Cut it out!
Hello, Weathermak
Be careful about your assumptions regarding the demographics of Clinton supporters
I, along with 3 other black women, graduated from Princeton; 2 of my black female freinds graduated from Penn, 2 of my black male friends graduated from Princeton, 5 graduated from Columbia, etc.
Also, those African Americans in Black Congessional Caucus who support HRC are also college educated..
Finally, I KNOW that many of the African Americans that support Obama ARE NOT college educated..
Yvette W.
err Obama is winning the popular vote, and Obama wins the ages under 50 and Obama wins those who went to college. How is Obama winning the dumb vote? I will give you that Ohio is important but California is going Blue either way and so is NY and NJ and Mass. This big state stuff is just media spin from a desperate campaign.
I am an Obama supporter and am not on drugs or anything else you accuse his supporters of being. I should be a supporter of Clinton since I fit the demographics, but as a New Yorker, I despise her. We know what she has and has not done for New York. Quite frankly, if there is one good thing about her becoming president is that we would be rid of her. Good riddance!
What did the Senator before he do for NY? I can't recall one big thing a NY Senator has done for NY
The Clintons are giving us a great show that could become a Fox reality show. We could call it Trailer Trash Blues or something like that. At least they have decided the 2008 presidential election in favor of McCain with their garbage. They really seem to enjoy destroying any vestige of civilized behavior and we should thank them for destroying hope and bringing back race baiting as a viable political tactic.
Once again we have countess blaming racism for Senator Obama losing. Way to dig deep and look for rational reasons like, inexperience as the reason.
But I guess it sounds better to the ultra left to blame it on racism that the fact that their candidate has weaknesses
You REALLY think that Clinton has any shot at the general election? She's framing herself as a national security, experience candidate. McCain will light her up like a candle if that is where she takes it. Not to mention the boatloads of Clinton muck the GOP can throw all over her. If anyone thinks Clinton is a viable candidate come November they are high.
That's sort of like Hillary partisans blaming her losses on sexism, right?
Loading comments…
Posted March 5, 2008 | 02:05 PM (EST)