Obama did the right thing by praising Clinton following the Oregon and Kentucky vote, and working to reweave the fabric of Democratic unity. And I'm delighted that Clinton said, "No matter what happens, I will work as hard as I can to elect a Democratic president this fall." But then she insisted once again, that "we are winning the popular vote." This lie undermined every word she said about coming together.
The superdelegates understand the real math, or they ought to. But given the "bitterness" of so many Clinton supporters toward reality that the woman they thought would be America's first female president will not be, the more they hear a story that suggests Obama's win is illegitimate, the more likely they are to bolt. If Clinton's voters embrace that story that "a man took it away from a woman," denied her a victory she rightly deserved, they're at risk of staying home come November, or holding back from the volunteering and the get out the vote efforts necessary for the Democrats to prevail.
Look at Clinton's math. She leads only if you give her 328,000 votes for the Soviet-style Michigan election, while giving Obama zero for not being on the ballot. And if you then ignore the caucuses of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and my own state of Washington -- where a record quarter million people turned out to participate. Our votes don't count under Clinton's math. She disappears them down the memory hole of history in an argument that invents reality as much as Bush's claims of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction or Clinton's earlier story about running the gauntlet of Bosnian sniper fire.
If the media corrected this, it would be less of a problem, but they haven't, or at least not in the same stories where they repeat her claim. The AP story in my local Seattle newspaper reported Clinton's claim without question, saying only that it included contested Florida and Michigan votes and excluded the Iowa caucuses. The otherwise excellent New York Times story included not even the slightest corrections or caveats, although the Times has done other stories on the subject. Neither mentioned that polls actually have Obama doing marginally better in Michigan than Clinton, nor have they explored the impact of roughly 60,000 Democratic voters who crossed over in Michigan to vote Republican, many of whom were participating in a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos" campaign. Clinton's argument also ignores that this isn't how the rules are set up, and that if they had been, Obama would have made time, following the Iowa victory that made voters take him seriously, to have made more than three brief visits to California and one to New York State.
Clinton's been praised of late for refraining from any truly outrageous comments, like her claim, following the Indiana and North Carolina primaries two weeks ago, that only she has the support of hard working white voters. That still reminds me of a workplace sign proclaiming "14 days since a fatal accident.". But every time she claims she has a popular majority, she's shattering whatever ceasefire exists and making it that much more likely that her supporters stay home come November. If she really wants a united party, she needs to stop, and the media and the superdelegates need to hold her accountable.
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, and Soul of a Citizen. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
Second, Obama pulled his name off the ballot because that's what was expected of him. Even though the pledge that they ALL agreed to didn't specifically state that they would remove their names from the ballot, it was known by ALL candidates that the pledge was meant to include appearing on the ballot. So Obama had more integrity than did Hillary!
Doesn't the progressive movement know how divisive it has been that every democratic talk show host in this country has been trashing Hillary Clinton. (except Thom and your AARadio's most recent guest host, Ron Kubie)
what is the purpose of the super delegates if they are to rubber stamp the person who gets the margin of delegates so small as to be able to be changed by the 700 super delegates." ?????
Super delegates had no role when a candidate had more than 700 more delegates than the opponent. This race has been a RARE case. The super delegates have been coerced to support Obama has alienated Hillary Clinton voters to a devastating (won't vote for Dem ticket) extent. We are angry out here...most angry with progressive radio
PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE A POLICY REASON, not just the stupid, vapid "change and hope, change and hope" childish chant!"
1. Both Florida and Michigan violated rule set down by the DNC to create some order in the primary process, which is still in serious need of reform.
2. Hillary Clinton intially said that the votes from Florida and Michigan should not count.
3. In 1004, Clinton's campaign manager, Terry McAuliffe then head of the DNC told Carl Levin â€If I allow you to do that, (Move the Michigan primary) the whole system collapses. The rules are the rules.†(This quote comes from Alter's article
4. Obama did not enter the Michigan primary or campaign in Florida because he was following the rules sent down by the DNC. Hillary was disobeying the rules.
I do favor a compromise of some sort. But the compromise must be based on the following:
1. The compromise cannot condone scofflaws.
2. The compromise must not reward lying and cheating.
3. The compromise must not penalize candidates for following the rules.
4. Hillary Clinton must admit that she lied to the public regarding Michigan and Florida
I would also like to know whether any he politicians responsible for the Florida and Michigan imbroglio had any connections to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
I might close by saying I really do not appreciate Hillary Clinton’s latest attempt at pandering. Democrats need a united party.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH HATE FOR WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY AS DURING THIS CAMPAIGN.
Doesn't the progressive movement know how divisive it has been that every democratic talk show host in this country has been trashing Hillary Clinton. (except you Thom and your AARadio's most recent guest host, Ron Kubie)
What is the purpose of the super delegates if they are to rubber stamp the person who gets the margin of delegates so small as to be able to be changed by the 700 super delegates."
The PUBLIC NEEDS TO HAVE A POLICY REASON, not just the stupid, vapid "change and hope, change and hope" childish chant!" for OBAMA.
Obama's ties to terrorists----to I HATE AMERICA spewing Pastor Wright HIS MENTOR for 20 years.
This country has gone NUTS.
Second, when people get inspired by Obama, and not by Hillary, they are going to support him! Just like we did with Bill Clinton (though to a greater extent!) and just like we did with JFK!!!
No one hates women in general as you seem to suggest. People only dislike the kind of women that lie. cheat, and whine because they are sore losers. They complain of unfairness
when their lies and underhanded methods are called into question, and to make matters worse, they accuse others, usually decent human beings of being the cheaters.
Women are not hated because they are women. If they are disliked is because of their foul behavior. So, please. Get yourself some therapy, and get your hatred out of your system, and stop projecting yourself.
I have also lost a lot of respect for Bill Clinton during this whole fiasco. He's basically been a jerk, to put it simply.
If McCain wins in November, I feel a lot of the blame for it will be on Hillary Clinton's shoulders. She's attempting to drag this fight on so long that the corporate media, which apparently cannot focus on more than one subject at a time (unless it has to do with things like American Idol, The Hills, celebrity babies, celebrity mugshots, murders of pretty young white women, or polygamy cults) will continue to give McCain a free ride until the damage simply will not be able to be undone.
What gets me, though, is the number of Clinton supporters who have vowed to never vote for Obama if he's the nominee and will instead vote for McCain or for no one at all. When I hear their huffing and puffing, all I can think of is that classic line from Fast Times At Ridgemont High..."What are you people, on dope???"
Might I add....All those saying ......Poor hillary, they hate her because she is a woman.
She is telling people to think this.
What they Are not noticing is that ..... IT IS... .... her very bad behavior! ........that they hate ..not her gender....
I well realize that description is incendiary to some feminists - and I hasten to add she's done some good work in the Senate and her husband was the best moderate Republican president this country's had since Eisenhower - but to those of us still in the dating pool, the comparison hits us as funny because there's a kernel of truth there.
It's just like this year's Super Bowl. I had read an article by a doctor just before that game, in which he said the chances of getting a heart attack while watching the Super Bowl, is 50% higher.
Speaking of math and the Super Bowl and emotions, against all odds, New York ended up winning, just as the Senator from New York can end up winning, as well.
Then she'll have Obama as V.P., uniting the party, then our chances of having a heart attack will be greatly reduced.
Obama supporters are not racists like so many Hillary supporters. We aren't dumb enough to vote for McCain. But there is a chance that millions of Obama supporters will stay home (or at work) on election day.
Hillary was smart enough (until her "hard working white people" comment) to not make the most outrageous comments herself. She would just let her rabid supporters make them and let it go. It has gone on for so long now that it is obvious her campaign appreciates the bitter, angry and hateful comments coming from her supporters.
- Obama/Bloomberg '08
Oh, I guess you must be living in the "Bizarro" world.
Second of all, when Obama was putting forth the argument that superdelegates should vote as the voters do, Hillary was saying not so fast. There was even talk of her trying to talk pledged delegates over to her side. Now, superdelegates are speaking in large numbers and are overwhelmingly for Obama. Some are doing it for unity. Others are doing it because he is their personal candidate of choice. She was the one who said Supers should vote their heart. That's what they are doing.
She is making every possible argument so that she can make every possible claim. If I ever get convicted of a crime, I want her to be the lawyer who handles my appeal. But that doesn't make her president.
They did not publish my post. The only things on the site were the most viscious, vitriiolic, screaming (some put caps on for effect) posts I have ever seen. Thank you for mostly sane, sober comments here. BTW, as disgusted as I am with the Clinton campaign tactics, if she were to be the candidate, I would work my heart out to get a Democrat elected. A McCain presidency would put us back 20 years--and I am from Arizona.
About McCain: you youngsters who fearfully pretend that age can be overcome haven't been there. Actual old people know perfectly well how age degrades you and oppose him. Its not the same as rasism or sexism.
Obama seems to turn to lofty, fuzzy ideals and compormise when he doesn't know what else to do, but at least he can see past his own nose, which means he will acually listen to experts. He frequently seems smart and wise and restrained. Yay Obama.