The One Legitimate Argument -- No Kidding -- for Hillary Clinton's Nomination
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party."
Thus spoke one of the superest of delegates, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, yesterday on ABC's "This Week"; at once an increasingly outspoken show of candidate preference and apparent response to fellow-superdelegate pleas that somebody bring some order to their most disorderly house.
Democrats are, of course, famed for their defiance of industrial self-organization, but in this election cycle they have raised the production of bumbling mayhem to a kind of "Blazing Saddles" philosophical exactitude: "You know, Nietzsche says, 'out of chaos comes order'" -- to which all the intensely worried rose and answered, "Oh, blow it out your ass, Howard."
Dean, perhaps? For he is one of the supposedly saving triumvirate beckoned to the eventually needed rescue, as reported on the day of Pelosi's spooky pronouncement by the superdelegate-surveying New York Times: "They spoke of having some power broker — the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — step in to forge a deal."
If "they" really wanted to short-circuit all the intervening democratic fuss by forging an insider deal, they could always just pick up where they left off in 2000. That is, dust off Al; have him name Barack as running mate; and have him further declare, given her vastly expansive 35 years of governing and administrative experience, a coming one-woman, all-Hillary cabinet.
But of course that would be too bloody simple and probably too bloody popular. As they proved in their last presidency beyond all reasonable doubt, Democrats thrive on hair-raising angst. The simply popular is to be avoided at all costs.
Which brings us back to Nancy and her aforementioned spooky pronouncement: "If ... the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party."
Seems like a reasonable prediction. So why, pray tell, is it characterized here as "spooky"?
Because it prompted ABC's George Stephanopoulos to then ask what also amounts to the bloody obvious: Which should count as the primary results: an edge in pledged delegates amassed or a plurality in the popular vote?
To this, the Speaker first offered up one of her world-class deer-in-the-headlights performances, but upon quickly regaining her leadership composure she hauled out the "rules," such as they are in the Democratic Party's unruly universe: "It's a delegate race. The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."
I like that: "the "system." It almost makes it sound as though Democrats have one. Well naturally they do, until they change it, that is, which then once again and instantly becomes subject to the systematic tenets of industrial self-disorganization, which guarantees the continuity of said hair-raising angst.
Ms. Pelosi uttered her "rules are rules" declaration with a strained nonchalance that knowingly foreshadowed its possibly imminent doom. And in this instance, one can easily and, if I may add to the mayhem, objectively understand why.
If Sen. Obama maintains his popular as well as pledged-delegate lead -- and contemporary history heartily suggests he will -- then contemporary rules shall obtain. I hold this to be a self-evident truth. Case closed.
If, however, Sen. Clinton somehow ekes out a narrow lead in voter popularity, then a sound, reasonable and quite threatening argument against the party's existing, delegate-only rules can and will be made, for Democratic rules are indeed historically malleable things. In facing a popular plurality that competes with a delegate edge, party muckamucks would be hard-pressed to go with the existingly arbitrary only.
There is no doubt that if Obama were likewise trailing in delegates yet closing in on the popular vote, one would hear this argument exclusively, exquisitely and forcefully made by his camp -- perhaps even convincingly. There will always be a touch of the "old politics" in the new, and that, alas, is the one, the only tamper-proof rule we can always count on.
So should Hillary succeed in her chase for popularity -- and again, the situation strongly suggests she shall not -- it will be, as they say, a whole new ballgame. Pelosi, Dean & Co. will be forced to concede that an admissible argument can be made from either side, thereby opening another party-rules-changing opportunity for enduring party division and wholesale bedlam.
Furthermore, should Hillary ever have the chance to put forth this altogether reasonable argument, and should it even prevail, the party consequences would be catastrophic. This, too, I hold as a self-evident truth.
That a political organization that labels itself as one of progressive values should nominate -- however legitimately -- a neoconservative-war-sanctioning candidate would be its permanent kiss of organizational death. Properly, legitimately so.
Please respond to the commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact P.M. at
fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.comTHE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Fight Ignorance: Read BuzzFlash.com
BuzzFlash: Editorials | Interviews | News Analysis | Alerts | Perspectives | Radio Ads | Reviews: Books, Movies, Music | Television | Books, DVDs, CDs, Hats, T-shirts
Community: BuzzFlash Mailbag | Reader and Guest Contributions | News Releases
Columns: Wings of Justice | GOP Hypocrite of the Week | Last Chance Democracy Cafe | Libby Defense Fund | Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop | The Daily Buzz | Independent Thinker of the Month | World Media Watch | Blue State Jukebox | Verse-Case Scenario | Ms. Smith Goes to Washington | Caption This
Columnists: P.M. Carpenter | David Lindorff | Barbara's Daily Buzz | Ann Davidow | Thom Hartmann | Steven C. Day | Steven Jonas | Tony Peyser | Shirley Smith
Cartoonists: Kirk Anderson | Steve Bradenton | Tony Peyser | Andrew Wahl
Poets: Tony Peyser
Other: About | Frequently Asked Questions | Headlines | Search BuzzFlash | Put BuzzFlash Headlines on Your Web Site | Get BuzzFlash Alerts | Contact | Home
Support Independent Media: Click Here to See How
Unless otherwise noted, all original content
and headlines are © BuzzFlash.
Contact BuzzFlash for reprint rights.
General Disclaimer: Guest and Reader Contributions, News Releases and Mailbag Letters posted on BuzzFlash are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BuzzFlash or its editors.
P.M. Carpenter clinton obama
Gators are hungry
Damn her
Insightful
"Monstrous ego"?, "Mrs. Bill Clinton"? - So it's all Hillary Clinton's fault for daring to even run in the first place? You believe that? Wait ..... you TRULY believe that? .............. wow
Permanence is fleeting,
Hillary or Barack
And, in the same vein, if Republicans are voting for Barack, then that just shows that he can appeal to a broad range of voters in November. However, if Hillary is attracting Republican voters it is something sinister that spells the end of the Democratic Party.
Does anyone (besides me) see the fine hand of Karl Rove in all of this? How many of you think that Karl has given up on the "permanent Republican majority" and just gone off to pop Viagra and Oxycontin with Rush Limbaugh in Haiti? Remember, Karl Rove controls the mainstream media and the counting of the votes. [Diebold is alive and well in spite of the fact that they may have changed their name.] His best bet is to try and beat Hillary in the Democratic primary, because IMHO the Republicans don't stand a chance against her in November.
Again, I say, let this exercise in democracy play out and the cards fall where they may. There are only 105 pledged delegates separating the candidates at this point. And less than 1% difference in the popular vote. The fallacy that it is mathematically impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in popular vote or delegate count is just plain wrong. And, BTW, pledged delegates DO NOT have to vote for the candidate that they are pledged to -- except, perhaps, on the first ballot. And no one will have the 2025 delegates necessary to be nominated on the first ballot.
RE: IMHO the Republicans don't stand a chance against her in Nov
You are of course free to have your opinion, however having an opinion does not necessarily mean it has any correspondence with reality.
The reality is that polling by both SUSA and Rasmussen show Obama to do better than Clinton against McCain in every state but three and one of those is NJ and I grew up in NJ and there ain't no way, no how that NJ will go red in '08.
Further, as this polling and the recent flipping of Dennis Hastert's seat to D in a very red IL district clearly demonstrates, the Obama extension of Gov. Dean's 50-state strategy will almost certainly result in a substantially larger Congressional majority. This translates to much greater likelihood that the Democratic President's agenda will be enacted.
I don't demand that HRC drop out today, but I do demand that her campaign stop demagoguing Obama. Her actions and the actions of her campaign are just plain bad for Democrats. There are no two ways about it.
And if you believe the crap that is being peddled about Obama, read this.
Go home, Hillary
Not Guh Hapn
Obama Recruits his own Republicans for a day
I'm sorry
but that is total and utter bull, not to mention incredibly insulting to me personally.
I'm in the thick of the Obama campaign voter registration effort in PA and those efforts start first and foremost with identifying Obama supporters and then determining if they are registered as a Democrat so that they can vote for him in the primary as PA is a closed primary. Neither Republicans nor independents nor 3rd party registrants can vote in the Democratic primary unless they change their registration.
This requires filling out a complete registration form and mailing it in no later than 3/24, 30 days (adjusted 2 29 by the fact that the 30th day is a Sunday) before the primary.
As we learned when Gov. Rendell ran and we got many thousands of pro-choice Republicans to re-register as Democrats so they could vote for him over Bobby Casey, the great majority of such switchers stayed switched.
The success we are having in the current effort will reap very long lasting benefits for the Democratic Party in PA - for this November and many to come.
Our biggest problem is weeding out the few Limbaugh lackeys who want to switch so they can get their preferred candidate to run against.
RULES CHANGE IN THE GAME.
I am so enraged that any Democrat would think of changing the rules in the middle. All of these rules were agreed on and all the candidates signed off on them, agreeing that they would follow the rules and now Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink at ever rule.
More electable is now the reason for her being appointed. Hell, she isn't even more electable in the Democratic Party. Delegates be damned. The Democratic voter be damned. Especially those in those worthless states or those worthless, undemocratic Caucuses. We have always chosen our candidate by voting and having those votes count toward elected delagates as the standard of choosing our Presidential choice to run in the General Election.
What Hillary is doing is SO Republican. No, it is SO Soviet Style government. I reject and denounce this.
Then you have the States of Michigan and Florida. The rules were that if they held their primary and caucus early, their delagates would not count. Plain and simple. Rules that everyone agreed on. Now Hillary is demanding that the rules be changed, because now she needs them, (although all say that it won't help her. Makes one wonder why it is so important to her. The only thing I can come up with, is if she gets this change from the rules, it will be so much easier for her to get other changes made. Once you accept one seemingly not too important "sin", it is easy to justify the next one and the next one), even though before she started losing, she stated that those two States were not going to count, not important.
Okay, I don't like how California came out. I believe that if the Californian primary was held today, that it would be so much different. And my candidate, Edwards or Dodd, or Biden, fill in your candidate, would win it now. So, let's do a do-over. Oh hell, let's do the whole thing over again. Seems fair. The candidate did not fair too well and so let's not follow the rules as agreed on before this whole primary election season started.
Rules be Damned!
Voters be Damned!
Democracy be Damned!
Reality Check...
Here's how Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen L. Thurman put it a few days ago:
"We must refocus our discussion of this issue on the people of Florida. Restoring their faith in the Democratic Party is of paramount importance. No action is truly a solution if it leaves Florida voters feeling that they were excluded from this most exciting nominating contest in history. Because of the unprecedented nature of the national race, a situation that previously was a relatively minor, party-insider issue now has the potential to result in irreparable damage for years to come. The people of Florida are not responsible for this dilemma and should not be unfairly punished by losing their right to vote."
Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer also released a statement last Thursday urging party leaders to find a way to hold a new primary so Michigan's Democrats could have their votes counted. He said " Michigan is critical to electing a Democratic president, and electing a Democratic president is critical to Michigan. A McCain presidency would bring four more years of the failed trade and economic policies of the Bush administration that have devastated Michigan’s economy."
Here's what Barack Obama said about the issue: "I think it's important to make sure that people of Michigan and Florida feel as if they're part of this process and that they're heard. And we've just decided that we're going to play by whatever the rules the DNC has set forth. That's what we've done from the start. And I'll leave it up to the Democratic National Committee to make a decision about how to resolve it. But I certainly want to make sure that we've got Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention in some fashion."
DNC Chair Howard Dean, in line with his "50 State Strategy" also wants to find a way to give Florida and Michigan Democrats a voice. After all, these are two states the Democrats MUST take in November.
So, given the circumstances, are you really in favor of disenfranchising Democratic voters?
Just to be clear
It is the elected officials in MI and FL who, as it stands now, disenfranchised the voters of their respective states. The DNC told them over and over what would happen if they failed to abide by the established rules. They rolled the dice and they came up snake-eyes, so it isn't the DNC, HRC or Obama disenfranchising them.
That said, sure, everyone wants them to have their say, though doing so in a fair way is the challenge. HRC wants the results of the illegitimate elections to stand as they are and Obama wants either a fair re-vote or a reasonable split of the delegates.
HRC is never going to get her way, so if a re-vote is DOA, and that certainly appears to be the case in FL, then she has no choice but to come to the table and make a reasonable offer to Obama. If she fails to do so, then she is the one maintaining the disenfranchisement.
Meanwhile, FL is a bit of a long shot in November given the polling and MI is going to stay blue - I've little doubt of that - and while we probably can't lose both in November and win the big prize, we certainly can lose FL and still win - well, at least if Obama is the candidate as the results of reliable polling make clear.
Truth be Damned!
No one is "breaking the rules," and this type of misinformation is ridiculous. The line, as repeated often here at BF, is that Obama is ahead in delegates, and the rules say that the candidate with the most pledged delegates wins. Everyone agreed Florida and Michigan would not count, and now Hillary’s trying to “steal” the nomination by breaking that agreement and having those delegates seated (or by re-voting). Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, HC cannot possibly win, and so she needs to quit now. Did you ever notice that everyone who claims "the rules are being broken!" never actually says what rule is being broken? The reason is pretty simple ........ the rules are not being broken. Each and every premise of this is false.
1) First, the candidate with the most pledged delegates will not win the nomination, because neither HC nor BO will have enough to secure the nomination. The rules do not mandate that the candidate with the most pledged delegates wins. Each will need to persuade the superdelegates to vote for them, and the superdelegates are not bound by anything except their own judgment in choosing a candidate. Yes – the superdelegate system is foolish and undemocratic, but it’s “the rules.”
2) Everyone agreed Florida and Michigan do not count, and now she’s cheating by trying to have them count, or by way of a re-vote – Sounds good, but it’s BS. The candidates never agreed that Florida and Michigan should not be seated – it would be foolish for them to anger the voters of these states by doing so. In their "Four State Pledge," the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan. http://tinyurl.com/33xllv That’s it. No more, no less. Not seating the delegates was a decision of the DNC, and one which they are regretting. More importantly, as Howard Dean clearly stated, in addition to denying those delegates a seat, “the rules” provide two other options – namely, either be seated by decision of the convention committee, or re-vote and use those results. http://tinyurl.com/2n4w8a So seating the delegates “as is” or having a re-vote is not breaking any rule. It may be foolish (particularly seating Michigan “as is”), but it’s “the rules.”
3) Obama is ahead, so HC should quit. She can’t pass him in pledged delegates, so there’s no point in continuing, except for her own blind ambition (amazing how people can read her heart and mind, huh?). Please. Again, the pledged delegate count does not determine the nomination. Yes, it’s an important factor. But how about the concept of one person, one vote? Right now, Obama is ahead by @700,000 votes (not including Florida and Michigan). In the unlikely (but possible) event that HC leads in the popular vote going into the convention, most people (2 to 1) believe the candidate with the most votes should be the nominee. http://tinyurl.com/39wm8d
Point is, argue all you want about which candidate should win, which factor should determine the decision of the superdelegates, etc., but no one is “stealing the nomination” or “breaking the rules.”
What Rules?