Admit it, Senator Clinton. Your passionate advocacy on behalf of the voters of Michigan and Florida came only after you discovered that you needed their delegates to clinch the nomination. You told a public radio station in New Hampshire that Michigan would not count. And now the DNC has granted you more delegates than you had any reasonable right to expect.
Even if the DNC had seated the Florida and Michigan delegations in full, you would still trail Barack Obama, albeit by a tiny margin. Nonetheless, there is only one standard the party uses to determine the nominees, and that is the delegate count. That is the standard you and your surrogates insisted upon in the early days of the primary contest. As with Florida and Michigan, your arguments cynically commuted themselves into populist rhetoric in favor of "the popular vote" once it became clear to you that you could not win according to the rules of the contest.
Recognizing that there are many to blame for the current delegate fiasco, the DNC met to attempt to find a compromise. Do you know what a compromise is? It's when all parties involved give up something they want in order to achieve the greater good. The Committee awarded you delegates that you had previously agreed not to count, delegates that your senior campaign advisor Harold Ickes had voted in favor of eliminating for 2008.
You aren't going to win this nomination, and not because it was stolen from you, but because the process that was agreed upon by all candidates well in advance of the first vote selected Barack Obama. Your advocates decry sexism even as your campaign benefits from the open support of racists, xenophobes and religious bigots.
This was an ugly primary with unnecessary and unfortunate complications, but any way you slice it, Barack Obama is the winner. Your claim that you are ahead in the popular vote is disingenuous and you know it. Politics can be ugly, but the reality here is that the Obama campaign played by the rules and came out ahead. Respect that. Do you want a Democrat in the White House, or do you want you in the White House?
The call now is for healing and unity, but the onus is on you. The responsibility belongs to you and your husband to stop repeating the gross distortion that you are leading by a standard that does not matter. You continually imply that the rules you agreed to have led to an illegitimate result, even though you have benefited from a last-minute rule change that granted you delegates you had forsworn. You were the one calling loudest for the DNC to reconsider Michigan and Florida, and now you must live with the decision, as the Obama campaign accepts that the ruling results in a net delegate loss for them.
I have disagreed with you on a range of issues for many years, and I did not support your candidacy, but until recently I respected you, and had you been the rightful nominee I would have supported you whole-heartedly. But your campaign has resorted to Rovian politics of distraction, inflating side-issues, trafficking in guilt by association (for which you should be most grateful that the Obama campaign has not responded in kind, given some of your husband's friends and business partners) and most reprehensibly constantly dispensing discredited, distorted arithmetic to advance a bogus claim using an invalid standard that you are the rightful nominee. This stops now.
There is not much that Barack Obama can do to heal the party, because he's not the one who has inflicted the wound. The responsibility rests on you and your husband. Will you respect the democratic process and support the rightful nominee to help repair this country? Or will you, in your Macbethian quest for the throne toss aside reality and all principle and tear down our country's best shot at dismantling partisan gridlock, tossing aside rules and process?
Stop blaming Barack Obama for the crisis you created. Fix this, or live with the consequences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
"There is not much that Barack Obama can do to heal the party, because he's not the one who has inflicted the wound."
He was a member of the Trinty Church for 20 years. That is the fatal wound. Hillary had nothing to do with that. He called small town people bitter, clinging to their guns & church. They don't like people who don't look like them--i.e. they are racists hicks. Hillary didn't do that.
Hillary did not try to stop a re-vote in FL & MI--Barack did.
Hillary did not stop debating, Obama did after he got tough questions about Rev. Wright & W. Ayres.
Hillary is not the problem--Barack is his own problem.
Are you ever going to learn how to spell "Trinity"? Then maybe I can take you seriously.
At least I know there are 50 states, not 57 like dumb ass Obama.
Okay, again: politics of distraction, much? He had a brain-fart, he misspoke. You don't seriously think Barack Obama doesn't know how many states there are. Earlier this week on the Oregon NPR channel the host said the time was "Five-seventy-one." It was 7:51. You know, he misspoke. I didn't call OPB and complain they had an anchor who couldn't tell time.
Meantime, you're supporting a candidate who can't add.
Oh, and...Tuzla?
You brought my misspelling one word. You do not want to debate any issues. I say it is you who are embracing the politics of distraction.
Well, if you go back through your comment threat, it's a consistent misspelling, and that kind of inattention to detail for me calls into question whether you have full command of the facts, frankly.
No, my friend, you are the one trafficking in distractions, repeatedly bringing up Rev. Wright, even though he is not a candidate for office and Senator Obama has been incomparably candid on his complicated relationship with his former pastor. You continue to assert that Wright and Obama might be Muslim, which is baloney and further undermines any pretense to integrity on your part. You have advanced in your defense a lawsuit that was tossed out for lack of merit. You have not raised objection on any grounds of policy, nor have you successfully refuted that according to the rules of the nominating process, Hillary Clinton is in 2nd place.
You are supporting a candidate who is using phony numbers to support a bogus claim that she is the winner of the primaries. You justify your support by claiming that Barack Obama cannot win white voters, even though in the wake of the Rev. Wright issue that you constantly point to, he has won primaries by large margins in North Carolina, Nebraska and Oregon, and is expected to win in Montana and South Dakota. The superdelegates continue to flock to Obama.
You have not defended Senator Clinton in terms of her policies or merits, and only made the specious argument -- not borne out by the very polls you cite -- that she is in a better position to beat John McCain.
I could accept arguments from you that Senator Clinton is the better candidate if you could, say, compare her foreign policy stance with Obama's, or compare their health care plans, or compare their positions on the proposed "gas tax holiday." But you haven't managed to tackle anything of substance, instead you push rumors and claim that those of us who have moved beyond racism need to allow our vote to be subdued by those mired in the prejudices of the past as part of an electoral strategy to win the White House. Well, some of us want to win this on principle, which is why we're disgusted by an establishment candidate who came into the race with what should have been an insurmountable advantage and is now insisting on new rules and claiming discrimination as an excuse for why she sank her own inevitable nomination.
When you can advance a line of attack against Barack Obama that has some substance, I will engage you, but for now I'm done with your nonsense.
"instead you push rumors and claim that those of us who have moved beyond racism need to allow our vote to be subdued by those mired in the prejudices of the past"
He called small town people bitter, clinging to their guns & church. They don't like people who don't look like them--i.e. they are racist hicks. Hillary didn't do that.
No, Hillary just suggested that "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" wouldn't vote for Obama, which is both factually incorrect and insulting in so many directions it's hard to know where to start. Bill said there was a media "cover up" that Hillary is "winning the general election," even though her claim has been widely reported (and then debunked using something called "math").
Obama -- as I have said before -- apologized for the "bitter" comment and said he chose his words poorly. People -- including presidents -- make mistakes and sometimes say dumb things. All well-adjusted people should be able to accept that. The difference is that Obama -- unlike Bush and unlike the Clintons and unlike McCain -- is actually capable of saying, "Hi, yeah, that was a mistake. Sorry."
I think you've proved my point; once again, all you've done is trot out a silly Fox News style canard that the rest of us have already dealt with and moved on. Just like Obama knows how many states there are, he doesn't really believe that rural Americans "cling" to religion, guns and prejudice out of economic frustration. (Well, the latter has some merit, actually: in places where unemployment is quite high, you do hear white people complaining about "immigrants" taking "our" jobs.) He knows and has acknowledged that was an oversimplification and a flawed premise. That does not, however, change his main point that many Americans -- rural or otherwise -- ARE bitter, for precisely the reason he gave: politicians of both parties sweep through every couple of years pandering and making grandiose promises and we send them to Washington, and NOTHING CHANGES. That is why voter turnouts in every primary in the country this year have shattered records, because so many folks had given up on politics. They believed it didn't matter WHICH party you voted for, because average folks who aren't major campaign contributors or can't offer a retiring politician a cushy consulting job don't have a voice in our government. Barack has inspired people to hope that with his presidency, things might be different. And that's the point that he was getting at, and that's been borne out.
You've tried to argue that the Obama campaign has tanked following Rev. Wright, but he hasn't lost any primaries that Hillary wasn't expected to win. And go back over to RealClearPolitics today, and you'll notice that the poll average puts him at 9 points over Clinton nationally. Put simply, Rev. Wright and "Bitter" and "57 states" have not hurt his campaign in the ways you hope and claim.
The rest of us care about real issues.
I just heard Lynn Samuals of Sirrus radio--big liberal, Dem & Hillary supporter. She called "Preist Pfleger a sack of shit. Have you ever heard ever anything as racist?" Just Rev. Wright. She mentioned that the priest was on Barrack's website (not anymore so it is ok now) & the priest helped him campaign in IA. Barack of course apologized--but not directly to Hillary. Lynn said that is not good enough.
"She then said what kind of Fuc*ing people are supporting Obama?" That would be Andy.
I love anonymous people. These are the same people who whisper about individuals sexuality or defame folks with the protection of "darkness".
Hillary Clinton and her cronies do believe that she was "entitled" to the Presidency. They do believe that there was still work to be done to stamp the Clinton legacy on the country. The problem for them is that the majority of Democratic voters didn't see it that way.
Hillary Clinton has lost. She can not win the nomination. IF she wants to have a voice in party in the future, I believe she needs to end her candidacy before Denver. She needs to rally her supporters around the nominee (Barack Obama).
As for the people who have supported both candidates- Ferraro vs. Wright-I don't believe that either candidate is exactly "clean" when it comes to dirty politics. I believe that Obama has done more to apologize for his "problem" than Hillary did.
I just hope that IF you are a democrat Mr/Ms. Anonymous that you will support the nominee of the party in the General Election. If you don't then we will get McCain and Hillary will find herself on the outside looking in on the party that she fatally injured in this election.
"for which you should be most grateful that the Obama campaign has not responded in kind, given some of your husband's friends and business partners"
i think, considering this same group, obama should be thankful that he is still breathing.
Andy: continually impressed with your ability to calmly respond to anonymous comments. If it were me, I'd track them down and kick their ass, Jay and Silent Bob style.
Al Gore invented the Internet so that people would communicate openly, not hide behind technology while they antagonize others.
Anonymity is for losers, and, quite frankly, if you are unwilling to sign your name to your opinions, you are less of a person. Yeah, I said it.
And either learn to spell or check your typos. You CAN preview your comments here. It's not hard.
Anon, a word of objective advice: seriously, spelling counts, even in the cyber-world. Regardless of the content or merit of your arguments, you put yourself at an automatic disadvantage in the mind of the reader, whatever their perspective, when you misspell things. It is a sign of carelessness, which isn't good, or stupidity, which is worse.
Additionally, Neel has a point: "Anonymous" renders you suspect, as well. Get a blogger id and a profile. Transparency = bonus points.
Now, moving on to the content portion. Once again, you're fascinated by the sideshow and not really offering anything relating to the candidates. You have your knickers constantly in knots over PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BARACK OBAMA saying dumb things (while you ignore PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HILLARY CLINTON SAYING DUMB THINGS -- both campaigns have them, hello, Ms. Ferraro?). So the difference here is that most of us care what BARACK says, because he's the one running. And we care how he DEALS with the people who shoot off their mouths, and I think we're satisfied that he properly denounced and disassociated himself from the remarks to which you point here. This is not an issue of national importance. Again, you have not raised a single meritorious claim as to why Senator Clinton is the superior candidate, nor are you ale to rebut that even though it's a very close race, Barack Obama has won using the only measure that matters in the nominating process. You are wallowing in bullshit distractions. Let's see some substance here, finally.
nor are you ale to rebut
Ermm...that would be *able*
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWxNeGOXSoA
Okay, I'm not sure if that last "comment" was from the same "Anonymous" as the rest of the thread, but I think you just absolutely sealed the case I've been making.
You still apparently are utterly unable to say anything of substance regarding Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton for that matter. You write as if you honestly do not know anything about either candidate.
I continue to complain that all you focus on are random comments by people WHO ARE NOT BARACK OBAMA. And then what do you do? You post a video of...Louis Farrakhan. Dude, you are hilarious. (Hillaryus?) Are you for real? Because you know that you have descended into self-parody, now.
And as for that other website...rife with misspellings and poor grammar (again, wow, major credibility problem, there) and unsubstantiated allegations of connections OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BARACK OBAMA to...Louis Farrakhan.
Seriously...do you have anything at all to say about BARACK OBAMA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuMDmqwwbI
Hey, anonymous, I can do this too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfSk-6tIvo
Clearly you have no retort to that.
What's happening somebody is stealing my show! I've got CNN, Oberman, the Kennedy's, Carter, all blacks, the most delegates, & super delegates. I got the DNC rules committee to give me delegates in MI even though I was not on the ballot. They even took away votes from Hillary based on polls--not actual votes. If somebody says something against me I can have my peeps call them racists or mock Hillary's crying. My peeps have implied tha KY, WV and small town rural people as racists. Hell, I even did that myself. They are stupid, can't spell and have poor grammar. They don't have a Harvard education LIKE ME.
Why won't they vote for me. Hell, I can't even get the Hispanics to vote for me. They are minorities like me. They should vote for me.
She should have quit after Super Tuesday. Everyone on cable TV said so. Even Dick Morris on FOX. SOMEBODY IS STEALING MY SHOW!!!!!!
Dude. SPELL CHECK.
Dude, Obama thinks there are 57 states. Plus he and his friends are the biggest racists since George Wallace. You are one too for supporting him. I misspelled one word. Big Deal!
Okay...so, me being a white guy supporting an African-American for President makes me a racist?
Are you aware that you're mentally ill?
If you can't see the hatred in the Trinity Church, then I don't know what to say. I will leave you in peace as I delete your site from my list. I think I'll watch Joel Olsteen on TV. He makes a lot more sense than you.
I delete your site from my list
Good. Go spew your prejudiced nonsense somewhere else.
not that it matters, but my favorite typo on this thread was by Andy, telling Anon to check his/her spelling throughout his "comment threat" ... um, oops ;). That's a me-quality slipup ;).
That's not a typo, that's a Freudian Slip.
Oh honey, all the best typos are Freudian ;). That's why they're so much fun :)!
Post a Comment