SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Clinton's Shocking Florida Gambit

THE PLANK MAY 21, 2008

Clinton's Shocking Florida Gambit

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Hillary Clinton's rhetoric today about counting the results in Florida and Michigan is simply incredible. Her speech compares discounting the Florida and Michigan primaries to vote suppression and slavery:

She said "there's a reason why so many have fought so hard and sacrificed so much. It's because they knew that to be a citizen of this country is to have the right and responsibility to help shape its future. Not just to have your voice heard but to have it count. People have fought hard because they knew their vote was at stake and so was their children's futures.

 

Those people, she said “refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote.”

It's worth repeating: They supported this "disenfranchisement." Here's a New York Times story from last fall, headlined, "Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States."

Moreover, it's obviously true that Obama not campaigning, organizing, or advertizing in those states hurt him, and helped the more familiar candidate in Clinton. She decided to campaign to change the rules only after it became her interest to do so.

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It's obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don't want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton's character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton's gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying. I think she's so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It's not just that she's convinced herself it's okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

--Jonathan Chait

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 94 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

94 comments

As I said on a previous thread, Hillary's lies about leading in the popular vote--counting the illegal primaries in Michigan and Florida, not counting the caucuses that Obama won, as well as the comparisons to the 2000 Florida recount and to slavery--these lies and distortions are so egregious, I think that after November 4 we should start a petition to impeach her from her NY Senate seat.

- JosephCuomo

May 21, 2008 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Andrew Sullivan excoriates Hillary, I resist, reminding myself that he's unhinged where the Clintons are concerned. This, however, is more measured, and the conclusion is indisputable: Hillary's moral opportunism here is disgusting.

- adsprung

May 21, 2008 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait- Great article. Yes, it can be hard to make characterological judgments about politicians, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and a shovel a shovel. Does this strategy by Clinton surprise anyone? I would imagine that odds-makers in Vegas already had her latest Florida strategy picked. She did not have to follow the Democratic parties' rules to run for president. She only had to do that if she wanted to run as a Democrat. Could this be a possible prelude to her running as an independent? She could choose Joe (just call me Zell-aphant) Lieberman as her running mate.  

- hepneck

May 21, 2008 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is incredible. Jonathan, I regard you as the best poltical journalist currently writing but I have disagreed with you on Hillary, to some extent. But this is just too much. I think that she does believe this; the severely anti-Clintonistas out here, the ragged (faux) moralists, will score her for being cynical. They have it good because they can anticipate beforehand any barbaric thing that she might say because she is the anti-Christ to them. Where does the nutty right meet the (somewhat) dotty left? On the playing fields of Hillary because she is evil incarnate to both of them. Enough, though, Hillary, it is time to go.

- liberal reformer

May 21, 2008 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan, call it for what it is: EVIL. Obamas name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, so she thinks he should be punished by having zero votes because, as she has said, he chose to take his name off the ballot. She is a disgrace who will never be President. The sad truth is, she is determined that Obama not be President either.

Obama should choose the Republican option, half the delegates, ensure that the uncommitted in Michigan not go to Hillary but to the remaining candidates (who is Obama) and the same for Florida, with Edwards delegates choosing whom they prefer (given Edwards endorsement, Obama) it will shut her up at least. Let her screech popular vote count all she wants. If Obama does this, he is very close to having half of the pledged delegates again, with Hillary only gaining a few delegates on him.

- blackton

May 21, 2008 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You don't think she's consciously lying Chait?  Dude - you'd better get your meds adjusted!  

There's no excuse for her rhetoric at all, and it certainly won't make Dean or anyone else at the DNC think positively about bailing her out of debt.  Then again, perhaps they told her they wouldn't and that's why she's venting venom.  

- WaltB

May 21, 2008 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JosephCuomo, why wait until after Nov. 4? If you really believe Hillary has done something that warrants impeachment, the public welfare demands you make every effort to remove her forthwith.

Personally, I think the best response for New Yorkers would be to establish and raise funds for a PAC devoted to funding other Democratic women seeking to run for governor in 2010 and Senate in 2012. Particularly Nita Lowey and Carolyn Maloney, the women Hillary forced out of the Senate race in 2000. I'd be in for a c-note.

- rhubarbs

May 21, 2008 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Her unquestioning belief in her own historical importance, as well as her unquestioning faith in the  moral rightness of her own judgment, definitely makes her unfit for the presidency. It's downright scary. Or at least unsettling. Her speech today is the latest evidence of these qualities.

On a lighter note, though, did anyone notice the guy over her left shoulder? He kept giving up these huge open-mouthed yawns and seemed to nod off a couple of times, poor guy. It added a nice visual "subtext" to Hillary's hyperbolic pitch.

- hemlock41

May 21, 2008 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WaltB: Why do you go in for a metaphor of pathology in your dig at Jonathan? I happen to believe he is right. Michael Crowley tends to believe she is sincere in her outrages, as well. It is caveman psychology and moralizing to say something or someone is this or that, to the exclusion of everything else.

- liberal reformer

May 21, 2008 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rhubarbs-

The reason to wait until after Nov.4 is obvious, too obvious, so much so I don't think it needs to be explained.

But, yes, I do think we NYers should start a PAC to help field a Dem candidate to oppose Hillary in 2012. As for the gender of that alternative candidate, I think it would be more important to back someone (whether female or male) who opposed the Iraq war from the start, doesn't lie to her/his constituency, and doesn't unabashedly emulate W or Rove.

- JosephCuomo

May 21, 2008 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew it. I said on one post about a week ago that I was worried she would not go quietly and that I was frightened and I was right.

Either way -- whether she believes it or not -- this demonstrates why she should not be the democratic nominee.

Her husband has got to reason with her. He's got to know, even if she doesn't, that she's gone too far.

Where is the democratic leadership on this? And what is wrong with her campaign staff? They've got to set her straight and stop enabling this kind of behavior. Even if she doesn't care about her party, don't they? Doesn't Bill? Where is Howard Dean? I think he should be fired. He's not acting like the leader he was hired to be.

- scire

May 21, 2008 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Still on hillaryclinton.com:

9/1/2007

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

- wamintz

May 21, 2008 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been very measured in my approach to HC in this process. I do support Obama but I have felt that HC has worked hard, played hard, and more than acquitted herself in this battle. And I have been very put off by the anti Clinton bias here at tnr, sometimes finding myself on the same side as that nutter pccostello., a situation akin to finding myself on the same team as Daffy Duck when he starts to turn upside down and bounce around the lake on his head.

And I  have been especially offended by the never ending stream crazed Clinton hatred coming from the Crazy Former Owner.

HOWEVER, I agree with Chait on this one and if this is how Hillary intends to finish her campaign, scorching the earth all the way to Denver, trying to make Obama's [near] victory illegitimate, based upon her bullshit, full of holes interpretation of the Michigan and Florida process, a process that she signed onto way back when, then my days of defending her are over.  

Hillary must decide now, if she wants McCain to win. I am beginning to think that what she really wants is Obama to lose in the fall so she can go back at it again in 2012.

- thejauntyboulevardier

May 21, 2008 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Strong stuff. Persuasive. Chait's no Excitable Andrew, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion he draws.

- teplukhin2you

May 21, 2008 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now is the time for all good women and men to come to the aid of the Party's nominee: Obama.

- teplukhin2you

May 21, 2008 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was scrolling through all of the comments on this post waiting for some Clinton shill to even TRY to justify this latest move. The silence is deafening.

- ackyri

May 21, 2008 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is my breaking point with Hillary Clinton.  I'm done.

- TammyA

May 21, 2008 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

despicable.

- Maxblum13

May 21, 2008 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Boy, you guys are buying the MSM Kool Aid on this one.

Hillary did agree to not campaign in the states of MI & FLA, but that was after Edwards and Obama stepped aside.  At the time, this decision favored the 2nd tier candidates who did not have to spend any money in large states with expensive media markets.  This was a boon to Obama.  Probably saved $ 10-20 Million in what would have been very competitive contests, at a time where money was tight.

Now Hillary should just roll over and give up.  Didn't a lot of Democrats criticize Al Gore when he did the same thing in Florida?

Remember, Obama has some levers to pull here and can shut Hillary down.  As I have said before, if he offers her a significant role in his administartion, she steps aside and we have party unity.  If he offers her the VP in August, he'll look like an idiot for not doing it sooner and letting us avoid these fights.

But Obama has another arrow in his quiver.  Al Gore is suspiciously quiet.  He also has personal experience with Florida Elections, and the Clinton Family.  Now is the time to play the Al Gore card, if he's on board.  He's about the only senior Democratic figure who could step forward and make a statement, and perhaps a deal.  Oh, but that would be critical of Obama and we can't criticize anything about Saint Barack.

You can demonize Hillary all you want, but it doesn't get anywhere.

- CRS9TNR

May 21, 2008 at 8:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If she's consciously lying,"

Jonathan , You lost your mind.  

"This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination."

Not at all,  She has every right to ask DNC  for resolution of Florida delegates.

It's Obama who is trying to steal the nomination.  Behind the scene he suppressed vote in Florida, while never admitted his cynical attempts to suppress vote in Florida, . Shame on him, shame on you.

- jacobt1

May 21, 2008 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaunty, a lot of people think that Hillary wants to run again in 2012. But she'd have no shot if this is the way she plans to go about it. She'd be a pariah. Surely she knows better?

But then again, maybe not, because she clearly doesn't know that she's gone over the top with this.

As for Andrew Sullivan? He hasn't been hysterical over her. He's simply had her measure all along.

- scire

May 21, 2008 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FACSISM!

First they came for the eggheads, and I wasn't one so I kept my mouth shut. Then they came for the Blacks, and I wasn't one so I kept my mouth shut. Then they came for "San Francisco", and I didn't live there, so I kept my mouth shut. Then they came for the elite, and I, certainly not being one of those, I kept my mouth shut. Then they came for all the men(who didn't vote for HRC), but I lied about that one and then kept my mouth shut.

Then they came for the DNC--Oy vay!  Now its Howard Dean as the Robert Mugabe of Fla. and Mich. Very bizarre!

Hillary love to play the victim, but even more, she likes to blame and demonize. Making the DNC--"Vote Stealers", "Oppressors"--into her newest model SCAPEGOAT!  Does she really think this helps her with superdelegates? Even more bizarre. (Not to mention: selfish and self-serving.)

Very sad and very ugly that these two good people, Hillary and Bill Clinton, are so driven by themselves winning that there is nothing that they will not do. The severity of their moral disability has rendered them politically bankrupt! American's estimation of both has substantially declined. Why can't she get out of the blame game and out of the gutter?

- sabatia

May 21, 2008 at 8:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TammyA, You have always been very reasonable and balanced, addressing other people concerns, etc. That even a strong Hillary supporter sees this for what it is, is a good thing, I don't recommend going over to Taylormarsh though, that web site is scarily deranged.

- blackton

May 21, 2008 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary "It's only a flesh wound" Clinton has lost her marbles.

Put that nut in the rearview and put that razor sharp wit to use kicking the hell out McCain.

Obama/Biden or Obama/Webb

Oh man that sounds good.

- mpatrickhendri

May 21, 2008 at 8:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed. Bill Clinton was an idol of mine as a younger teenager, now I don't think highly of either. This has made me think that, fundamentally, both parties suck. I do like Obama, but I disagree with a lot of what he is presently doing to appeal to voters. Perhaps I'm a naive purist, but people really shouldn't tolerate such dishonesty. Instead, we all demand that the ungovernable process of honest thought be shackled by certain polite conventions. So Obama is becoming Everyman, the greek ideal of mediocrity designed to flatter our prejudices. Because we really need our President to remind us regularly that our country is not only great, but the greatest in human history. Not that we want the President to know anything about history (except Munich). That might come across as elitist, after all.  

- skipper2379

May 21, 2008 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not obvious that there is only one person who can unite this country, John McCain.

half  of Democrats have vote for a fascist, another half  voted for a demagogue.

- jacobt1

May 21, 2008 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Hillary 'It's only a flesh wound' Clinton" hahaha this is priceless.  You yellow bastard! come back here and I'll bite your legs off!

- Maxblum13

May 21, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is an important distinction.

It is in whether or not one views counting (or resolving) the Florida concern as a matter that benefits Hillary Clinton, or as a matter which benefits Democratic voters, i.e. the people of Florida. And of course by extension, the Party itself. If you believe the former--then you see Senator Clinton's position as merely a cynical ploy to win the nomination.

Voters are people. Persons are the basic unit of our polity. Through no fault of their own, Florida's voters have been put in a situation where their votes don't count. That this situation unjustly and unfairly treats the voters is certainly true, whether you support Hillary Clinton (as Tullius does) or whether you support Senator Obama. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or any candidate, state party or group within our Party has a full right to take up any position before the Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee and lay out their best case for that position.

The situation with regard to representation of Florida and Michigan at the convention must be fairly and justly resolved and the resolution must be perceived to be fair by voters and supporters of both candidates in those states.

Is a narrow faction attempting to control the outcome and take over the Democratic Party, or are we still the Party of all the people?

The next few weeks will be telling.

That is why we have rules and by-laws and credentials committees. There is a process for this, so let's follow it and stop demeaning the motives of those who adopt a position other than ones own.

Any one seriously for party unity should recognize this at this late hour.

- TULLIUS

May 21, 2008 at 8:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All right knock it off everybody. What are you a bunch of Maureen Dowd's? Obama will be President. He will appoint Hillary to the first vacancy in the Supreme Court. Everyone will live happily ever after.  (Except for Marty Peretz and Maureen Dowd of course).

- Mahler48

May 21, 2008 at 8:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Now Hillary should just roll over and give up.  Didn't a lot of Democrats criticize Al Gore when he did the same thing in Florida?"

Absurd comparison. Absolutely absurd. Out of several million votes cast in Florida in 2000, the final difference even without the recounts was only 537. And that state was directly going to decide the presidency. Oh, yeah and Gore's name was on the ballot.

Hillary is behind significantly in pledged and overall delegates, and will be so even with Michigan and Florida represented. She can't claim to be the winner of the popular vote, because including those two states (Michigan especially) is patently unfair to Obama. Even if one was to include BOTH states, with Obama getting a ridiculous zero votes in Michigan, Hillary leads by 5,000 votes. But this is misleading because we don't get actual popular vote numbers from most caucus states, which Obama won overwhelmingly. In other words, by no reasonable measure can Hillary claim to be ahead of Obama. And the fact that she still does infuriates me.

- rozenson

May 21, 2008 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can anyone be surprised that Hillary would appropriate parts of her legacy to advance the interests of Hillary Clinton?  This is the 'feminist," after all, who happily oversaw the personal destruction of her husband's mistresses.  When will people realize that Hillary is and for years has been empty, soulless and amoral.

Sorry for holding back.

- LDuncan

May 21, 2008 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, i agree this is a pretty underhanded thing for her to try, at this late date. She got beat by obama, but clearly can't (or won't) admit this to herself. So, she tries another route. Isn't it amazing how politicians of all stripes thinks the public won't remember what they said in the months before?

It reminds me of sugar ray leonard's style of boxing, in some ways. In the final 10 seconds or so in the latter rounds, ray would always throw a flurry of combinations in order to impress the judges, even though (in my opinion) he'd clearly lost a lot of those rounds. (See hearns-leonard 2. and the hagler fight for examples of this tactic.)

- wldctfan142

May 21, 2008 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama/Webb - heard his podcast on NPR today, and fell half in love with the man.  I'd fallen in love the other half during his Senate run.  From a warrior military family.  Stood up to Bush. Rove is noticably frightened of him.  A real match for Obama in ways he needs - he's a brilliant writer like Obama, identifies first and foremost as a writer.  And his big issues right now are: prison reform and different treatments for drug addicts, fair economic breaks for the working man, he's lived all over the world and wants to bring us back into our rightful place there.  My social work heart beat. I was ready to marry him.  Again.

We'd be lucky to have that man a heartbeat away from the Presidency.   Oh please let this happen.  He sounded skeptical about the whole idea, loves the Senate.

Rhubarb, Joseph C (Yo!) - I heard three people speaking about this today here in New York, the idea of removing Hillary from the Senate, not just for this cheating nonsense, but her use of racism and just general division of Americans and relentless dishonesty in this campaign.  I  thought it was just bored academics on a slow afternoon.  I am so glad it isn't.  People are starting to get past anger and in to wanting real action now.  

She has become nothing but a bully who must be stood up to, stopped.

My husband and I had a laugh tonight walking home through Central Park (which is so beautiful and lush after the rains), we finally just accepted that there is no bottom to Hillary's narcissism.  

It reminded us of six million years ago when we lived in DC under Marion Barry.  Different manifestations of course, but we always thought "OK, this is it.  This is as amoral and shameless as this person can possibly go and not vomit every time they look at themselves in the mirror."

Then something more ridiculous would happen and all of his irrational lunatic supporters would go insane at the idea that he was anything but a victim of The Man.  This was years before his final "bitch set me up" moment.  Same trajectory here been there, done it.

I know there is no bottom now.  None.

- Wandreycer1

May 21, 2008 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS,

C'mon. This is way over the line. You know it.

- WoodyBombay

May 21, 2008 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here it is, the Hillary campaign in 4 minutes.

www.youtube.com/watch

- mpatrickhendri

May 21, 2008 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

www.hillaryclinton.com/.../view

This is the link to the press release "Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge" on her website, if anybody is having trouble finding it.

- ugamuga

May 21, 2008 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I echo the commenter who wisely notes that Andrew Sullivan has had her number from the get-go.

Separately, can we resist the temptation to put Hillary on the Supreme Court to get her out of politics?  I fear that she would be far more conservative than many think; she'd do to the Democrats what Earl Warren did to the Republicans.  A bit of history:  Richard Nixon urged Eisenhower to put Earl Warren on the Supreme Court to get him out of politics.  Warren was a talented population and popular governor - a real threat to Nixon's presidential ambitions.  Eisenhower wound up doing the right thing for the wrong reason; I think Obama putting Hillary on the Court would prove to be the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

- LDuncan

May 21, 2008 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THE BEGINNINGS OF AMERICAN TOTALITARIANISM

Hillary Clinton was the only name on the ballot in Michigan. One person control. What kind of election is that, where only one name appears on the ballot. I don't know if this is fascism, communism, or just plain vanilla dictatorship. Is this a banana republic or what? Shocking! Outrageous!

- sabatia

May 21, 2008 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know what everyone is so surprised about... she really has nothing to lose (other than her integrity) by doing this:

1)  It puts more pressure on Obama to pick her as her VP (which he won't)

2) Since he won't, she has what she needs for her supporters to stick by her as she rips the party in two

3) If Obama loses (which I hope to G-d he won't) then she says "I told you so" and runs in 2012

4) If after all of her divisive attacks and putting her own interests ahead of those of the party Obama still manages to win she gets to say "See? No harm done."

In earlier posts I speculated that there may be some sort of unspoken agreement between her and McCain to tag-team.... support for Bill to become Head of the UN?  Idk.

LR - Kudos to you for being intellectually honest on this one (as you are on so many others).  The future of the Democratic Party actually depends on people like you standing up and saying "I am a Hillary supporter, but enough is enough.  It's time to unify the party."

Rhubarbs - I had similar thoughts myself.  I was thinking maybe Ruth Messinger as a possibility.  The bottom line is that the only people who can ring the bell for Hillary without strengthening her "we are the victim" narrative are members of her own representational constituency; accomplished older women who have done a thing or two with their lives.

Check out the back-and-forth on the (poorly worded) link below on wowowow.com, a web site targeting and created by accomplished women over 40 to see in just how "symbolic a light" so many women see her candidacy.  Unfortunately that "symbolic light" is blinding people to both the truth (Florida didn't count as she herself committed) and the good of the party (time to rally around the candidate).

www.wowowow.com/.../in-the-cart-heading-to-the-guillotine-hillary-clinton

Heaven help us all!

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

May 21, 2008 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a link to recent polls showing that the general population sees through all of this... but of course that doesn't simplify things come Denver.

www.suntimes.com/.../963217,polls052108.article

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

May 21, 2008 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems to me that the Obama supporters may be losing sight of the importance of the nominee, presumably Obama, winning electoral votes. To treat Florida Democrats with disrespect--not to honor their request to have their votes counted or at a minimum work out a compromise acceptable to all--is to surrender Florida to John McCain.

Florida has 27 electoral votes. What kind of appeal can Candidate Obama make in Florida in the general election: "When you voted against me, your votes did not count. But now, I want you to vote for me and they will count."

This is absurd and ridiculous. It is the fault of Florida authorities that this has come about, and it is quite possibly the fault of Howard Dean for failing to see to it that such an eventuality never came about. It is not the fault of Hillary Clinton and it is not the fault of Florida voters.

In your rush to penalize Hillary Clinton, you are pushing 27 electoral votes right into McCain's camp.

Every electoral vote is vital in the Fall, and Obama cannot afford to surrender Florida to John McCain.

No, there is a better way. Let each group with a claim make their claim fairly and squarely before the Rules and By-laws Committee and the Credentials Committe and let them be voted up or down or a compromise reached.

Ours should be the party of inclusiveness and counting everyone in. Obama supporters should be for inclusiveness and party unity at this juncture. One begins to wonder--if they are not for this, what is it that they are for?

- TULLIUS

May 21, 2008 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS --

What would your position be on a compromise:  Limit Florida and Michigan to their pledged delegates, strip them of their superdelegates, and award the pledged delegates based on the actual votes, with Obama getting credit for the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan.  

I have a feeling you would agree to it without knowing whom it benefited, but would your candidate, Hillary?

To ask it is to answer it.  It would not put her over the top.  She needs the supers. So she'd reject it.   So much for lofty rhetoric about empowerment of the individual voter!  I'd like to see Obama propose this compromise, just to watch Hillary shift from people power and Seneca Falls talk to Hamiltonian aristocratic talk so fast it would cause the poli sci equivalent of whiplash.

- LDuncan

May 21, 2008 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If she's consciously lying, it's a shockingly cynical move. I don't think she's lying."

Well, I think she's consciously lying and trying to pull off a shockingly cynical move.

- scrubbyoak

May 21, 2008 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon Chait's post below does a good job of summarizing Hillary Clinton's disgraceful posturing

- Anonymous

May 21, 2008 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS,

No one is trying to "penalize" Hillary - unless you think holding her to the rules (rules that she agreed to!) is a penalty. She obviously thinks that *is* a penalty, as she is constantly trying to change rules in hopes of gaining an advantage.

In your list of who is and isn't at fault for this mess, you forgot to mention that it is not Barack Obama's fault, either. And yet Hillary wants to punish him for playing by the rules (rules that she agreed to!). And you left out an important caveat when absolving Hillary from blame. She wasn't responsible for the initial when's-the-primary fiasco, but she is most definitely responsible for her disgraceful behavior in the aftermath.

There will be a compromise reached and these delegates will be seated. What cannot happen is to allow Hillary's cynical, desperate, divisive. sleazy maneuvers to go unchecked.

- WoodyBombay

May 21, 2008 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hemlock41

"Her unquestioning belief in her own historical importance, as well as her unquestioning faith in the  moral rightness of her own judgment, definitely makes her unfit for the presidency. It's downright scary"

No shit. Have you seen any Obama rally? It's all about how wonderful the Anointed One.

- sleepyavl

May 21, 2008 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not counting the votes is unjust. But counting the votes as they are, after non-campaigns, is bad too.

Clearly what should be done would be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. If that is not done, then the

votes should stay out.

As for Hillary, I hope she has the sense to take no VP position. She would just be defecated upon by the Anointed One and blamed by the unhinged Obamaniacs for everything. If she waits, she may have another chance in 2012. That's the best she can hope for.

- sleepyavl

May 21, 2008 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS: "Let each group with a claim make their claim fairly and squarely before the Rules and By-laws Committee and the Credentials Committe"

I think that's the point here: that she isn't making her claim "fairly".

- jobeek2

May 21, 2008 at 11:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sleepyavl: The exuberance of rally-goers at the prospect of changing the Democratic Party and kicking the Republicans out of the WH is not the same thing as unthinking worship or adulation. There's an understandable excitement when individual voters come together for a common cause and, in doing so, realize that they hold the power to change things (at least a degree of power) in their hands.

Obama is widely praised by those who know him for being willing to listen to and learn from all sides of an argument and for being willing to accommodate his opponents' views when doing so produces a stronger policy outcome. Hillary Clinton's record in the WH and her behavior in this campaign suggest that the same is not true of her. Her default is to be dug-in and uncompromising and frighteningly certain about the righteousness of her own perspective, even when confronted with plenty of reasonable, well intentioned people who have different points of view.

- hemlock41

May 21, 2008 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like Rick James, Hillary Clinton is a habitual line-stepper. The latest: comparing the non-recognition of the Florida and Michigan primaries to slavery and civil rights along with Zimbabwe. How long will this scorched-earth strategy go on?

- Anonymous

May 21, 2008 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To press for seating the MI and FL delegations would be one thing. Clinton could reasonably do this on the grounds that stripping these states of their delegates (which she signed onto) was a mistake and that the party's chances will be hurt in November if they aren't seated. I wouldn't agree with her, at least not if it meant seating the delegations as is (based on the tainted votes.) But this would be a reasonable gambit.

What's disgraceful and manipulative and deceitful is the kind of moral rhetoric she's using (comparing the party's decision to strip MI and FL of their delegates to slavery! As if membership in the Democratic Party weren't entirely voluntary!) She can't possibly believe these comparisons are accurate unless she wants to admit that she herself was willing to go along with "enslaving" or "disenfranchising" voters in these states a short while ago, when it was in her interests to do so. (She had as much of a stake in flattering Iowa, NH, and SC as any of the other candidates.)  In using this dishonest and grossly exaggerated rhetoric to whip up misplaced moral outrage among her supporters, she is resorting to shameless demagoguery.

- hemlock41

May 21, 2008 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just saw Hillary surrogate Wasserman-Schultz try to revive the argument that, in this internet age, you do not need to have the candidates actually campaign in the State that is voting.  You can look up speeches of their on the internet and watch old debates on the internet as well.

Unfortunately, she was not cross-examined.  As I recall in the last few months, Hillary repeatedly made the argument -- and bought lots of expensive TV ads to drive the point home -- that when Obama would not debate her within the physical boundaries of a particular state (Wisconsin, North Carolina) he was depriving the voters of that state of an essential part of the campaign.

I know, there are so many bigger, fatter contradictions that come out of the pants suit that this one seems minor and maybe even quaint.  But still....

- LDuncan

May 21, 2008 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"She would just be defecated upon by the Anointed One"

sleepy, could you please keep your sexual fantasies out of this? We're talking about the Dem nomination race.

- WoodyBombay

May 21, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sleepyavi -- have you ever attended a political rally that was not about how excellent and wise the candidate is?  C'mon now.  The truth is that Obama, in his speeches and his interviews, is far more willing than any politician in memory to express doubts about himself and not to portray himself as some sort of all-knowing oracle.  Hillary is at the polar opposite end of the spectrum.  She is right up there with W in her unwillingness to admit mistakes or to see an issue from the other side's point of view.

It's true some Obama supporters exalt him and put him on too high a pedestal.  But not all.  Many of us are realists and like the fact the has a pragmatic politician streak to him.  Brooks said it well a few weeks ago.  Obama ain't free of the ordinary political hypocrisies and compromises, but, as Brooks said, he has "moral guardrails," so he tests the boundaries of the high road, occasionally veers off course but then comes back after hitting those guardrails.  Not so with Hillary.

- LDuncan

May 21, 2008 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with TULLIUS. Furthermore, Obama has nothing to lose by exploring some sort of compromise. Take a look at these posts from DemConWatch:

<a href="demconwatch.blogspot.com/.../florida-and-michigan-delegate-status.html">Florida and Michigan Delegate Status - 5/17</a><br>

<a href="demconwatch.blogspot.com/.../fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html">FL & MI By The Numbers</a> (analysis of various scenarios for seating MI and FL delegates)

Any way you split the numbers Obama still comes out with the lead in the delegate count, so there's no reason not to agree to some compromise. In addition, Clinton's unhinged statements of late will only drive more supers to his side. Jim Cooper was right: she has terrible political instincts.

- cleavet

May 22, 2008 at 12:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tully - I hear you on procedural grounds but FL's not in play. McCain will win it easily. Procedure also requires a certain amount of decorum, and (self-)respect. I don't see much of either in HRC's behavior on this matter.

- teplukhin2you

May 22, 2008 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Umm... and if you think her Florida argument is specious, take a look at her Michigan argument, which goes something like:  Barack's name wasn't on the ballot.  Therefore, he got ZERO votes there.  

Also, how come she's not concerned about all the voters who "in good faith," refrained from voting in those states?  After all, they were assuming that the rules of the DNC meant something--particularly since all the candidates had agreed to abide by them.  

One wonders whether  there will come a point in time, after all this is over, when Hillary will be able to look at the record of the events as they unfolded and realize something about herself?  I guess that's optimistic, but still, it really is amazing to me that, given an inch (to allow her to "exit with dignity"), she chooses to take 1000 miles.  

I sure hope it's not the case that because her MI argument is SO ridiculous, the superdelegates will begin to see heer FL argument as somehow reasonable.  I thought they were only standing by the sidelines on the condition that she do nothing further to damage the party and our candidate.  This has been ridiculous for a couple of months.   Now, I don't even know what to call it.

- haeryung

May 22, 2008 at 1:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gavriel Meir-Levi: Thank you for your kind comments. You are truly a gentleman compared to some Obama supporters out here. If I calibrated my positions on the basis of personal attacks the way some people do, I would be supporting John McCain. There is one idiot out here who more than once has attacked me for being an extreme Hillarista even though I have time and again criticized Hillary for her Machiavellianism.

- liberal reformer

May 22, 2008 at 1:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most cynical aspect of all this -- if Senator Clinton really wanted the Michigan and Florida delegations seated, she would simply concede the nomination.  The delegations would be seated posthaste -- maybe the next day.  Her supposed fight for these states is the very thing that stands in their way.

- jrichmondtnr

May 22, 2008 at 2:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you know why the people at Edwards' endorsement speech booed the mention of Clinton?

Because it took place in MICHIGAN. These are Obama supporters who didn't have the opportunity to vote for their candidate, through no fault of said candidate or their own, and they've been hearing Clinton insist that her votes be counted there - when it was supposed to be a beauty contest - and do so in the name of ENFRANCHISEMENT. They didn't get to vote for their guy, and fine if the other side doesn't get counted either, but this is like a double insult to their enfranchisement, delivered by her in the sanctified name of enfranchisement [triple blow], and it must be intolerable.

- psantillana

May 22, 2008 at 2:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After Senator Obama has the nomination safe in hand, but not necessarily publicly acknowledged, he will "generously" allow the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated despite all his previous arguments against that.  Is that high principle?  or am I being cynical?

- pawlowski

May 22, 2008 at 2:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, Brendan, welcome to The Plank, and thanks for your 2cts. (That is, if you are really the Brendan Nyhan the real Brendan Nyhan is. Thank you anyway whichever Brendan Nyhan you are. I love your blog.)

- tomeg

May 22, 2008 at 2:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Her comparisons are just ridiculous.  This isn’t a general election we’re talking about.  Nowhere is it written that anybody has a “right” to choose a political party’s nominee for any office.

- jandura07

May 22, 2008 at 5:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I realize I come to this thread 63 posts-in (alas, work before blog-commenting...), but just so I'm not ducking another Chait-on-Clinton thread...

Over the top, yes.  Deeply outrageous?  Come on now.  I don't say this lightly but Jesus Christ, in a world where Karl Rove used the Justice Department just to get a republican into the Alabama state governors' house (something I don't receall being discussed on the TNR blogs, if it was it barely was mentined), *this* is what sets Chait off?  Was Chait campaigning for the obvious fair solution: a re-vote?  

I'd argue the Clintons' position on Florida and Michigan is almost, though not completely, matched in off-putting ness by the Obama camapign's coyness on the popular vote.  Again, revisit in your mind all those comments in 2000 about Al Gore getting mroe votes and the moral authority that conferred on him (and didn't confer on the new president, GWB),.  There has always been a chance that Hillary Clinton eeks out a popular vote victory even without Florida and Michigan.and they were never going to sanction that as a rubric despite their lead.  

- Lymon1

May 22, 2008 at 5:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lymon, you just make me laugh.  You keep it up brother, SOMEone has to defend Hillary, she's gone mad and it making a total ass of herself.  I pity her.

- Wandreycer1

May 22, 2008 at 6:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So much for the lofty rhetoric about empowerment of the individual voter."

Empowerment of the individual voters is not "lofty rhetoric." -- and that is precisely the point. Are there any other fundamental tenets of the Democratic Party that those who fail to recognize the need for a fair settlement of the Florida and Michigan questions regard as "lofty rhetoric" or just this one?

The central point as of this moment should be Democratic unity and an electoral vote map which favors our candidate's victory. There is a very serious danger of shrinking the party at this point. If non-minority working class voters in PA, OH, and WV don't count, and if FL and MI don't count, then just exactly where is this Democratic ticket going to find its electoral vote majority?

No, fellow Democrats, we cannot expect to win the general election based on scorched-earth triumphalism against the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which makes up half the Democratic Party electorate just at this moment (some would argue it is a majority and it certainly is a majority in the electoral-vote richest states). We are millions strong, and we care deeply.

A "big tent" Democratic Party depends upon compromise, accomodation and unity. The key to victory for Democrats has always been these principles. Kennedy accomodated Johnson, for example. But do those gaining the upper hand within the Democratic Party at this stage believe this? Do they believe in the big tent Party? Or do they feel it is "lofty rhetoric."

Those who excelled in the math of pledged delegates should now tell us how they are going to replace the 27 electoral votes they will lose in November if they show disrespect to Florida Democrats. If they disrespect both Florida and Michigan enough, our candidate will lose 44 electoral votes to John McCain.

- TULLIUS

May 22, 2008 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we should reconsider who won the Super Bowl - there must be any number of post hoc metrics on which the Pats were superior. It's not that I'm a Patriots fan, but if we can be a little more realistic about who wins and loses these contests, I'm hoping that the Cowboys will be declared the winners of their 70's clashes with the Steelers and I can collect on my bets, with 30 years of interest no less.

- geoffgraham

May 22, 2008 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So many people beef about the biased media. Wingnuts swear the media is liberal, liberals are sure it is conservative.

But here reporters have a chance to take down a liberal icon, Hillary Clinton. They could make the HRC agreement to forswear MI & FL the main point of their coverage, constantly juxtaposing the earlier decisions with HRC's current statements. It would take her down, because her perch is unsteady, and the hypocrisy is rank.

Yet they do not do so. If they were conservative shills they would.

I ca come to no other conclusion than this: The MSM has no conception of what it means to play a watchdog role. They exercise no independent judgment, but instead are a kind of hive mind who only think of three things:

1. Is it good TV? (words or audio or statements of more than a few sentences that are at all difficult to follow are not good TV.)

2. What silly game is that journalist over there playing? (Cannot let them get ahead.)

3. By reporting this, can I shove MYSELF into the limelight?

They are deeply unserious people in an important role in our society.

- tomwittmann

May 22, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton placed her fight for the state's delegates in the context of the 2000 recount, the civil-rights movement, and the disputed election in Zimbabwe, and suggested she may go all the way to the convention.

- Anonymous

May 22, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLUIS,

Now you're talking about scorched-earth tactics, but *against* Hillary and her vast legions of supporters. That is simply loony. I can't tell if you're sincere or purposely being obtuse, but here's something for you to consider: It is Clinton and her more zealous supporters who are thwarting the concepts of "unity" and "accommodation" and "compromise." For you to sit there type otherwise indicates that you don't know the meanings of words, or you are being dishonest.

You should also can it with the "disrespecting Florida and Michigan" nonsense. A compromise will be reached. It won't be one that lets Hillary hijack the process, so it won't be one you're happy with. But for practical purposes, I can tell with a level of confidence that Obama will not win Florida (Hillary won't either, if she kitchen sinks the nomination from him) and it will have nothing to do with this alleged "disrespect." Similarly, I am confident that Obama will win Michigan.

- WoodyBombay

May 22, 2008 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not shocked by this.

I'm shocked that the superdelegates don't end this now. Hillary is in a position to run her campaign any way she feels fit: she has a lot of supporters who want her to go on and on... It's up to the DNC and the superdlegates to put this one to bed.

- kbecker

May 22, 2008 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow, it feels like February, with Plank posters like Jon Chait's ridiculously over-the-top attacks on Hillary (this must be the 500th time Chait or Chris Orr has said HIllary is unqualified for the Presidency based on something she said/did/or was accused to have said or done).  Ah, memories.  

Yeah, claiming the civil rights mantle for  counting the votes in Michigan or Florida is wewak.  But I don't think it's significantly worse than Obama's persistent claims that voting for him is akin to risking your life in Selma.

- sprechs

May 22, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can't we all just...

ripeachothers'throatsoutandhandtheelectiontotheRepubsagain?

- teplukhin2you

May 22, 2008 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As detailed on this site, here poor campain strategy of running as the incumbent, spending like a drunken sailor in IA, betting on big states primaries and Super Tuesday, and eschewing caucuses has led to her defeat.  

One wonders what the race would look like if she challanged Obama in the 11 straight contest that he kicked her @$$ in.  Based on the results in OH, PA, WV, KY and the likely results in in PR, she would have easily won the nomination if she had actually run a campain.  As noted, she only became the great saviour of the democratic process when she knew that she could only win the nomination with MI and FL.  Why wasn't she decryiing the disenfranchising of these states iin the fall of 2007 if they are so important.

If he she really is as she believes the best candidate, then if Obama should lose in November, one reason will be her failure to win the nomination when she could so easily have done so.

- bmalin

May 22, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While it may be less entertaining, I would suggest that you might want to stop concentrating your fire against Hillary Clinton quite so much and start concentrating on John McCain if you expect to win the general election. While you are preoccupied with this he is working hard to win Florida and Michigan (not to mention Ohio and Pennsylvania).

It might be time to think a bit more highly of Democratic unity than you are presently doing--you cannot win with 1/2 the Party--you need all of it.

If you seriously think that Florida does not matter and are ready to dismiss it, I would suggest that you check the electoral majorities for the past three Democrats elected to the presidency and see whether or not it mattered.

So far no one has answered my previous question: that if you disrespect Florida voters so much that they vote against the nominee, then where are you going to come up with 27 electoral votes to make up the difference.

There's a reason why no answer has been given: there isn't one.

- TULLIUS

May 22, 2008 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS - can't effectively start in on McCain until Hillary dos the right thing (is she capable?). You know that.

There is only one reason for her kamilkazee pilot behavior and that is to de-legitimize Obama, pray he loses and start up the whole circus to run again in 2012.  I read an quote from a Clinton person this morning saying just that - Time's blog I believe.

There is no honor in what this woman is doing TULLIUS.  She cases only for herself.  It's sickening to watch.

- Wandreycer1

May 22, 2008 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lyndon Johnson (1964) 486 electoral votes: won Florida

Jimmy Carter (1976) 297 electoral votes: won Florida

Bill Clinton (1992) 370 electoral votes: won Florida

QED: TULLIUS

- TULLIUS

May 22, 2008 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS - as far as needing all  of the party - it is manifestly Hillary is doing everything in her power to keep this party divided, on edge - for what concrete, policy based reason?  What - more poor white people are bitter its not her?  That is not a reason.  That is a chosen ignorance. That is not something to be encouraged and coddled by a supposed leader.  That is something to help people grow out of, for our kids if nothing else.

Inagine if unity and leadership really were her goals: imagine her giving enthusiastic speeches for at least the last few weeks on the future, on the clear choice between Obama and McCain, on at least thinking about looking past the things that divide us as Americans and in to the higher angels of our nature.  Imagine.  I can't even fathom the good she could have done and instead took a dark, hateful path.  This is her choice.  There is nothing to gain from this for anyone but herself.

She is the one keeping this party from unifying, her and only her.  As a matter of fact, she has done everything she could to make sure that any resembling unity didn't happen.  At what point are you going to hold her accountable for this?  

- Wandreycer1

May 22, 2008 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're right about one thing, Tullius - it definitely is time to focus on McCain. It's a little hard to do with Hillary still screaming for attention like a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. Thankfully, Obama 1) gets it, and 2) is doing it. They've started looking at potential veeps, and Obama has verbally batted McCain around pretty nicely the past week or so.

The question of making up 27 electoral votes based on the assumption that Florida Democrats are so childish they will vote against their interests because they were "dissed" hasn't been answered because it is so very hypothetical. I don't have an electoral college map in front of me and I don't have the time to game out a half-zillion scenarios. A good place to start would be to add states like Virginia to the D column - Obama leads McCain there by 7, according to a poll today.

And objectively predicting that John McCain is likely to win Florida no matter what happens to the Florida Dems at the Dem convention is not thinking the state doesn't matter or dismissing it. Obama certainly won't dismiss Florida. But I think McCain will win it. Just like I think Obama will win California and New York and Michigan and Vermont.

No reasonable person is going to seriously listen to calls for unity from someone who equates the FL/MI delegate situation with the 2000 recount and Zimbabwe and Jim Crow. You can't say and do the things HRC is saying and doing and then in the very next breath lament the loss of unity. There isn't enough lithium in the world to fix a bipolar mess like that. So what kind of unity do you want, anyway?

- WoodyBombay

May 22, 2008 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hmm -- interesting that none of those three guys NEEDED Florida.

Great point you've made, Tullius. QED! Give yourself a high-five.

- WoodyBombay

May 22, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amidst all this HRC bashing why not concentrate on the super delegates. They can end this race if they choose but they are obviously choosing otherwise.

Implicit in their refusal to end the race seems to lie the assumption that even if the Dems lose the GE the Clintons will remain powerful and HRC will despite all the animosity still be a contender for 2012.

Any plea to end the race should be directed to the super delegates and not HRC.

- hotshot22

May 22, 2008 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary doesn't deserve all the blame here. The party's leadership needs to step in and enforce the rules-- maybe start by explaining what esactly the rules are, or are going to be.

Howard Dean has really dropped the ball here. Gore should also speak up. This is getting ridiculous.

I've never been a big Obama shmoop but anyone can see that he's got this thing in the bag. It's over. He ran a brilliant (if slippery, and annoying to some of us) campaign, and he won fair and square. Now is the time for all good men etc

- teplukhin2you

May 22, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more point, TULLIUS: if the prupose of politics is governance, what does it say about HRC's governance skills that her political capaign has been such an unmitigated cluseterf*** from Day One onward? She had this thing, easily, and threw it away due to (name your pick) bad strategic decisions, atrocious personnel choices (Solis Doyle, Penn), fumbled messages, an inability to rein in her prospective co-President etc etc.

I like her, but really, what does this fiasco of a campaign say about the likelihood of a competent Clinton presidency?

Curious to know your thoughts, as always,

t

- teplukhin2you

May 22, 2008 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dukakis (1988) 111 EV's Did not win Florida

Gore (2000) 266 EV's Did not win Florida

Kerry (2004) 251 EV's Did not win Florida

WoodyBombay--Go back and look at 1976, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

Or as they say: "You do the math."

- TULLIUS

May 22, 2008 at 4:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"maybe start by explaining what esactly the rules are, or are going to be"

Yes. I'd agree. Till then any accusation that HRC is moving goalposts or redefining metrics is no more than whining which ironically is another thing she is accused of.

The leadership would do well to step to the fore, restate the rules and stop this intra-party cleaving.

- hotshot22

May 22, 2008 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This gets "worser and worser"!  State Sen. Steve Geller has just filed suit against the DNC, demanding all of Fl's delegates be seated in the proportion to votes cast.  He is, of course, a supporter of Sen Clinton.

Old white lady for Obama!

blogs.tampabay.com/.../gellers-files-s.html

- lindamwil

May 22, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should've posted this with my original post, but anyway, the Washington State democratic party is inviting readers to lobby uncommitted superdelegates.  If you want an easy way to express your desire for this to be brought to an end sooner rather than later, please just follow this link:

www.wa-democrats.org/superdelegates

- haeryung

May 22, 2008 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tullius, give it up, Hillary won't be the nominee, besides she knows damn well that there will be a meeting of the DNC to work out a compromise, no need for her to shriek and whine until after the meeting is over. I imagine she will hold out for 100% of her position, and then shriek when she doesn't get it. She is pretty evidently either batshit insane or a total narcissist who thinks 2012 can be hers. Either way, she has far less class than Mitt Romney, he looked at the numbers and stepped aside, even though anything could have happened to McCain too (he is pretty old).

Michigan has an election a few weeks before the convention, let them run then. Punish Fla. the same as the Republicans. Then Obama can get the few remaining Superdelegates and wrap it up, Hillary can then go to Michigan and pretend she still matters.

- blackton

May 22, 2008 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HRC is not going to stop until she is stopped. Where are the party leaders, superdelegates? Why are they so afraid to step in? Is it because the Clintons know where the bodies are buried?

It's understandable to not want to antagonize her voters, but it's to the point when that is the best choice. It's a gamble, but close it down and try to repair the damage this summer. If her female supporters are willing to end legal protection for reproductive choice, then so be it. Every time she seems to be coming to her senses and there is a back off so she can have a "graceful" exit, she takes advantage and does something outrageous. And no, she is not an admirable fighter. She is crazed with frustrated entitlement. There are other ways to be a "great American" than serving as president.

Second, the media needs to turn off the cameras, pretending there is still a race, and stop reporting her madness as though it's rational. SHE COMPARED FLORIDA TO ZIMBABWE AND HER ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE NOMINATION TO MLK! How insane does it have to get?

It's time to stop calling racial voters from Appalachia "white working class." They voted out of racial fear. I know, I grew there. Why else is Pat Buchanan supporting her?

- johnbr55a

May 22, 2008 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why the supers are not ending it more quickly!

There are four reasons that the remaining superdelegates have for not making their preferences known, in spite of the increasing hostility and likely damage caused by continuing the campaign:

1. The Clintons have a long-standing and still growing record of revenge, heightened in any instance by whether one was "part of the team", ie. a loyalist or not. If the Clintons have any claim on one's success or position, whether real or imagined, then you better be awfully careful if you want to support Obama. Who wants to have to deal with such nastiness?

2. Many of the remaining supers are concerned that Hillary's supporters will start attacking them and threaten to withhold their votes if they go against the Clintons. This is particularly true of elected officials who won by small margins in swing districts and need all the votes and enthusiasm they can get.

3. A small number of the supers believe that Hillary is due special respect as the first woman candidate to make it this far. Most of the people in #s 1 & 2 above will claim this is their reason, but this is just cover.

4. An even smaller number of the supers, particularly the top people who serve on committees such as Rules and Credentials, who want to maintain their "neutral broker" capacity.

In the Clinton world, stealing an election is "fair game". Any way that they win is right. If they lie, cheat, steal, or assassinate character, it's just "Doing whatever it takes."

- sabatia

May 22, 2008 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TULLIUS - what % of young and black voters came out for those guys?  Not that Im trying to be glib here, it would be nice to have a shot at FL (we do not no matter what), but I just wondered.

- Wandreycer1

May 22, 2008 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since there were some questions regarding the rules, a9.g.akamai.net/.../2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

I believe all of the relevant stuff is in rules 8, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 & 21. Rule 20 is the meat and potatoes of punitive measures and remediation.

Additionally, rule 20, section C, subsection (6)  stipulates for seating what is left of the state's delegation when the primary/caucus thing falls through.

- GSpinks

May 23, 2008 at 4:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FL won't be in play. There were at least 200,000 Gore2000 Dems who switched in 2004 and voted for Bush (or maybe, against Kerry). Hard to see Obama winning back all of those nat-sec'y Dems vs McCain, and he doesn't even have a shot if he cant' win all of them back.

Hard to see MI being in play, either, unless McCain taps George Romney's son as his VP choice. Even then, it would be tough for the GOP to poach this year.

- teplukhin2you

May 23, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

American Prospect Clinton can, and should, finish the campaign. She has come

- Anonymous

May 26, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close