It's Her Party and She'll Do What She Wants To
Hillary Clinton is now campaigning in Florida and arguing that the state's delegates should count, along with those from the Michigan primary. This would sound fair enough, unless you know that both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up after the Democrats agreed that the only states to vote before February 5th ("Super Tuesday") would be Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (picked because they were relatively small states, representing different demographics). The Democratic Party agreed that votes from the two renegade primaries would not count. The major candidates made an explicit agreement not to campaign in either state. Florida law required that all candidates keep their names on, but Obama and Edwards pulled their names from the Michigan ballot.
Now Clinton is trying to change the rules mid-game. She's arguing that her delegates from Michigan should count after all. (Running essentially unopposed, and with a netroots campaign to get Democrats to cross over and vote for Romney, she still got only 55% of the vote, since 40% voted "uncommitted" and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- and Chris Dodd, who'd already dropped out -- split the remaining 5%.) She's campaigning in Florida with a wink and a nod (doing closed talks and photo ops, not public rallies), while trying to get those delegates to count too. She seems to be banking on the hope that a Florida win, even if only symbolic, will erase Obama's momentum from his massive South Carolina victory.
Now you can argue the right or wrong of the Democratic decision to put teeth into the agreement that the primaries should have some kind of structured sequence, and not just be a mad dash to see who comes earliest. And the Florida situation was created not by state Democrats but by the Republican legislature. But I can find no evidence that Clinton raised objections when the initial decisions were made. And now she's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Her surrogate Bill overtly supported a similar attempt when allied teachers union officials tried to ban special caucuses on the Nevada strip after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. Ironically, Clinton won a majority of these caucuses, but her contempt for the rules was the same. She was a team player only when she thought it would benefit her.
We actually saw the same pattern in 2006. In a season when Democratic candidates were scrambling to raise enough to finance an ever-expanding array of competitive races, Clinton made a conscious decision to raise $52 million for a Senate campaign that she could have won in her pajamas, spent $40.8 million (to beat a token opponent who spent less than $6 million), and transferred the rest to her presidential campaign. Only the self-funded Jon Corzine has ever spent more for a Senate race in our history.
You could say she was just playing the game, but Barack Obama and John Edwards, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for themselves. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank and the Edwards campaign ended up still in debt from 2004. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures.
Imagine if Hillary had transferred $20 million into the dozen Congressional campaigns that Democrats lost by margins as close as a few hundred votes. Or into Harold Ford's Senatorial campaign, to help close a $5-million gap with Republican Bob Corker. A few extra ads or mailings might well have tipped the balance But Hillary made different decisions. Much as may have been true with her support of a recent Iran vote so reckless that Senator James Webb called it "Dick Cheney's pipe dream," her priority was election-year positioning.
If we look at Clinton's actions throughout this campaign, they consistently put her right to win above broader principles. Even the tears that turned around her New Hampshire campaign seemed to me to be about her frustration that the nomination she thought was her birthright seemed about to slip away. As Frank Rich has written, even her choice to feature Bill Clinton in the campaign as lead attack dog risked bringing up enough old ghosts to sharply increase the likelihood of Republican victory in November. No one runs for president unless they are ambitious, but once you think you have the right to rewrite the rules in mid-course, or subordinate every opportunity of your critical allies to your own personal gain, you set up a precedent unsettlingly like the administration we have just endured for the past seven years. And I don't think we want to go there again.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org
Loading comments…
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
If Hillary is so competent and the Idol of women leaders, then why can she not run on her own record and without the lift that her husband is giving her? If her statement about MLK that it took a president to get the job done is accurate by her standings then how ironic then is it that it takes a man (her husband) to get her elected. Give us a break Hillary. The sexism stunt worked in New Hampshire but not this time. This is not about women vs men, this is all about Hillary, and I am sorry but she is not the best role model for women to look up to.
Ms. Clinton cannot even wait until she is elected to start breaking her promises. What does that tell you about her?
And if the "Goldwater Girl" gets the nomination, she should command the loyalty of democrats????
Paul, If more Democrats were capable of critical thinking Hillary Clinton wouldn't still be in the race.
This crap about Florida and Michigan almost seems like her fallback ... her Ace up the sleeve ... And I am sure that if the Delegate count is anywhere close come the Convention, Bill will be leaning on the DNC like a loanshark's legbreaker to get Hillary the delgates she shouldn't have even been competing for ...
Is this really what we want in the White House? More of this strongarm, sleazy Clinton crap?
I wish some of Hillary's supporters would use some gray matter from time to time.
This Florida thing is completely ridiculous! I can't believe she thinks Americans are stupid enough to care about it. It's not a win if you're the only person competing. I'm pretty sure even small children would easily understand that. I find it really insulting that the Clintons think we are stupid enough to be immpressed with this, if anything it turns me off her even more!
She really does think we're a bunch of idiots. Well I've got news for Hillary. I'm an educated and informed voter, you cant fool me!
You know, I hear all these women groups complaining about Kennedy's endorsement. Wonder if they would be complaining if he endorsed THEIR candidate. Probably not because as we all know...thi
Paul Loeb: If we look at Clinton's actions throughout this campaign, they consistently put her right to win above broader principles.
===
That's a terrible thing to have to say.
But not to say it would be more terrible.
I agree the red eyes of New Hampshire were about the not winnigna sweep as she has been acting all this time like she had the nomination all sewed up. That was the first hint when she walzed out like she was ordained to be president and she merely had to go through the motions and she would be president. What gall to think she would not face the electorate and the voter would have their say. Her husband had his place and was not pushing and doing his scams to get her votes that we could see. Then he came out and was the lion making his desires for power for himself or her it mattered not. He convinced me that she would be a co president as he would not keep quiet and let her do the job. But the ultimate things which come back to me is he lied to you, me the whole country and it wasn't about sex it was he would lie about anything if he would lie about sex. She has voted for all power and war bush has wanted seeing herself with all that when she won. But as he lied she failed to read the intel about Iraq that told the truth about the situation there. She ignored it and voted to give bush all he wanted plus. Then she took a long long time before she admitted she might have been wrong about the vote. She had to be forced to make that known. I seriously doubt she regreted the vote one moment. If she found her voice inNew Hampshire and it was Bill then I think she needs to stop looking around to blame someone else for failure and point at herself. I do hope that the people of this country do not vote her the nominee or the president for she will be four more years of bush and Bill.
A good article. Paul covered Hill and Bill well. The only reason I can figure is the supportors for Hill and Bill expect to reap some special benefit. No one that respects honesty and integrity could support Hill and Bill.
I agree that Hillary Clinton will do her thing, but when the voters learn the truth, they will do their thing. Just visit this site to begin your journey:
http://www
Also, check this out readers...
http://www
My wife actually came up with the title.
Re the superdelegates, I'm working on a separate post on them, but a lot of these people will have to stand for election, so they will be potentially influenced by citizen pressure (as well as the more noxious kind) if the primaries and caucuses end without a clear winner.
Re New Hampshire and Clinton's misleading abortion choice mailer, I completely agree. Did a whole separate post on Clinton crossing ethical lines at
http://www
Yeah, and she says she will create millions of jobs. Is or os this not the wife of the man who signed bills that gave away 15 million jobs.? Yeah M.A.D.S.+ my a-- dips snuff.
It is NOT her party. She is not the leader of the Democratic party and does not decide upon seizing delegates for herself that are not hers.
It is OUR PARTY. It is the party of WE THE PEOPLE and not we the Clintons.
She has boobkus to say or do anything about the rules or the running of the Democratic party. She is looking like a piece of desperate crap, at this point.
She is using dirty politics to win. Just what we need. More of the same.
We are sick of these slick Billary tactics that destroy our country and divide it into male vs female. She attacks her own Democrats for crying out loud and her own Democratic voters. We do not need more of this crap from the Clintons. We do not need more of Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton dynasties. It is not beneficial to this country and is unhealthy for the welfare of the nation.
"You could say she was just playing the game, but Barack Obama and John Edwards, in comparison, campaigned throughout the country to support worthy Democratic candidates, while doing negligible fundraising for themselves. Obama emerged with less than a million in the bank and the Edwards campaign ended up still in debt from 2004. Their top priorities really did seem to be helping other Democrats win a critical election, instead of subordinating all other goals to their own personal futures"
Worse,camp Clinton accused Obama during the early phase of the primary that his PAC gave money for those congressional candidates running a tough election.
Oh boy, she will say any thing and do any thing and....
I will resist piling on here. The negotiable nature of the ethics and selfishness of the Clintons is increasingly documented and transparent. The easy thing to do is to blame the Republicans for seasoning them with the most unscrupulous peppering in political history. But, sady, Bill and Hillary showed signs of their unprincipled opportunism early in their lives and throughout their political ascension. How sad that now the higher they ascend, the more precipitous will be the descent of the Democratic Party on the eve of its greatest and most galvanizing transformnation to a party whose ideals have only been dreamed about over the last half-century.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
