What Game is Hillary Playing?

Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party's Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary's recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida.

The outlines of this story are simple and straight-forward: Two states, Michigan and Florida, sought to advance their Democratic primary elections ahead of other states in order to increase their influence in the primary process. If they had been allowed to do so, Democratic parties in other states could have done the same, it would have become a frantic, disorganized race to be the first, or among the first, state primaries, and the primary season could have been extended substantially. The Democratic Rules Committee reviewed this, understood that chaos would ensue if every state party could advance their presidential primaries unilaterally, and ruled that if Michigan and Florida advanced their primaries, the votes would not count in the delegate race. Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton's representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton [who fudged the rules] was even on the ballot in Michigan. The Clinton campaign now contends that these wholly undemocratic elections -- even the Stalinist one-candidate election in Michigan -- must count or democracy itself will be imperiled.

Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary's chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied, "What has changed is that now we are behind." So, there it is -- there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position. When they thought they were ahead in the presidential race, they supported the rule, but now that they are behind, they don't like it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the rest of us could act like the Clintons and support rules when they favor us and ignore them when they don't?

Two days ago, Hillary hyperventilated on this topic, comparing enforcement of party rules -- rules she earlier had agreed to -- to the civil rights and suffragette movements, Zimbabwe and Florida 2000, as though enforcing a reasonable party rule was comparable to 300 years of slavery, the disenfranchisement of racial minorities and women from voting for hundreds of years, the unprecedented action of a conservative Supreme Court and the tyrannical actions of an African dictator. The Clintons are desperate; they need boundaries.

Ignoring ALL rules established for the Democratic primaries, which all Democratic candidates, except Hillary Clinton, followed, the Clintons now also contend that the elaborate system of caucuses and primary votes which have been used for this and prior presidential elections should be ignored in favor of reliance only on popular vote counts. In other words, 48 states have been actively engaged in following established rules, but now, at the end of the process, the Clintons propose to jettison the rules and substitute their own new interpretation. Not only is the threshold proposal absurd on its face, the Clintons don't even count the popular vote fairly: They include votes in the Michigan primary, where Hillary was the only candidate on the Democratic ballot and Obama got zero votes, and exclude hundreds of thousands of caucus votes in the caucus states. If ALL votes are counted, Obama wins by every metric, including popular vote, and he currently is 180+ votes ahead in the delegate count.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign remains open to compromising this dispute so that delegates from Michigan and Florida can be seated at the convention, but, to date, the hard-line Clintons have refused all efforts at compromise.

We need to ask, "Who is the audience for this kind of nonsense?" There are only three possible answers: [1] Super-delegates; [2] Voters; and, [3] The Clintons.

If the Clintons think their bogus arguments are going to move super-delegates to their side, they clearly have miscalculated. In the past ten days, Obama has picked up 42 super-delegates; Hillary has picked up two. I have been calling super-delegates for the past two weeks, including some who previously leaned toward Clinton. Not a single one takes the Clinton disenfranchisement or popular vote arguments seriously. Every single one knows the rules were set by the DNC on a consensus basis, that they were necessary and that there would be chaos in the Democratic primaries if the DNC could not enforce rules such as this.

New York Governor, David Paterson, a Clinton super-delegate, was asked today if the Michigan and Florida votes should be included. He responded: "I would say at this point we are starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support ...There was a process. I thought at the time everybody agreed to it. I didn't hear any objections from the candidates ... So I think the Democratic National Committee would leave it where it is."

When asked about Clinton's claims about how to count the popular vote and her comparison of her plight to the civil rights movement, Paterson said, "You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."

If the audience is voters, the Clintons are reaching some of them, but for what purpose? If you read the blogs, you find some comments expressing distress at the prospect of Hillary losing, with some of them complaining about Florida and Michigan, as if including these states would make the critical difference. These are the Democratic voters threatening to sit out the general election or vote for McCain. Is that what Hillary and Bill are trying to accomplish -- to increase the number of disgruntled Democratic voters and make winning the general election harder? Whether this is their purpose, or not, clearly their behavior is having this effect.

Both Clintons graduated from a respected law school so I think it is safe to say they are smart enough to know their arguments about disenfranchisement of voters and their new preference for the "popular vote," as they selectively calculate it, have no weight. But they don't want to quit and the only way to justify staying in the obviously lost race is to build their resentment to the level of self-righteousness, and, like most confabulators, they have begun to believe their own propaganda.

Hillary and Bill are not acting like leaders, they are acting like self-absorbed adolescents, thinking that if they whine loudly enough people will accommodate them. This is not leadership, this is petulance. They will go down in this race, but not without their own sense of righteousness and value intact. This conveniently avoids the unpleasant prospect of actually taking responsibility for why they lost.

Introspection does not come easy to the Clintons, but during the next four years, let's hope they try some.

Comments

[SouthernVoice]

I have to say this, though I am an Obama supporter now, I wasn't always. You see, I loved Bill Clinton. I stood behind him 100% during the Lewinsky scandal, the Starr debacle, and his impeachment. I listened to his audiobook TWICE and cried both times. I was one of the few who thought more of HIllary because she "stood by her man" and fought for her family. I cheered her all the way to the Senate. Bill, and HIllary by association, were stars among people in my eyes.

The shine began to come off in NH and SC and proceeded to vanish from memory as the campaign unfolded. I don't know these people now. I asked a friend the other day if I was just blind to what the Clintons were before or if they had changed drastically during this campaigh. The answer was that I was blind before. I don't want to believe that. I'd rather believe that pod people have taken over the Clinton bodies.

More than anybody, I want to see the real Clintons again, the ones that I knew and loved.

[ckemp]

Now we know!

[Tobiasism]

You know what? GIve HRC the delegates in that cheating fashion. It still won't matter. Obama has won this thing fair and square. All the rule changing and whining is only that. Harold Ickes is appropriately named. Icky!

[D2D2]

Who currently holds the power, those who established the process rules or those who interpret the effect of the rules? Seemingly both, but thank goodness it may be neither. The question highlights a major issue currently faced by the DNC. Both the rule creators and the interpreters have a significant voice in the final outcome. Perhaps that is why the Democratic Party created the superdelegate.

The Democratic process seems riddled with undemocratic influences. Those who designed the process rules (arguably weighted to favor the early frontrunner) now argue against compliance. Absent vagueness in the drafting, it seems patently unfair to deny or postpone an outcome to placate violators or a candidate. Altering rules, previously agreed to by all candidates, now, at the end of the election, undermines the process as a whole.

Superdelegates must understand that their respective act or omission on this matter will necessarily shape the future of the Democratic Party. The Party provided superdelegates with the power to make tough decisions at critical times in order to maintain Party unity and ensure a strong candidate in the general election. This is your time! Failure to act will guarantee that every future close nomination process will operate outside the established boundaries of the rules as defined at the onset. Furthermore, those already frustrated with the Party may likely choose independence.

Because in this nomination process both the rule creators and the rule interpreters have vested interests in one nominee or the other, superdelegates must step up now.

[snarkopolitan]

Sorry, Clinton loyalists--I voted for Hillary for Senator, twice. I thought she'd be good at it, and she was: diligent, responsive, etc. But her ruthlessness and lack of principle (war vote, flag-burning, talking up McCain, talking up "hard working" whites, talking up voters' rights only AFTER she needed the votes) drove me away, permanently. Didn't want to go, but had to.
Now the Clintons are trying to blackmail the front-runner into putting her on the ticket. Using YOU, LOYAL CLINTONISTAS. But if Obama gives in, that's exactly how it would be perceived, that he gave in. That he was too soft. It would actually work against him in the general election.
Clinton loyalists: are you really willing to sacrifice the civil rights of the next two generations, at least, and let McCain pick the Supreme Court? And the lives of soldiers in unnecessary wars now and to come? For Hillary?

[CKieffer]

Let me put this in terms the Clintons can understand: I will NEVER vote for ANY Clinton again. Bill may think politics is the "family business", but he is mistaken. After this horrible campaign and their atrocious behavior, the have no business being in politics at all.

[ljmck]

Thank you for a most comprehensive and well-reasoned articulation of the Clinton behavior.

The Clintons seem attached to their victimhood, a conception that is incredibly at odds with leadership.

Should they somehow manage to capture the nomination, their logic-free notions will easily be trounced in the fall.

They make it plain that their only objective is being back in the White House, but offer no authentic reason why we should choose them (and make no mistake, both are running) over Senator Obama.

It's sad, really. But it is also infuriating, disgusting, and counter-productive to Democratic hopes.

[vbond]

The Clinton's endgame behavior may provide an entirely unintended beneficial consequence for the Democratic Primary process.

Their stunningly craven statements and actions may soon push enough of her so-far stalwart women supporters to "reject and denounce" her. This means the massive declaration of undeclared women superdelegates for Obama, and the massive shift of declared Clinton superdelegates to Obama.

This shift can achieve two necessary requirements for a massive Democratic victory:

First, a complete repudiation of the Clintons' politics of division.

Second, a complete severance of Hillary Clinton as the standard bearer for many womens' dream of a woman President in their lifetimes.

The wise women in the Democratic Party must appreciate - and to some degree resent - the political extortion that the Clintons are practicing.

The club that the Clintons wield is their supposed power to undermine not only Obama's candidacy but the opportunity for the Democrats to achieve a transformational victory in November.

This power - already referred to as "the nuclear option" - must be destroyed. This can only be done by women - those in leadership and those among the electorate from whose eyes the scales are finally made to fall.

These actions must then be followed by the selection of a woman as Obama's running mate. Kathleen Sibelius or Blanche Lincoln would be excellent choices. Add to these the pre-selection of Biden as Secretary of State and Hagel as Secretary of Defense and the Party's bases are covered for November.

Dianne Feinstein, it's time to

[Krikkit]

Anyone besides me old enough to remember the old Clash song, "Should I Stay or Should I go" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ag8J2NMYmc

Lyrics:
Darling you gotta let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
If you say that you are mine
Ill be here til the end of time
So you got to let know
Should I stay or should I go?

Always tease tease tease
Siempre - coqetiando y enganyando
Youre happy when Im on my knees
Me arrodilla y estas feliz
One day is fine, next is black
Un dias bien el otro negro
So if you want me off your back
Al rededar en tu espalda
Well come on and let me know
Me tienes que desir
Should I stay or should I go?
Me debo ir o que darme

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know

This indecisions bugging me
Esta undecision me molesta
If you dont want me, set me free
Si no me quieres, librame
Exactly whom Im supposed to be
Diga me que tengo ser
Dont you know which clothes even fit me?
saves que robas me querda?
Come on and let me know
Me tienes que desir
Should I cool it or should I blow?
me debo ir o quedarme?

[citizenxyz]

Hillary is not a feminist- she is a whiner. She is not big enough to concede and will do or say anything- even if it means electing another Republican. The superdelegates need to perform their assigned role to prevent her from making more arguments presented to her by none other than Rove.

[NCRESIDENT]

Hillary is doing what she does best, accuse everyone else accept them. When Bill cheated on her she tried to use it as if the right wing was coming at them instead of blaming Bill. She wants to destroy Barack chances so that she can say I told you so. She knows this is her first and last time ever running for president so she wants to win by all costs.
What disturbs me is the attitude of continuously changing the rules to fit what she needs. Sounds like Bush to me. Right now Karl Rove has been subpoenaed but Bush put an executive privilege on him so that he won't be able to testify. We don't need her to run the country. She would have a veto pin in her hand all the time.
To all of the Clinton supporters out there, I want you to answer this question. What do you think she really is going to do for you? Hillary tried to pass a healthcare plan as first lady it was turned down. They left the WH bankrupt without paying the lawyers who fought for them. They are now in debt on a campaign trail. Why do we need them. Stop thinking about what Bill did and realize this is a diff. time in the world and his hands are far more in the Saudis hands than they ever were. Bill of yesterday is not the Bill for today.

[Jonny38103]

This is rather old news, and to think that if in the opppsite position Sen Obama wouldn't do the same thing, is politically naive.

[Fabienne]

I think we may safely surmise that were the situation reversed Senator Obama would NOT be doing what Senator Clinton is doing. I've never seen anything like this in my 40 years of voting life.

[classof71]

But...

Does anybody truly believe that if Hillary's last name weren't "Clinton" and if she didn't have the clout within the party of a former president behind her, that we'd still be in this pickle? Or if the situation were reversed and some "unknown" was trailing the front runner by so much that it was mathematically impossible for him/her to win the nomination, that the power brokers wouldn't have insisted that the "unknown" step aside for the "good of the party?"

[Playinjured]

Sometimes I wonder what goes through the head of someone who says something like what you've just said. I don't remember any other presidential candidate behaving in this fashion when exiting the race. Mike Huckabee made an appearance on SNL, then supported McCain after withdrawing from the race. Rudy Guliani put all his chips in later states that ultimately led to his demise in the primaries. I haven't heard from him since! Dennis Kucinich. Fred Thompson. John Edwards. These are examples of candidates acknowledging reality and exiting the primary race. What evidence have you obtained that would support your allegation, accusing Sen. Obama of mimicking Clinton's behavior if he were in her place? I believe, in all honesty, it is you who suffers from naivety. What type of witchcraft is this woman subjecting all of you to? This news, I agree, is rather old. Problem is, no one's told Sen. Clinton this. Harold Ickes' admission is enough. Florida and Michigan are issues because she is BEHIND. In other words, she wouldn't necessarily be the vigilante of voters rights that she is today. The way she has controlled her supporters by remote continues to bewilder me but is no surprise. The reason why Obama is ahead at this point is because we all know he wouldn't do what she's doing if the shoe was on the other foot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world needed a team captain
not a bench warmer with splinters
But GOD just wouldn't listen
He told me to "Play

[NorVaGal]

No, Jonny: I think YOU are the one who is politically dense, not naive. Sen. Obama COULD have given Sen. Clinton tit for tat-- the Clintons' 30+ years in politics certainly have provided an arsenal of ammo-- scandalgates. And, the Repubs are just waiting to unload with both barrels if HRC is ANYWHERE on the Dem ticket in November. But, Sen. Obama CHOSE not to use smear-tactics to malign a fellow Dem. He CHOSE to run a tough, but respectful campaign. So, you see, just because one candidate (Hillary Clinton) opts to wallow in the gutter doesn't mean that every other candidate (Barack Obama) will follow.

[MrKnuckles]

In typical scatter gun fashion, which has always been a Hillary favorite, she yesterday trumpeted four separate and equally bogus reasons as to why the votes in Florida & Michigan should be counted.... in her favor by the way.

This is a classic example of Rovian political practices where the main effort is to buy time by hide a glaringly preposterous claim behind a smokescreen of several, (in this case four), different half-baked, bamboozling arguments in the hopes of hooking the public and the media, to spending way, way, too much time and mouth flapping trying to parse the smokescreen of asinine arguments rather than cutting to the chase and exposing the gross, bald lie of the central claim.

Which in this case is: The votes in Michigan and Florida should all be counted for Hillary, regardless of the rules she and her surrogates agreed to months ago with the DNC; why, because she says so.

[BlueAsh]

I find Ferraro's Fox News interview to be rather illuminating: When asked, "Do you know Clinton has a math problem," Ferraro replied, "Oh, I don't know anything about that." She then proceeded to carry on her argument about Hillary being a victim etc.

That shows me, more than anything else, the core constituency of Hillary Clinton. See for yourself--the bit I referred to is at the end.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/ferraro-black-journalists_n_102967.html

[crossoverwriter]

She is a dangerous Lucifer who feels entitled to change the rules whenever she is doing badly. Why doesn't anyone stand up to her is beyond me.
NO DREAM TICKET either.
More like nightmare ticket.
Obama doesn't have to jump just because she says step and fetch it.
She and her serial adulterer husband.
GET HER OUT OF THIS RACE--at this point she is a terrible DISTRACTION.