Historian Sean Wilentz And The Latest Nutty Scenario From Clinton Supporters

The pro-Clinton blogs are flogging yet another "How about THIS!!!???" idea designed to present yet another laughable justification for Sen. Clinton to be awarded the nomination she is losing. You may remember it by its more formal name from when you were a small child: Let's pretend.

Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

It should come as no surprise that the piece is written by Sean Wilentz who while supposedly a historian should probably be described as a quasi-official flack for the Clinton campaign.

But the heart of the theory being pushed here is equally stupid. If Senator Clinton wished to run for the nomination of a party with a winner-take-all nomination process, she would be well within her legal rights to do so - she simply needed to have changed her party affiliation to Republican. Like it or not the Democratic party's process is a proportional affair along with superdelegates. That is how it is. Nobody forced Sen. Clinton to design her campaign for a Super Tuesday splash where she would have the nomination wrapped up for the anointed one by early February. She has name recognition on par with Jesus and a campaign war chest ranking among the largest in history. Yet just like the sort of thinking we have come to identify with the Bush administration she failed to reconcile her fanciful plans with the facts on the ground. The Obama folks didn't rely on stovepiped intelligence delivered to them by a sympathetic lackey, instead they read the intelligence reports and made the right decision.

Sen. Clinton should try that sometime before her career in public life is up.

Instead they are reduced to counting the amount of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. They come up with absurd scenarios to try and make their argument stick. It ranges from the idea of delegates not following the will of primary and caucus goers as they have since the nomination process began, to counting only states where Sen. Clinton won to counting only primary states and on and on. Yet Sen. Clinton did not express in any way her grave concerns over this nomination process when her husband won it in 1992 and 1996. When President Clinton won the Iowa caucus in 1996 we heard none of this discussion about how caucuses were not representative of the people's will. Yet by her current standards (and they change from day to day depending on who is asking) President Clinton's nomination was not legitimate. Heck, as late as a few months ago Sen. Clinton was more than willing to praise the entire process and abide by the DNC's rulings against Florida and Michigan for their violation of party rules.

But then she saw it all slipping away and the entire nomination process became an unfair and untrustworthy thing whose rules should be changed when the process is 80% over in order to benefit her failure.

Senator, this is not Calvinball.

[More coverage at OliverWillis.com]

Follow Oliver Willis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/owillis

Comments

[alee21]

08:25 PM on 04/09/2008

Sean Wilentz stands out in his defense of Hillary. Calling a spade a spade takes courage. Too often, Obama and Obamaites have used the race card to boost their standing whenever it is to their advantage. He can't be criticized because he is black. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. Oh, by the way, I am Chinese and I have encountered racism but I don't use the race card when confronted with overt acts of racism; I prefer to stand by my accomplishments as an Ivy League educated and trained physician.

[CheekyMommy]

12:56 PM on 04/09/2008

All I can say is a big fat frinking amen!

[sangsue]

09:38 AM on 04/09/2008

I'm wondering how long it will be until HRC and co will resort to more code to show why Obama isn't electable. Desperateness will drive people to anything.

Code like: Jesse Jackson wasn't electable, the country would never vote for Jesse or Obama.

The country will never vote for a man with a Muslim name. (indirect)

And if that fails, she'll drop the code and just say what Rendell said and what they've been implying all along: Obama will only get black votes. No white person would ever vote for him.

Well I'm white, Jewish (not a zionist) and 42. I'll vote FOR him. If HRC is the candidate, I'll hold my nose and vote AGAINST McCain.

[skidz12]

06:37 AM on 04/09/2008

Dear Hillary Supporter,

If you let yourselves stop feeling sorry for Hillary the victim does Hillary the candidate emerge?
Yale Law School, Corporate Lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, two term New York Senator. Intelligent and tough but also devisive and ethically challenged.

I'm for Obama because when I remove the emotions and look at the candidate I see
Harvard Law School, Community Organizer, Consitutional Law lecturer/ professor, Illinois State Senator, United States Senator. Intellegent, thoughtfull, mostly truthfull and ethical, Revolutionary Campaign Stratedgy and Fundraising for which the democratic party can build on for years.

Now that you've removed the emotions and nonsense regarding sexism, media bias, and the BS about FL and MI we can get down to the big questions.

Aren't we all on the same team?
Don't we want to not only beat the Republicans this year but for the next 15,20,25 years?
How can Hillary Clinton give us now and the future?
How can Barack Obama lose if he has all your support?
If Obama wins, doesn't he offer us the chance to build a 50 state strong small donor funded grassroots party that can compete and win for the next 20-30 years at the top and bottom of the tickets?
If Clinton wins, doesn't she only offer a "Big State" "Swing State" stratedgy with less grassroot and donor power?

.

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

11:15 PM on 04/08/2008

So Clintonites fantasize about victories that will never come--after all, they have a Bosnia war heroine as their standard ...

[naschkatze]

09:00 PM on 04/08/2008

The winner take all system does not necessarily translate into a win in November. For example, I do not expect Obama to take Florida, but I would not have expected Clinton to do so either even if she had legitimately won there and received all of the delegates. I am happy that the Democratic Party abandoned the winner take all system and that we did not have a national primary day. I used to think that was a great idea, but with a winner take all system and a national primary day, we would not have been able to vet Hillary Clinton and that is what we ended up accomplishing to her undoing. Under the other two scenarios, she would have had overwhelming name recognition up front and would have been the "inevitable".

[joeinvt]

07:49 PM on 04/08/2008

The "system to which the candidates "signed on" allows the superdelegates complete freedom to vote on whatever basis they choose. As such, Wilentz' view is a reasonable argument to present to superdelegates. Oliver makes a reasonable counter-argument. What gets lost in discussing the view that superdelegates should follow the will of the people is which people we are talking about. Superdelegates like Kennedy, Kerrey, and Richardson have come out in support of Obama in opposition to the will of the voters in their states. What's up with that? Are they supposed to follow the will of the voters in other states or what? Someone help me with this.

[lisakaz]

06:16 PM on 04/08/2008

Exactly. She signed up for this system. It's essentially the same one that operated when her husband won. No complaints before. Now that she's losing, she's going to whine about how unfair it is. Reminds me of that SNL skit with "Doug and Wendy Whiner." Wilentz is compromising his own reputation as a historian by being such a shill. But he's got tenure so it don't matter, I guess. She had two chances to see how it operated and to run a smart campaign. Her ppl were outclassed by Obama's organization and she's shot herself in the foot a number of times already. She's polarized much of the party and her supporters can't see that it's a product of the Clintons NOT a product of Obama, except for the fact that he's winning and they do not know how to lose with any grace. Instead, they're pulling a major fit, blaming everyone and anyone (the media, the SD's, the caucuses, Obama. etc. etc.). Like Bu$h, they are responsible for nothing that they do -- not Tuzla, not N Ireland, not "I opposed Iraq before Obama." One whopper after another. It's repulsive already.

[almondleaf]

06:05 PM on 04/08/2008

The "Obama folks" whoever they are, did not read ANY intelligence reports regarding the Iraq war in the time period to which Willis refers. Obama was a STATE senetor at the time and as important as YOU might think he is, he was not privy to intelligence reports. So in fact ," they" made the "correct" decision on Iraq the same way I did. But, I must admit, not only am I NOT qualified to lead this country only based on that decision, I must admit, as Obama HIMSELF has, that had I read the actual intelligence reports, I may have come to a different decision. But Obama being the playa he is, never reminds you that he said exactly that nor does he point to the fact that his votes on Iraq have been the same as Hillary Clinton's. So, this Willis' convoluted jumping of topic points- really- what is this post about anyway? Badly written, much worse any reasoning( I'm being generous using the word reasoning here).

[admiralmpj]

07:02 PM on 04/08/2008

I believe the point of the article was that Sean Wilentz , has lost it in trying to invent new rationales for Senator Clinton being awarded the nomination, despite a singular mathematical fact that everyone seems to ignore...the other guy is beating her.

And, to be fair almondleaf, if you're over 35 and an American Citizen, you ARE qualified to be Commander in Chief. (I don't know if you'll get any votes, but you're qualified).

If you want to be a Hillary supporter, if you want to value "experience" over all else (even though I'm not sure what kind of experience that is), you have that right. But for those of us who support Mr. Obama, we value judgment above all else. You don't trust Mr. Obama's experience. I don't trust Mrs. Clinton's judgment.

We shall see in the end that the American people think...but right now, judgment is winning.

[almondleaf]

07:13 PM on 04/08/2008

Parsing words, though I meet the minimum REQUIREMENTS to be president, that DOES NOT make me qualified. So indeed, I was addressing JUDGMENT and Obama's judgment in that case is no different from mine. But you conveniently ignored the rest- that Obama himself added the qualifier that had he been given the same information as Clinton, he may have indeed reached the same conclusion( though both he and you try to convieniently forget that statement). I said NOTHING about his EXPERIENCE. Your argument therefor, is bogus, though you write in a more understandable and clear way then the poster.

[lisakaz]

11:57 AM on 04/09/2008

And yet he knew enough to know the whole thing was stooopid. Can't get around that obvious point that speaks in his favor and against her.

[dapperd72]

04:11 PM on 04/08/2008

The gist of this article makes perfect sense. If Clinton had her way & all Democrats who voted thus far supported her, then she'd be a happy camper. However in the real world, not everyone will like you, especially when your only consistent trait is overriding intellectual dishonesty. Human nature is such that people don't like others insulting their intelligence, which Clinton has mastered in all debates I've watched along with her rallies. If rules are made to be broken, especially in a Presidential primary race, then what's the point of democracy? If there was a reasonable chance in Hell that she'd be the nominee after all votes are counted, there's no bloody way my conscience would permit me to vote for her, long before I ever heard of Obama. I knew from the outset of her Senate career that I'd never vote for her, starting with her vote for John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the USA PATRIOT Act & umpteen other usurpations of the Constitution. Willis is also right to suggest she register as a Republican, as Joe Lieberman should've done long ago. Her campaign is a textbook case of why I changed from Democratic to Green in 2000, most egregiously Terry McAuliffe at the forefront, as I'm disgusted with their sickening hypocrisy as a party. If you don't want a duopoly, then get the party back to its founding principles and stop trying to fool the masses.

[DennyCrane]

03:51 PM on 04/08/2008

They have a name for people who agree to play by the rules, but then complain when they start to lose. Sore loser.

[RButler]

06:02 PM on 04/08/2008

The RULES are that the superdelegates don't have to vote for Obama if he's ahead. That's the rules even if his supporters or Oliver don't like them. Now, I know they've made threats if he doesn't get the nomination but that's the rules.

[joeinvt]

07:53 PM on 04/08/2008

Thank you for one of the few rational and accurate comments so far.

[dmj618]

08:14 PM on 04/08/2008

I'd say the argument on both sides is to be sure we have a candidate that is viewed as legitimate by the Democratic voters. That's why it's a bad idea for those who favor Obama to try to push Clinton out. But it's also a bad idea for those who favor Clinton to encourage the superdelegates to subvert the will of the people. It is within the rules for them to do so and vote for whoever they want, but many voters will not view Clinton as a legitimate nominee if it comes to that without very good reason. If at the end of the primaries Clinton has the momentum, has won more of these last 10 states/territories, is polling better, out fundraising Obama, etc then the supers may have good reason. Right now Obama is winning by every metric and there will be hell to pay if the superdelegates override that. At the very least the Democratic party will lose the support of the black community, and the young people who registered to vote for Obama will sit out the election.

[DB55]

03:44 PM on 04/08/2008

The really idiotic thing about Wilentz's piece is that it assumes that Obama would have run an identical type of campaign in a winner-take-all scenario, when clearly he wouldn't have. The Obama team has been brilliant in looking at the actual rules for assigning delegates and crafting a winning campaign against someone whose victory had been a foregone conclusion a year ago. If this team had been handed a different set of rules they would have focused more on bigger states from the beginning, and probably would have done quite well.

For anyone who wants to examine executive ability, look at Obama's success at building a strong organization, focusing on the reality of the situation on the ground, and winning on every measure - states, delegates, and popular vote - against someone whose nomination had been a foregone conclusion. Compare that to the ineptitude, staff turnover, drama, and squandered opportunities that characterize Hillary Clinton's management of her campaign. Who would you really want to answer the 3am call? Who would make the better commander-in-chief?

[vsign]

04:43 PM on 04/08/2008

Bob Nelson from Florida has a proposal for regional primaries. This sounds good.

But this year - "We will not surrender to the extremists." McCain said that about the Iraq War.

That is what Democrats need to prove to all Americans -

We must not surrender to the extremists within our own party and send the right message to the Republicans and all of America.

We are ready for leadership. We can be trusted with leadership.

I need Hillary the public servant.

I don't need Obama the preacher.

[britethere]

05:12 PM on 04/08/2008

The way Hillary ran her campaign tells me everything I need to know about her capabilities.

Obama '08

[britethere]

05:15 PM on 04/08/2008

The way Hillary ran her campaign tells me everything I need to know about her capabilities.
Obama '08

[ntmessage]

04:48 PM on 04/08/2008

Obama would have run a different campaign for sure, but he still had all the money in the world and outspent Clinton 3x in big states that will decide the next President yet lost all of them except for Illinois. Running a democratic primary campaign, is not equivalent to implementing policy and running a country anyway. To state otherwise lacks rigor or critical thought.

The best leaders have substantive background in every function of their concern. This is not to say Obama will not be president. It is only stating that the campaign has nil to do with the function of the POTUS. People who think that POTUS really works the way it is depicted in the movies probably need to start reading books again.

The knowledge or lack thereof pertaining to nuts and bolts issues of the POTUS and the habit of the DNC putting the weaker candidate on the ticket makes the current situation look most like the 70s when Carter took over for Nixon/Ford.

[chin075]

04:59 PM on 04/08/2008

"...He still had all the money in the world and outspent Clinton 3x in big STATES THAT WILL DECIDE the next President, yet lost all of them".

"Will decide" huh? Do tell us what states those are!! I thought Hillary supporters wanted every vote counted!!?? BTW, let me borrow your crystal ball...

"The habit of the DNC putting the weaker candidate"... yeah, 'cause building a formidable grass-roots operation, fundraising way more than any other candidate through lots of small donations and actually winning in votes and delegates is "being the weaker candidate".

As for the comparison to the 70s scenario, I'm sure it looks that way to you through your bias-colored glasses....

[fortuna]

03:27 PM on 04/08/2008

I won all of the states starting with "R" - I deserve to be crowned!

[distant mirror]

03:23 PM on 04/08/2008

I read the Sean Wilentz article too. One thing he doesn't consider is, if the democrats DID have winner take all primaries, then perhaps Obama would have run a different type of campaign. Anyway no matter how you look at it, he makes a really silly argument.

[ghostwriter5]

06:29 PM on 04/08/2008

Are you actually saying that he did not try to win, even by a one point margin, Ohio or California--I don't believe it.

[dmj618]

08:26 PM on 04/08/2008

Yes and no. Of course he was hoping his strategy would win those states but he also didn't put all his eggs in one basket. If it was a winner take all you can bet he would have sunk alot more of his resources into a state like CA. As it is he spread it out so that he could take the small states and the states with caucuses by larger margins. It takes fewer voters to garner more delegates. It's one of the things Wilentz points out in this article, why didn't he or his buddies the Clintons notice this before the primaries/caucuses? She might have run a better campaign and actually be winning if she had spread herself out instead of going for a few big wins with smaller margins.

[RedBirdy]

03:05 PM on 04/08/2008

Well, I've heard it before. If Clinton loses the nomination, and isn't supported by the DNC, she could always run as an independent. And since most of her critics accuse her of not being a real democrat anyway, what could you say about her then? Would she still be such a divisive figure in the democratic party?

With Hillary, you either like her or hate her, I haven't seen an in between yet. I do not insult Obama supporters, or attack them. Why are many of you who hate Hillary, but support Obama so degrading and mean? If she is such a horrible, lying, greedy con, why stoop to her level and act that way? Some of you spew such venom. You make it easier for her to supporters to stick with her. They want to defend her. But the independents and youth won't get Obama the whitehouse. It's us, the democrats that you insult and abuse that will help you get there. All of us Hillary supporters aren't dumb, or anti DNC rules. We just want our candidate to go as far as she can. She's allowed. Unless the DNC changes the rule, she has every right to stick with it. If Obama will obiviously win, and such an obivious choice, then he'll win regardless, right? So, what's the problem? Ugh, HUFFPO, I used to love this site.

[britethere]

04:20 PM on 04/08/2008

Run as an IND. Are you forgetting that her campaign is broke and owes vendors in Iowa and Mark Penn millions still?

[Titonwan]

05:44 PM on 04/08/2008

You call people that are adamant NOT to have a lying, conniving, self-serving, morally corrupt politician take the Presidents office mean? There is no more patriotic act than to oppose this vicious power monger. And you call that mean? Please.

[ghostwriter5]

06:31 PM on 04/08/2008

which candidate are you describing?