Did the Limbaugh Effect Also Flip Michigan?
With Hillary Clinton rejecting the compromise that Michigan Democratic leaders just crafted, the Democratic Rules Committee has a dilemma. Clinton keeps demanding that Michigan’s delegates be apportioned according to the January 15 vote, where she was the sole major candidate on the Democratic ballot. But there’s another twist that no one has raised — the impact of a Rush Limbaugh-style crossover on the Michigan vote. Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” quite likely gave Clinton Indiana, provided much of her 4-point Texas margin, buttressed her Ohio win, and decreased Obama’s margin in Mississippi. But no one talks about the impact of crossovers on Clinton’s self-proclaimed Michigan victory, without which her unopposed candidacy would still have gotten less than 50 percent.
Of course the entire Michigan vote was a charade. Former Michigan Senator Donald Riegle compared it to Soviet elections: “a sham” she, Bill, and her supporters “rigged to give the nation the impression that she’s the leading candidate in Michigan.” In an October 2007 New Hampshire Public Radio interview that every delegate should hear, Clinton justified her staying on the Michigan ballot by explaining, “this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.” As Michigan Public Radio commentator Jack Lessenberry pointed out, fewer than 600,000 voted in the state’s Democratic primary, compared to 867,000 Republican votes (and 2.5 million votes for John Kerry in 2004). So Michigan and Florida are among just a handful of states where Republican turnout exceeded that of the Democrats in this year’s primaries. The vast bulk of Michigan Democrats stayed home, with way fewer voting than in far smaller states.
All this so profoundly taints the Michigan primary result that the only reasonable solution is to split the state’s delegates down the middle. But another factor makes the taint still worse — the 60,000 Democrats who crossed over to vote Republican, based on their 7 percent share of the Republican vote. (In comparison, in South Carolina’s contested primary, 11 days later, just 2% of the Republican voters were Democrats. Add in the vote for “uncommitted,” and for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd (who’d already dropped out), plus the 27,000 votes that Lori Hansen Riegle (Senator Riegle’s wife), says were discarded because of write-ins, and the non-Clinton total climbs to 353,686, or 25,000 more than Hillary’s 328,151.
Michigan Democrats who felt the vote was meaningless were in fact encouraged to cross over. Since everyone (including Clinton) said the results wouldn’t count, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsis suggested Michigan Democrats vote for Mitt Romney to prolong the Republican race, keep the Republican candidates at each others’ throats, and perhaps help nominate the presumably less-electable Mitt Romney. In other words, pretty much what Rush Limbaugh and his allies ended up doing, except that unlike Indiana and Ohio, Michigan had no laws even theoretically prohibiting such an action. No one thought Clinton would have the chutzpah to retroactively claim a Soviet-style victory. Other progressive bloggers picked up on the idea as well. I also heard it discussed on my local Air America affiliate. These strategic voters, whether inspired by the blogs or self-initiated, combined with other Democrats who simply figured McCain was less fundamentalist than Huckabee and had more substance than Romney’s empty-suit puffery, so would still be a better choice for America if the Democratic candidate lost. Had all of them stayed in the Democratic primary and voted against Hillary, it would have tipped her to 48 percent.
Kos and his site do valuable work, and I suspect Limbaugh would have launched his campaign without the precedent. But in both cases, Clinton benefited. As soon as McCain had clinched the nomination, Limbaugh and allies like Laura Ingraham began encouraging Republicans to further an increasingly nasty Democratic fight. Obama had been gaining legitimate support from Republicans simply inspired by his message, sick of Bush, and therefore open to changing. A conservative Mormon accounting professor me saying “Paul, you aren’t going to believe this. Obama is way too liberal for me, but I’m going to vote for him because I think he has integrity.” Post-Limbaugh, those who switched included a substantial number of Republicans trying to disrupt the Democratic primary. As the Boston Globe reported, “In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.” A Wall Street Journal story found similar results. Twelve percent of Mississippi’s Democratic primary voters were Republicans, breaking three to one for Clinton, but 31% of that group said she wasn’t honest and trustworthy, which hardly suggested they’d be voting for her come November. In Indiana, Huffington Post staff reporter Sam Stein points out that seven percent of those who voted for Clinton in the primary say they wouldn’t vote for her in November. But without those voters, she wouldn’t have had her two-percentage-point victory.
This resonates with my experience. I’ve gotten emails from people throughout these states who’ve described coworkers, neighbors, or friends who they witnessed bragging or laughing about being part of Rush’s crossover legions. I’ve read many similar first-person accounts on various blogs. Given the size of Limbaugh’s audience and that of his allies in this effort, it seems perfectly conceivable that he shifted 2-3 percent of the vote in each of the states that he targeted. Those jumping on the Daily Kos campaign in Michigan had a far smaller megaphone, but operated under similar strategic assumptions. They were hardly Hillary supporters, or they’d have voted for her, but the numbers suggest their votes made a difference, helping give her the “victory” she now clings to.
Clinton’s negligible hopes require both massive superdelegate shifts and seating both Michigan and Florida according to her fantasy projections, where Obama gets zero Michigan delegates because he wasn’t on the ballot, and where Obama loses in a Florida vote he never had a chance to contest. The Rules Committee decision-makers would do well to remember the conscious interventions of those who tried to game the primary system. In the case of Michigan, they hardly intended to benefit Hillary, but without their switch, she wouldn’t have been able to make even the hollow claims on which she now rests so much of her last-stand campaign.
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. To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
Obama supporters are making a huge tactical mistake in continuing to write articles attacking Hillary Clinton. The time for mending fences is NOW! Assuming Obama is the nominee (I sure hope not, but…), alienating even more Clinton supporters is not a winning strategy!
Ultimately, I think re-votes are needed in both Michigan and Florida ASAP. I would hope it would STOP OBAMA, but the Dems always nominate the wrong candidate every four years - why should this one be different??
There is no tactical mistake.
Clinton is not likable to an extreme degree. If she was a male she would be viciously attacked as a traitor. But because she is First Lady, she gets passes(at the same time she gets sexist attacks).
It was her campaign that used the dirty tactics. Her camp that started the “what’s worse? sexism or racism?”
Her most racist supporters will not vote for a black man no matter what. You cant alienate racists.
The time for mending fences was in January! (when I first suggested it).
All this insanity would have been avoided. The united Democratic party would be bashing the Rethuglicans on a daily basis.
Maybe even standing up to Bush/Cheney. Maybe even stopping the oncoming war against Iran. What a concept!
A united party could reply to any Rethug attack with counter-charges of partisanship. A united party would be a mass movement so strong that it could easily survive the inevitable Rethug slime tactics.
The Rethug party is in retreat. Now is the time to reinforce the attack, not squander America’s valuable time by infighting.
A united Democratic party could easily win in November.
Clinton was the better nominee than Obama. Obama supporters will get “I told you so” from those of us who realize this allready. It’s all so sad. All the name calling of a phenomenal woman who makes mistakes! Does it really make you feel better? You have alienated her supporters so badly that of course they will vote for McCain or stay home! Shame on all Hillary bashers!
This is what happens when people make voting a game. You vote for the person you believe will do the best job, not try to mess with the other side. Every time you try to screw someone you end up getting screwed yourself.
Yes, Clinton is wrong in the way she is trying to get the nomination, and desperate. But WHY is no one in the MSM calling Plush Limblob out for what he is? This is a man who has a following of millions, and he is openly advocating the undermining of the (OUR) democratic process. Does this not confirm what those of us who still have the owner’s manual for our minds: the man is a fascist propagandist who follows in the footsteps of the likes of Joseph Goebbles. I know the dittoheads who listen to him have no clue what is really going on because they have been brainwashed by the GOP and people of Limblob’s ilk. Why isn’t this man relegated to the fringes where he should be, rather than treated like a legitimate taklshow host. He’s un-American! He’s a liar! He’s a first rate hypocrite! His arguments are based soley in ad hominem and straw man attacks. Why is he so popular? Are there really that many non-thinking idiots out there who believe every word of this draft dodging chicken hawk’s vitriol?
Though I agree that Limbaugh has a far larger audience than he deserves, and that anyone who believes him deserves the flimsy democracy they get, in this case I think a lot of people are giving Limbaugh too much credit. As I’ve noted elsewhere (http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/limbaugh-and-operation-chaos/): “People vote for all sorts of reasons, and have the right to use that vote however they like. They can vote for Disney characters–and some do. The fact that you’re far more likely to be struck by lightning than to have your vote actually matter, regardless of whom you vote for, is irrelevant–it’s your vote. I’d argue that voting for or against a candidate who has the nomination wrapped up, as John McCain does on the Republican side, might be as big a waste of time as writing in Donald Duck. (Now, Daffy Duck, on the other hand… there’s a candidate.) Besides, some conservatives, including Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter seemingly prefer Hillary Clinton to John McCain–not necessarily a bad idea from a conservative perspective, considering that Bill Clinton was far more conservative than many Republicans.”
Rich the Clinton-worshipper: then vote for McCain already and leave us alone! Hillary voted for the war and never wavered, if you think that makes her a better candidate then vote for the other warmonger in November. Hillary herself says there is hardly any difference between the 2 so what is your point? That Americans are racist and won’t vote for the same policies if they come from a black person? Even more reason to vote for Obama then. The main difference between the 2 is how they campaign and where they stood and still stand on the occupation of Iraq. Both favor Obama by a country mile. Also I lived in Michigan for 12 years and I can tell you that Obama would pick up more delegates than he is being offered now by the state Democratic party.
All of the hysterical and over-dramatic boo-hooing about the unthinkability of “disenfranchising” voters should’ve happened before the Democratic Party leadership and the candidates signed off on the decision to invalidate the Michigan and Florida primaries because they were convened contrary to established party rules and policies.
Once those primaries were designated unofficial “play” primaries, the process was so discombobulated that the results are simply unreliable– leaving aside all of the ethical reasons why no Democratic candidate (Clinton) should claim “victory”, much less base such claim on seemingly high-minded respect for We the People and the franchise.
When the deal was going down in the back room, all of the players made their moves while We the People were stuffed in the trunks of their limos. And now they’re stuck with the hopeless task of selling “two wrongs make a right”.
I’m going to sound cynical, but I don’t think any of the candidates are going to change much. They all like war, and none of them wants to profoundly change the health care system. They probably will continue outsourcing, and still get in bed with Walmart. The economic stimulus was a joke. They may as well have written a check to Walmart or China. Maybe it would have been better to pay down on the debt to China. Anyway, I’ll still vote third party as usual. This time I’ll vote for Nadar.
There is no doubt that our election system is ridiculous, from the different criteria for voting vs. caucuses, in seemingly no snesible rationale, to superdelegates whose votes count more than others, of course, there is also the money gumming up the works, and when all is said and done we don’t even have a way to verify the vote counts, as 2000, 2004, and 2006 showed.
As for HRC, she is playing the spoiler; I just can’t decide whether it’s a la 1972 or 1988. She has denigrated her Democratic opponenet, even suggesting that McCain would be better than Obama. She and Bill would do anything for power, and we simply don’t need another dynasty.
I can’t beleive some of the posts above who are still trying to hunt with that old dog. Yes, the big issue, in my view, is the war vote, but it is also the recycled Clinton advisors, such as Albright, Holbrook, and worse.
If the 400,000 Iraqis killed under Albright’s watch under the sanctions, and the massacres of East Timoor when Holbrook gave Bill’s blessing to Suharto, what other indicators of a Clinton presidency would be like?
It’s interesting that the Hillary supporters howl about people who “bash” her, but apparently have no problem with her vitriolic campaign tactics against Obama and charitably refer to her lies and manipulations (I.E. Michigan) as “mistakes”. Indeed, she has revealed deep character flaws which I personally believe we do not need in the Oval Office, but they seem unable to see them as flaws, just mistakes. What gives? Is there some inability to process information? Is information being run through an internal filter that rearranges from unacceptable to tolerable? I believe the term is cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps only the people who have integrity themselves recognize integrity when they see it.
kathyodat
I left out another possibility: Perhaps these people believe politics is dirty, and it’s therefore OK to vote for dirty people.
kathyodat
Paul Rogat Loeb writes propaganda for Obama, and it really doesn’t do Obama much good.
Republican cross-overs in Mississippi break for Clinton, but for Paul Rogat Loeb this cannot be evidence that Clinton can bring in more cross-over votes in the general election.
It must be the evil hand of Rush Limbaugh!
12% of the voters in the primary were Republicans, and 31% of that 12%, adding up to a whopping 3.7% of voters in the Mississippi Democratic primary, said they voted for Hillary even though they don’t think she’s a paragon of honesty.
It must be the evil hand of Rush Limbaugh! Because all the other candidates are shining examples of honesty, like…
Who?
Barack Obama? The guy who was for NAFTA before he was against it before he was for it again and voted for NAFTA-Peru? Barack Obama, who votes to fund the Bush genocide in Iraq every time he gets a chance to fund it?
Or would the honest candidate in the race be “Honest John McCain,” who used to be against torturing prisoners (like himself) before he was for it? “Honest John McCain” who turned into a rubber stamp for Bush in a last desperate attempt to become President at any cost?
The honest candidates in all these races, like Chris Dodd, Wesley Clark, and Dennis Kucinich, disappeared a long time ago under the non-stop onslaught of corporate media, and the only survivors, the only possible survivors, are a bunch of ruthless politicians.
If Paul Rogat Loeb thinks that Rush Limbaugh created politics as usual all by himself, then Paul Rogat Loeb should have his pointy little head examined.
Why do you cast aspersions on me when I disagree with you? I’m not a Clinton supporter! I can’t vote for her based on her foreign policy objectives; but I sure like her domestic agenda - it’s much better than Obama’s.
My journey with Obama was that I read all of his books, books and articles about him, his policy positions, listened to his speeches, looked at his funding, and found him seriously flawed and can’t support him. I believe the Dems have made their every four years mistake of nominating the wrong person! (Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Obama). There were much better candidates they could have nominated and maybe we wouldn’t have 28 years of conservative policies that have destroyed our lives!
I dislike the misogyny of Clinton bashers. It doesn’t mean I would vote for her. And to call me racist, wow!! I’m voting for CYNTHIA McKINNEY, a black woman!!!! Yikes, Obama supporters are just so illogical sometimes.
How about articles saying all the good progressive policies that Obama will support? (that would be a short article!) He is pro-war. He is pro-Wall Street.
I always love it when people like Jacob Freeze call me a propagandist.
Re Mississippi, I’d suggest he follow out the links and look at the data for himself. Does a 4% shift in votes matter? Of course it does in a contested election. Since Obama won Mississippi it wouldn’t have changed the media storyline, but he’d have gotten several more delegates. Re Indiana and Texas, it would have changed the story line.
And Re NAFTAgate, please read my earlier article.. Obama’s actually been pretty consistent
www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/06/7528/
I have nothing against Dodd, Clark or Kucinich, but sometimes the purism of the commentators on this wonderful site really frustrates me
Speaking as someone who does not know about the solution that Michigan democrats have engineered, I have to say that I think these votes should be counted and counted as they were submitted.
All along it has been painfully obvious that Howard Dean and the DNC screwed up, went over the line in saying, “If you don’t do it our way, your votes won’t count.” For shame. For shame. A registered voter who goes to the polls and votes within the laws of his state’s election rules should have their vote counted. Period. Otherwise, this is vote engineering plain and simple.
The DNC comes off like a reactive, controlling papa who says to his sixteen year old daughter, “If you date that bum don’t call my house home anymore.”
In a moment of frustration, foolish things are said and a family/organization is shredded.
If I am a duly registered voter and I vote in accordance with my states rules, my vote should count. Do we really want to tag any “except when…” phrase on that idea?
Sad day, sad mistake.
I’m no Hillary fan but she rolled the dice and spent time and money in those states and Obama didn’t. Obama fans I trust could still write him in. Those who lost the bet–take yer lumps.
But don’t start picking and choosing whose votes you will count.
That’s when the party lines between the DNC and the RNC don’t just blur, they conflate.
BeForKids got it exactly right.
Clinton’s warmongering, pandering, lying, whining, and race-baiting has kept me in a permanent state of disgust at both her and Bill. And all the while she is demanding rules — rules she signed on to — be changed to accomodate her.
But now I find her supporters, who condone all these things — I suppose because she’s a woman (or more pro-Israel maybe) — even more disgusting, more bereft of ethics, morality and conscience than her.
That took some doing. No wonder our party is a fucking train wreck.
The president is not so important. He has to play the game like everyone else. What matters is the electoral system which allows for the rich to control who gets elected, all of them rich. Congress is what matters and who owns congress is what matters. Bush didn’t do what he did because he is powerful, he did it because congress wants the same thing he wants, US domination. It is also what the people want. What is truly important is the character of the American people. Need I say this character is horrendous? Vote for whoever for president, in the end the flawed character of the American people will determine the outcome.
For me this is simple: I wanted Kucinich but that didn’t happen (it would have been nice if people with clout had endorsed Kucinich from the get-go, but they didn’t). My next choice would be Cynthia McKinney but that’s not going to happen, either. Out of the candidates that have a chance to become President my first choice would be Obama, for the very simple reason that the Republicans, including Limbaugh, prefer Clinton to him.
Whatever the Republicans don’t want is what I want. And what I want now is for Obama to choose Edwards as his running mate (if Edwards hadn’t dropped out of the race Hillary would have won easily, but since he did maybe now he and Obama can join forces). Combine Obama’s oratorial and inspirational skills, and ability to get young people to vote, with Edward’s “Kucinich Lite, for the working man platform” and you just might be able to unify the party and get somewhere. After all, the Republicans like Edwards even less than they do Obama.
Edwards is cute. It could work.
Obama is a black guy with class. That’s worth a few points to a woman. Edwards is good-looking and has boyish charm. Sound like good leadership to me.
Depends on whether you’re talking tactics or voting records. Talk tactics and a couple of tall, good-looking candidates have a good chance of winning. Also, and I’m not sure, but I suspect if you researched the history of Presidential elections in this country I bet you’d find that 3/4 of the time the tallest candidate won (Bush is an exception, I know). Talk voting records and neither Obama or Edwards would be all that great, but, on the other hand, if either man had a truly progressive voting record, neither one could be elected dogcatcher.
It might even be more interesting if Obama were to choose Gore as his running mate, but that’s not going to happen, either. I think the bottom line is that we’re going to end up choosing the lesser of two evils, like usual, but Kucinich endorsed Obama for one state, and if there’s any politician out there that has always been for the little guy, it’s Kucinich.
The constant whining and sniveling amongst the Democrats is really very unattractive.
Of course, anytime the Democrats reveal any little bit of their true character, its going to be very unattractive.
If ever there was proof needed that American elections are a lost cause, this one completes it. Bill and Hillary showed their true colors as willing to do anything worthy of the worm boy and girl they really are to reach the Imperial Office. Obama’s not much further behind in behavior worthy to one worming, squirming and frantically climbing the pole to the wear the purple trimmed robes and turn his back on 98.9% of America so he can hob nob with the slime at the top of the pond.
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html
PaulLoeb May 13th, 2008 4:34 pm
“I always love it when people like Jacob Freeze call me a propagandist.”
Well, that’s precisely what you’re sounding like to me. This is an incredibly tendentious account of the Democratic primaries, in which Clinton is a pure sinner and Obama is a pure saint.
Never mind that Obama has run a very negative, race-baiting campaign through his surrogates. Never mind that he opposed revotes in Michigan that COMPLIED with DNC rules. Never mind that he runs crying to the media every time he loses (how classy!)
Surely to God Obama does not think he can bring this derailed country together and “change” anything. Just reading the above posts tells me the U.S.A. is completely and irrevocably divided and the Democrats are going to manage to lose an election they definitely should be able to win.
In this small town, the Obama people came on strong and made it very clear that you were either with them or against them and have alienated people. I want nothing to do with them and why should I? When one is called stupid, schizophrenic, a closet Republican and aged Goldwater Girl because of supporting Hillary, it hardly makes for a friendly atmosphere where folks can work together. So, forget it Obama supporters, I’m checking out on this election. Hanging up my tennis shoes after years of volunteering. The smart mouthed brats can knock on all the doors, make all the phone calls, and donate all the money.
BTW, race has nothing to do with this. All the Democrats disagreeing in this town are white.
Neithor Clinton nor Obama campaigned in Michigan or Florida
both agreed before start of the primaries that the votes wouldn’t count, the DNC rules must be respected. If each state held their primarys when they wanted, chaos would reign.
Hillary was OK with this in the beginning, but that was before she started losing to Obama
Both States had over a month to conform to DNC rules or lose their deligates. The States Choose their fate.
THeir primarys were a joke! Voters were misled by their state representatives, who knew the votes would not count.
All this bickering, and the result of the coming election likely has already been determined.
Last month a book was published that documents, with an actual examination of a significant portion of the ballots in Ohio, that the 2004 election for president was rigged. Prior to this examination, accusations that the election was manipulated had relied upon analysis of exit polls, partial evidence, and anecdotal reports that cast suspicions on what had occurred in Ohio and other states. Now, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, says, we have “irrefutable evidence” as to how this crime was committed. With the upcoming election, once again the same forces will be in play to ensure whatever outcome our political parties may find in their interest. Since it appears that both parties are content with the situation as it stands, it is now up to we citizens to decide if we are also content with having our elections determined apart from our intent. So far it appears to me that this may be the case, as little outcry has come from the public. A large part of this apathy is the fault of our media, who have ensured that the issue is kept from the public, and that those who dare to question an election are either called ’sore losers’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’. However, for many who have looked at this issue carefully, there have been many previous indicators that our present election system is highly vulnerable to such manipulation, and that it likely has occurred for at least several cycles. What, I wonder, are we citizens now going to do in 2008?
Access to information about the research process that led to the compiling of the evidence of this crime can be found at http://witnesstoacrime.com/table.htm . For those who did not read Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone, I suggest looking at this well-written summary of our situation. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Hey BrokenTop:
Fine, don’t vote. Let me know in a few years how you’re feeling without any healthcare, late social security checks, and toxins in the imported plastic products you buy.
But I’m sure none of this will bother you, because you’ll have that memory of putting those rotten kids in their place to keep you warm. It’s good thing this world is full of people like you who have their priorities straight.
Oh yea, if this message makes you more upset, maybe you could teach me a lesson by withdrawing from your local elections and state elections too! Boy, that’ll sure show me who’s boss.
Voting for a candidate who has a chance of winning amounts to letting the predatory elite cast your vote. To break this self-defeating behavior, try donating your votes to candidates who have no chance of winning. It’s a lot like volunteering some of your time to the “down and out”. You will come out of that a shiny new dignified and self-determined citizen, able to do your civic duty, to the hateful annoyance of the predatory elite. You will have walked the progressive walk. You will have served the little guy. You will continue voting for the little guy in subsequent exchange/association and you will help starve the predatory elite small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. Your choice is a simple dichotomy: either serve the elite or serve the people.
all of the top 3 runners are way to much alike. They are all lockstep Israel and supporting them way to much. Healthcare has been a non issue. The illegal invasion of Iraq and any other countries will continue. The USA right now is at the last few rungs of the ladder before is free falls into a 3rd world country status. All the people running for office on any level are on the take so where is this great change going to happen??? NO WHERE IN AMERICA
For the past couple of weeks, I was amongst those Obama supporters who was trying to mend with Clinton supporters. I strongly believed that Clinton would, after WV, begin to prepare for a graceful and honorable exit which would be carried over the remaining contests. After all, Obama has almost secured the nomination as he leads Clinton by every single available metric.
With her speech in WV, Clinton clarified her position in regard to the rules of the Party. Before and after the primary, Clinton and her surrogates, went all the way in what should be rightfully called a disregard of the internal rule of law of the party. Basically claiming that the rules must be changed, that the millions of voters who have already voted don’t count, and that the elected pledged delegates don’t count either.
What seems to only count for Clinton is the popular vote of some but not all contest (after all many caucus states don’t divulge their numbers) and the superdelegates. This is because those are the two only metrics that she can hope to change in her favor.
While it is true that Clinton and her surrogates have stopped the direct attacks on Obama, they have not stopped (and actually increased) their attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations as well as the will of the majority of its voters thus far.
The Clintons and their surrogates keep moving the goalpost as they see fit and they must have a lot of clout within the upper echelons of the party since no one (where are you Howard Dean?) is telling them they should stop their extralegal attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations.
On Meet the Press last Sunday, talking about the FL and MI delegations, Terry McAuliffe said that “the rule is 50 percent” and that he would be content with 50% of the delegations from those states seated. Now, two days later, they want 100% of the delegates seated as is, even though Clinton herself said back in December, that these primaries “will count for nothing”.
Their rationale is that we need 50 states in November but they don’t seem to care about the fact that they might end un with 25 states if they keep pushing their unorthodox efforts and drive away a large chunk of Obama supporters in the process.
Since there is no logical explanation to Clinton’s refusal to play by the rules, the only possible explanation is that what we are witnessing is a pure and simple coup attempt by the Clintons and their surrogates. Now that they cannot win by the rules that they themselves have helped to lay out and that they have accepted at the beginning of the process, they feel it’s ok for them to demand that the rules be changed as they see fit in order to make the math work in their favor.
They now claim that they could win the popular vote but what they are not saying is that they are only referring to those states who hold primaries. Clinton knows very well that some caucus states don’t release their popular votes results so, while with one hand she acts as the champion of democratic voters by demanding that FL and MI be seated, on the other hand she is openly trying to disenfranchise the voters of those states where caucuses are held.
Clinton has already passed the point of no return and has done great damage to the integrity of the primary process. Clinton and her surrogates have clearly espoused the belief that the end justifies the means and they will not stop their attempts to win the nomination at all cost.
And so we find ourselves in this Orwellian land of double speak where Clinton pretends to be the champion of democracy and the popular vote while she’s openly and directly undermining the democratic process since her only path to the nomination is for the superdelegates to overturn the the will of the pledged delegates.
This is a very dangerous route she is taking because if she believes that Obama supporters will sit idly by and let her destroy the integrity of the process, she’s highly mistaken. This was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, the year when the people throw out the Rupublicans because of all their failed policies. Istead, because of the thirst for power of one person we are more and more likely to witness a civil war within the party that will cripple it for years to come.
Way to go Mrs. Clinton.
I can’t get over it. Clinton says, “Look at my record,” and touts her “experience,” and what does her record and experience show? That she’s an abject failure. McCain does the same thing, and he’s the Repub nominee… Only in America does failure rise to the top.
Of course, Hilary wants the nomination - who cares how many voted for the other person? Why not? Bush stole the elections; why can’t she? More hubris and power-hungry scare mongerers. Just what the world needs…
AGI & JUDE 111: Excellent comments & points.
jude111,
Yea, that occurred to me as well. Any nation that prevents a woman from cheating to win the way that some men have cheated to win, and any voter who punishes a woman for being a pathological liar, a warmonger, and a panderer who constantly insults voters while some men have gotten away with all that, is hopelessly misogynistic!
As for voting Green Party, I thought most adults prepared short-term and long-term approaches and plans with regard to all the important issues in their lives. What makes sense for the short-term does not necessarily for the long-term, and vice versa. Since McCain is a threat not just to the US and progressives and all they hold dear but to the entire human race, it would seem that a reasonable short-term plan with regard to political participation would be to stop McCain, and the only way to contribute to that is to vote for Obama.
But of course the Democratic Party does not appear to be an attractive long-term solution, so at the same time it seems reasonable to support the Green Party and other parties on the left in a way to help them build for the time in the future that economic, cultural, and political conditions change so that such parties may have an impact. That does not necessarily equate to voting for such parties, however, before they are viable. Building a party is more complex than simply voting for its candidates that have no shot at winning. More sophisticated strategies need to be developed and considered.
It amazes me that people still don’t see what the Clintons are doing.
First, shortly after the massive fraud in Ohio 2004, Bill Clinton remarks that George Bush won the election fair and square. A stunning statement in light of statisticians putting the odds of the election being legit in the stratosphere.
Then in 2008, Hillary seems to benefit from similar statistical anomalies. She wins every machine counted county in New Hampshire, yet loses every hand counted one. Is this what you Clinton fans mean by better candidate?
If so, you should ask yourself why the scumbags who control those machines would want her in the White House. You should ask yourself why Rush Limbaugh, and Richard Mellon Scaife, and Ruppert Murddock are so devoted to her candidacy.
Then go back and study the betrayals of their first presidency. Or her promotion of the wars, and her betrayal on John Roberts (saying she supported him, only to vote no after sabotaging the opposition to him).
If you really care about any chance of rescuing this country from the power elite that the Clintons serve and have become, then write the super-delegates you can, and urge them to support the Democrat. He happens to be an exciting candidate, who would be working to achieve a Democratic workable majority in both houses of Congress, were it not for the stealth Republican attacks lead by the Clintons.
You’d think Hillary Clinton is the public enemy no.1 when one reads this article and all the others of the same ilk.
Obama himself has never endulged in these tactics, but his followers in all discussion forums sure are an ugly, mean, unfair and nasty bunch. They’ve alienated Hillary-voters to the extent that many now quite rightly say that they’d rather stay at home than vote for him if he becomes the Dem candidate.
What a brilliant strategy from Obama’s followers who are supposed to represent the more educated part of the electorate! Kudos, folks, that’s how you win an election - for the Republicans, that is.
You know what this is, Loeb and all the rest? BRAINLESS.
Has everyone forgotten the ACTUAL goal? All you Clinton supporters who insist you won’t vote Obama because you’re bitter about her losing are just giving the presidency to McCain.
One underlying thread here seems to be our perpetual ability to “select” (quotes intended) flawed candidates, which all too often puts us in the position of voting for the lesser of several evils. Our political system, like most, encourages those who crave personal power. It does not necessarily encourage those who might be better qualified to run the country. It’s hard to imagine submitting oneself to the endless, mad carnival that passes for a presidential election in this country.
Our party system is indeed screwed. The Dems have a civil war underway (witness a lot of the preceding posts), while the GOP seems quite simply to be dying out (massive defections as well as internal ideological battles). All of this is gleefully reported on and encouraged by what we refer to as the “mainstream media”, which has become little more than a bad national joke, and further fueled by dickheads like Limbaugh and his braindead acolytes. If there was ever a time for a third party to arise, this would seem to be it. Unfortunately, given the lock on our system by the DNC and RNC, that won’t happen before November, as there’s simply not enough time. Voting for anyone other than one of the two anointed candidates will be simply tossing away your vote, which while it might feel good is a pretty risky gesture in terms of potential negative impact. What is really needed is for someone, or some group, to start an honest effort to build a third party right now. Not for this coming election, but so that it can have an impact on the 2012 election. And while we’re at it, maybe force all the state primaries to happen on the same date, following the same rules, and all this only a couple of months before the general elections. As it stands now, the entire system is becoming increasingly farcical, and can hardly be called democratic.
Another Clinton-bashing article. What is wrong with this web site ?
The problem with Michigan is not Clinton, or the Clintons, the problem with Michigan is that the Democratic Party leadership screwed up BIG TIME. And is STILL doing so months later.
This is why Clinton is still in the race, people, because nobody knows what’s going to happen. She’s smart to not give up too early.
The campaign is over, Obama wins. In Grand Rapids MI. Barack
Obama just got John Edwards endorsement. Edwards spoke for
about 20 minutes, paid tribute to Hi-liar-y and when he finished, he was given a standing ovation.
About the only thing that can keep Obama out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is if he’s assassinated
Yeah, that’s really about where things stand, but assassination is not something to joke about. Given all the armed hatred out there, some of it organized, it’s too real a possibility. That would about drive the final nail into the coffin of the already moribund American experiment in Democracy.
Clinton left her name on the ballot in MI. She just happened to be in FL for a fundraiser on the eve of the primary. While she may not have campaigned, technically speaking, she came about as close as she could without actually crossing the line.
There is no way to resolve MI/FL without disenfranchising voters. The delegates should just be split evenly. Then we can focus on preventing similar occurrences in the future.
Rich Griffin [May 13th, 2008 1:30 pm] wrote: “Clinton was the better nominee than Obama. Obama supporters will get ‘I told you so’ from those of us who realize this allready. It’s all so sad. All the name calling of a phenomenal woman who makes mistakes! Does it really make you feel better? You have alienated her supporters so badly that of course they will vote for McCain or stay home! Shame on all Hillary bashers!”
Clinton, with her extraordinarily high negatives when she started her campaign — nearly half in most polls said they would never vote for Hillary Clinton — is the better nominee? The woman who ran one of the worst primary campaigns in modern history? That’s a delusion right out of Hillaryland, where they democratically count votes in states where ‘the vote doesn’t count’ unless Hillary is the only major candidate on the ballot.
“All the name calling of a phenomenal woman who makes mistakes!” Lying about being under sniper fire in Tuzla wasn’t a ‘mistake’; lying about her support of NAFTA and other trade deals wasn’t a ‘mistake’; running a Republican-style smear campaign on Obama wasn’t a ‘mistake’; babbling she might ‘obliterate’ Iran wasn’t a ‘mistake’; trying to change the rules in mid-game isn’t a ‘mistake’; saying “hard working Americans, white Americans” may have been a mistake, but it sure worked in her favor in racist white West Virginia, so it’s doubtful it was really a slip of the tongue. And voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment to give Bush a loophole to attack Iran at his discretion also wasn’t a ‘mistake,’ it was stupid — unless she’s just as much of a warhawk as any of the neocons. Kathyodat [May 13th, 2008 2:57 pm] is right: do we really need another president who will casually lie and distort information — make ‘mistakes’ — to benefit her agenda?
If any of her supporters want to vote for McCain instead of the Dem nominee, let them — and when he appoints Supreme Court judges who overturn Roe v. Wade, and pass the rest of the anti-woman Christopublican agenda, and when their sons and daughters die in more GOP wars, they can feel satisfied that they sure showed that black guy he couldn’t deny their Hillary the nomination! We’ll know who they are on sight — they’ll be full of spite and missing their noses.
Shame on Hillary for running one of the worst and most divisive primary campaigns in my memory, and I remember Eisenhower.
Rich Griffin [May 13th, 2008 4:30 pm] wrote: “How about articles saying all the good progressive policies that Obama will support? (that would be a short article!) He is pro-war. He is pro-Wall Street.”
Really. He was against the Iraq War from the beginning, he’s against a war with Iran, and perhaps you’ll post exactly what bills he has proposed or supported that were pro-Wall Street.
jmcpherson [May 13th, 2008 2:23 pm], perhaps Limbaugh and his ilk are salivating at the idea of another Clinton presidency — their ratings were never higher than when they were attacking Bubba viciously and they’d have someone to blame for the Republican mess we’re in other than the GOP.
Jacob Freeze [May 13th, 2008 3:13 pm], as usual, you’ve got the facts mixed up — Obama wasn’t for NAFTA before he was against it — he has always questioned NAFTA, as the NAFTA-supporting Chicago Tribune noted in an editorial in 2004. Obama has also proposed bills to limit funding of the Iraq War.
BTW, Jacob, I wouldn’t carp about the ‘pointy little heads’ of other people when you have to comb your hair with a pencil sharpener.
MollyJ [May 13th, 2008 5:54 pm] wrote: “I’m no Hillary fan but she rolled the dice and spent time and money in those states and Obama didn’t. Obama fans I trust could still write him in. Those who lost the bet–take yer lumps.”
Molly, Hillary made an agreement with the other candidates and the DNC not to spend time and money in those states nor count their votes. She violated that agreement by showing up in Florida on the eve of the primary for a ‘fundraiser’ knowing she would garner free state and local media coverage, which she did. She gamed the system in Michigan by leaving her name on the ballot and, as Paul Rogat Loeb points out in this article, write-in ballots were discarded, many Dems didn’t vote because they were told it didn’t matter, and about 40 percent of the Michigan vote went for ‘Uncommitted.’ Nobody ‘lost any bet’ — Hillary blatantly went against her word.
VAGreen [May 13th, 2008 10:55 pm] wrote: “Never mind that Obama has run a very negative, race-baiting campaign through his surrogates. Never mind that he opposed revotes in Michigan that COMPLIED with DNC rules. Never mind that he runs crying to the media every time he loses (how classy!)”
Yet another anti-Obamamaniac who doesn’t provide examples of what he or she is talking about — it seems to be an epidemic. Please point out the details of Obama’s negative, race-baiting campaign through his surrogates. He opposed the re-vote in Michigan because he’s not insane — the re-vote would have been financed by Clinton supporters, since the state wasn’t going to pay for it. Actually, I’ve heard many Clinton supporters crying to the media that they weren’t being fair to their candidate by employing such dastardly weapons as mathematics against her, but I have yet to hear any whining as embarrassing as Clintonista Lanny Davis’ recent puling because Edwards’ endorsement of Obama pushed Hillary’s victory in West Virginia out of the headlines. What a horrible cad! Why doesn’t her opponent kneel to the queen like everyone in her campaign does?
BrokenTop [May 13th, 2008 11:41 pm] wrote: “BTW, race has nothing to do with this. All the Democrats disagreeing in this town are white.”
Gee, Broken Top, if race has nothing to do with it, why even mention it? Thanks for your sincere and everlasting commitment to progress in this country. Have those tennis shoes bronzed.
Kivals [May 14th, 2008 10:50 am], I agree. Obama in the short-run and a third party in the future. It’s long past time the Greens got over their petty squabbles, grew up and started acting like a serious third party, establishing themselves with a full slate of good candidates for state, local and federal offices (I know, they already have some, but not enough); concentrating on professional fundraising and organization, such as GOTV drives and getting voters to the polls on election day; and fielding a candidate for president — a Robert Redford, for example — with national name recognition who could command free media attention, as well as invest in TV and radio spots instead of handbills. I don’t like it, but that’s the way the game is played these days.
I have nothing against Cynthia McKinney, but I think she could have done more good by retaining her Dem seat in Congress instead of this vain pursuit of the presidency. Most voters haven’t — and won’t — even hear of her this year.
If Nader would have stuck with building the Greens after 2000 I think they could have had some influence this year, but that was not in the cards.
glenn goodman [May 14th, 2008 11:13 am], true, and you might also add the Harlem primary ‘anomaly’ where in Clinton-supporter Rep. Charlie Rangel’s NY district, many black precincts showed Obama getting zero votes next to precincts where Obama was winning by large margins. Statistically, the odds of this happening are about the same as those of Dick Cheney giving away all his money to the poor and becoming a Buddhist monk.
Araquin [May 14th, 2008 11:20 am], sorry we’re such an “ugly, mean, unfair and nasty bunch.” I appreciate your upbeat, fair, non-ugly and non-nasty generalization of every Obama supporter here as “BRAINLESS” — just the thing to bring us all together. Say, are you available to become our UN representative, should McCain win?