by RenaRF
Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:47:40 PM PDT
I agree with something Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC's coverage of Kentucky and Oregon last night (paraphrased, because the transcript post-11mp EDT is not yet available):
"They're going to have to push her (Clinton) out."
The Washington Post is the first to start writing about what the Clinton campaign is likely really doing, as opposed to what they want you to think they're doing. I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat here, folks. And it's best we entertain the possibility (probability) that Clinton has absolute plans to carry on way past June 3rd. WaPo's article and more stuff over the fold.
Chris Cilizza's
Washington Post article opens like this:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) set off a firestorm this afternoon when, during an
interview with the Associated Press, she seemed to suggest she was willing to
push the Democratic nomination fight all the way to the party's national convention in late August.
No... REALLY? (eye roll) You mean Hillary Clinton ISN'T in this for the good of her supporters, the party, and of Barack Obama?? (double eye roll) Say it isn't so.
I've been (albeit nicely) accused of excessive hand-wringing in my last two diaries (
here and
here). Well meaning Obama supporters, concerned about the feelings of disappointed Clinton supporters, have suggested that I stop alienating those same Clinton supporters. The way I see it, my house is on fire - I'm not going to worry that the neighbor is pissed off that their lawn is getting wet while I try to put it out. Nothing against the neighbor, of course - I'm just trying to take care of the crisis at hand.
<…>
The big operative question is what "resolved to everyone's satisfaction" means. Although Cilizza doesn't see "evidence that Clinton or her campaign are planning to push this fight to the convention", I am skeptical. It was one particular phrase - or rather use of language from her speech last - that has caught my attention (from the speech
transcript:
Now, you know that the stakes are high. After all this country has been through the past seven years, we have to get this right. We have to select a nominee who is best positioned to win in November.
I heard Debbie Wasserman-Schultz use the same language in an interview with Chris Matthews in post-primary coverage - "select" and reference to taking a "hard look and making a selection". I heard another Clinton surrogate, whose name escapes me, use the same language and make the same points - Florida and Michigan had to be seated and then the superdelegates would have to "select" the best candidate to take on John McCain. McAuliffe and Wolfson repeated these talking points on the morning shows.
Suddenly they're all about "selections" and not very much about ELECTIONS. They're all about dubious, deceitful popular vote claims and lying to misrepresent the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination (they say 2,210). There are
reports from constituents in Florida going around about paying 10,000 people to come to Washington DC on May 31 to demonstrate as the DNC Rules Committee meets.
Honestly - what about Hillary Clinton and/or her surrogates' language, posture, or demeanor signals conciliation? Does anyone really believe that she's stayed in this long for the sake of magnanimously softening the blow for her supporters so that they will be more likely to support Barack Obama? Is there something that has happened with Hillary Clinton that I missed, something so earth-shattering that, despite our own best instincts, we all believe she has suddenly had a change of heart?
moreShe used the phrase, "select a nominee," again yesterday:
Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:48 PM by Domenico Montanaro
<...>
Clinton came here to Palm Beach County -- the “epicenter” of the recount controversy -- and to this specific senior center where she appeared nine months ago, to argue that for Democrats to now stand in the way of voting rights would belie the party’s principles.
“To do so would undermine the very purpose of the nominating process: to ensure that as many Democrats as possible can cast their votes, to ensure that the party
selects a nominee who truly represents the will of the voters, and to ensure that the Democrats take back the White House to rebuild America,” she said. “Now I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country, that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted.”
And specifically referring to the Florida recount, she said she remembered when people argued that votes “should be discounted over technicalities.”
And in a way, she compared her fate to that of Al Gore’s.
“
We believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will,” she said. “We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren’t counted, and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner. The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear. If any votes aren’t counted, the will of the people isn’t realized and our democracy is diminished. That’s what I’ve always believed.”
moreEvidently, Hillary doesn't care about disenfranchising Obama's supporters. She is insisting that the Democratic Party throw out the rules and "select" her.
The biggest problem with Hillary's campaign tactic, which is to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Obama's nomination. All the talk about FL, MI and the
popular vote is designed to position her as the legitimate candidate. That will bolster her claim that she, the legitimate candidate, was denied the nomination (problably accusing the Dem Party of sexism in the end). Can she steal the nomination? Not likely, but she will create an extremely bitter group of voters (she already has) who will hate what was done to her. If no one see a problem with that, then let her keep going.
It's despicable.
May 22, 2008
Posted May 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Just yesterday,
I defended Hillary Clinton and her rationale for prolonging the Democratic nominating fight. Given that her own campaign chairman recently said the race would wrap up in early June, and Clinton seemed to honoring a relative cease-fire, there was no real urgency about her withdrawing.
As Jay Jacobs, a New York superdelegate and top fundraiser for Clinton,
told the NYT, “I think in the end, when South Dakota and Montana go last and have their final result, she will sit back and see whether a win can be achieved or not — and if not, she is a class act and will do the class thing and get on board with the Democratic ticket.”
By last night, Clinton had made my defense of her efforts look rather foolish. In fact, looking back, I’ve defended Clinton,
more than once, when people said she was putting her own interests above those of the party and the nation.
But after seeing
her tactics yesterday, I’m done defending Hillary Clinton.
A day after Senator Barack Obama gathered a majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic presidential nominating contest, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defiantly sent out new signals Wednesday that she might take her fight for the nomination all the way to the party’s convention in August.
Mrs. Clinton stumped across South Florida, scene of the 2000 election debacle, pressing her case for including delegates from Florida and Michigan in the final delegate tally. On the trail and in interviews, she raised a new battle cry of determination, likening her struggle for these delegates to the nation’s historic struggles to free the slaves and grant women the right to vote.
I’m 35, and have been following politics for quite a while, and I’ve never been so disappointed with a politician I’ve admired and respected. Yesterday’s tactics weren’t just wrong, they were offensive. For that matter, they seem to be part of a deliberate strategy to tear Democrats apart and ensure a defeat in November.
For several weeks, I’ve appreciated the fact that Clinton considers herself the superior candidate, and has kept her campaign going in the hopes, from her perspective, of saving the party from itself. But after yesterday, it’s become impossible for me to consider Clinton’s intentions honorable. Her conduct is not that of a leader.
What’s so striking is the shamelessness of her reversal(s). When Florida and Michigan broke party rules and were punished by the DNC, Clinton not only supported the decision, she honored it and spoke publicly about those votes not counting. One of her own top strategists was responsible for making the decision in the first place. Now, Clinton is saying, “Never mind what I said and did before.”
moreUpdated to add:
May 22, 2008
Obama
tells Adam Smith -- in another audio interview posted online -- that he would support the idea of sitting delegates at half strength based on the January 29 vote (saying it would be a "very reasonable solution") but that the meaning of the vote totals is limited:
"In all these races if I didn't campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee,'' Obama told the Times during his first campaign trip to Florida in eight months. "It's pretty hard to make an argument that somehow you winning what is essentially a name recognition contest in Florida was a good measure of electoral strength there."
When Smith asked Clinton later about Obama's comment, she said, "I think that is disingenuous but it's also insulting to the 1.7-million Floridians who actually turned out to vote."
But Obama never visited the state or made an ad buy (there was a cable buy and a purchase in Georgia that leaked over the border) -- and in January, Obama wasn't as much a known quantity to anyone, much less Floridians.
"Disingenuous"? Unbelievable! She isn't interested in a solution.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
