I've been trying to keep quiet about the election, but…

Hillary has outdone herself. I’m ragin’ mad.

Her warning of the price that might be paid if the DNC does not seat the Florida and Michigan delegations according to her wishes:

“If we fail to (allow the Michigan and Florida votes to be counted) I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well,” she said. “We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don’t fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won’t even listen to you.”

It sounds to me like Hillary is giving Democrats in Florida and Michigan a reason to vote for McCain in November.  A reason, an excuse, an argument to do anything but vote for Barack Obama.  Let me remind you that in Michigan Barack Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot. And he did not campaign in Florida because BOTH he and Hillary agreed not to.  Yet now it’s only “fair” and “moral” to count those states for her?

Shame on you, Hillary.

Clearly, you only care about yourself. You don’t care about your party or your country.  If your name is the ONLY one on the ballot in November, I won’t vote for you.  You’ve proven to me that you are everything I’ve hated in the current president: arrogant, utterly selfish, and uncaring.

Markos Moulitsas (Kos) said it best in a recent edition of Newsweek:

Hillary Clinton has proved during the past few months that she is a fighter, that she is tenacious, and that she is in the race to win. There’s just one problem. She’s already lost.

No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination. He leads in the one metric that matters most: the pledged delegates chosen directly by Democratic voters. But he also leads in the popular vote, the number of states won and money raised.

Clinton’s near-lone chance of victory rests with a coup by superdelegate, persuading enough of them to overcome the primary voters’ preference. Yet a coup by elite Democrats would be ill-received, to put it mildly. Obama’s base spans the party’s most loyal and engaged constituencies: African-Americans, professionals who generate hundreds of millions in small-dollar donations and a conventional-wisdom-defying outpouring of youth support.

If Obama lost at the polling booth, these supporters would accept the voters’ verdict and carry on. Many, including those who backed Howard Dean’s heartbreaking 2004 campaign, have been through such disappointment before. But if Beltway bigwigs steal a hard-won victory, it would amount to a declaration of civil war. Not only would the resolve of thousands of loyal foot soldiers and the party’s new fund-raising base be irrevocably shaken, but it would torpedo the opportunity to build and strengthen a new generation of Democrats.

Clinton’s best-case scenario for victory requires sundering her own party. It is an inherently divisive strategy, but she doesn’t appear to care. For Clinton, all’s fair in pursuit of victory—even destroying her party from within. Her campaign has adopted a bizarre “insult-40-states strategy,” which has belittled states small, liberal and Red. Apparently, the only states that matter are the ones she coincidentally happens to win.


8 thoughts on “I've been trying to keep quiet about the election, but…

  1. She might have a point if she’d been arguing for inclusion of Florida and Michigan before Super Tuesday. She did not. She agreed not to campaign in those states. In her silence and tacit agreement with the DNC punishment until it suited her politically to make this an issue, she has revealed herself as nothing but a hypocrit who believes in winning at all costs.

    I have no difficulty imagining that she would even take this issue to the court system in an effort to become the nominee by dictate of the Supreme Court… but that might be too obvious a parallel.

  2. I wish she wouldn’t say it that way and I know she’s only really doing it as an argument for her staying in the race, but I do think she’s right about the way folks from Michigan and particularly Florida are likely to feel.

    I’m not sure, with national news and most people getting their news from the internet, how useful local campaigning in a state is anymore. I am aware some of it happened in my area back in March, but I have a day job and I sure didn’t go. That doesn’t leave me feeling uninformed.

    Some sort of vote-by-mail solution, which Obama has favored in congress but doesn’t favor in Florida and Michigan for whatever reason, seems the best answer to me.

    Because, who would win aside, the people of Michigan and Florida not getting their primary votes counted in a tight primary because of the actions of party leaders sucks and doesn’t seem fair. People usually like to back a winner. I suspect Obama would win anyway as it looks more and more certain he’s the guy.


  3. There is a need to remind people that Democrats weren’t the only voters punished in Michigan, the Republican’s were too. But they were the party that showed some sense of balance: Punishment with inclusion. Only half the delegates will be seated. Which is looking like a party of reasonable action or compassion? It ain’t the donkey.

    Certainly the state party officials share some of the responsibility for this fiasco, so some Michigan voters are boycotting the party at every level for this election cycle.

  4. Between this and the “40 percent of Hillary backers won’t vote for Obama if it’s between him and McCain in November,” Hillary has shown to me that she wants 1) to win, 2) to make Obama lose so that she can run again in 2012, 3) she doesn’t have much of a strategy for what to do if Obama does win.

    Maybe she’s counting on the short attention span of the public.

  5. I have often heard that I shouldn’t judge Obama on his supporters. Perhaps we should allow Hillary the same consideration.

    Besides, I’m pretty sure that if Hillary dropped out today most of that 40 percent would have forgotten about that and will vote for the Democrat.


  6. Grr. Trying that last sentance again:

    “Besides, I’m pretty sure that if Hillary dropped out today most of that 40 percent would have forgotten about that by November and would vote for Obama just because he’s the Democrat.”

  7. And it just gets more fun. The assassination of Robert Kennedy was invoked by Senator Clinton yesterday as proof that these races have, in the past, often gone on well into June. The possibility of assassination as a reason to stay in the race …

    I’ve seen much written by Clinton supporters bout the “Obamabots,” about the perceived level of sexism, about empty rhetoric and elitism. It’s challenging to continue reading many of the left-leaning political sites. The ascerbic comments directed toward Obama supporters are disheartening, at best. But, those supporters have been lead down a path by the Clinton campaign. It’s a path ending with a narrative that says, “Something’s wrong with the system if we’re not the nominee.” It is arrogant. It is desperate. It is a lie. Ultimately, if the goal is to assure Obama’s defeat in November to allow Senator Clinton a run in 2012, it’s despicable.

    We might have seen something like this coming, though. The race in which the first viable African American and female candidates went toe-to-toe was sure to raise some passions. Then again, isn’t that the official role of the super-delegates – to tamp down irrationality within the party? They share the blame, as well, for not stepping in and bringing this trainwreck to a close.

    Bottom line is I just can’t vote for John McCain. If Senator Clinton ended up with the nomination, I’d have to think very hard about voting for her. The likely alternative would be to sit this one out.

  8. I’m late to the party, but want to clarify some things CC brought up:

    1) Obama didn’t support voting by mail in Florida because it is against Florida state law to hold an election by mail. He also expressed concern that in both states, the rush to get the results in by the DNC deadline would make it far to easy to screw up any security measures necessary to keep the vote fair — June 3 being the official last day of the primary season by DNC bylaws and this being a brand new method for both state parties.

    2) Polls have reliably shown the Obama’s numbers go up significantly when he actively campaigns in a state, whereas Clinton’s stay flat or go down — many people like to get a personal measure of their candidate, and if they have a personal experience with them are more likely to talk it up to their friends. That goes double if the experience was negative.

Comments are closed.