The Clinton campaign is sounding a little desperate:
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said she could still pull out a victory with victories in the biggest primaries still to come, including Ohio and Texas next month. But Mr. Obama’s clear lead in delegates allocated by the votes in nominating contests is one of a number of challenges facing her after a string of defeats in which Mr. Obama not only ran up big popular vote margins but also made inroads among the types of voters she had most been counting on, including women and lower-income people.
Should the cracks in her support among those groups show up in Ohio and Texas as well, it could undermine her hopes that those states will halt Mr. Obama’s momentum and allow her to claim dominance in many of the biggest primary battlegrounds.
With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
I find it hard to believe that Clinton really entertains the notion that she can win by seating those delegates. One might be able to offer an argument for Florida, even though it would cause some party unrest. But if she manages to get delegates counted from a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, Obama's supporters will believe, rightly, that she stole the nomination. Even as she energizes the Republican turnout machine, this move will, at the very least, suppress turnout on the Democratic side.
I find it hard to believe that Clinton really entertains the notion that she can win by seating those delegates.
I find it all too easy to believe.
Still working out those issues with daddy the Clinton donor?
Remember, until he's dead, he can still disinherit you.
Bill Clinton was prognosticating a few weeks ago. He said something to the effect of "The primaries are when you fall in love; The general election is when you fall in line."
Seating disputed delegates is totally coherent with that mindset. Fall in line, McCardle.
Anybody who closely observes behavior in a casino or a trading pit quickly understands that desperation will often encourage foolish behavior in people with high I.Q.s or advanced degrees. Almost everybody gets stupid when the right buttons are pushed.
Where are all those Democrats who objected to events in Florida in W's first presidential victory? Are their views on electoral validity suddenly inoperative?
She's a lawyer, known for her propensity to be polarizing. Of course she'll sue to capture unseated delegates; she's in this to win.
If, at the convention, it appears that you need those delegates to prevail, then that is the time (if there is a good one) to push for it. Even then, the unfairness of it will preclude it's success, but at least at that point you have nothing to lose but your integrity.
Raising the issue now is a sign of deperation. It is basically saying that the Clinton campaign feels it has nothing to lose now, but said integrity.
At this point, I have a hard time arguing with this assessment.
Shouldn't every vote count? I would fully expect Clinton to advance this line of reasoning to seat her delegates. Lawsuits if necessary.
"Shouldn't every vote count?"
Michigan and Florida had every right to obey the rules and hold their primaries on February 5th or after. They chose not to, and if they are allowed to get away with it then I can only imagine how early primaries will start next year. Florida would have been a major state if they obeyed the rules, just imagine if it was being held next week.
The candidates signed on to the rules, and I'm tired of having a president that only obeys the rules/laws when it's in their own interest. It doesn't surprise me that she's doing, just confirming suspicions that she would do anything for power.
Megan: any chance you might consider not becoming a 24/7 anti-Hillary scold like Sully? I don't like the trend lines.
But if she manages to get delegates counted from a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, Obama's supporters will believe, rightly, that she stole the nomination.
Er, no, if Hillary wins the nomination, it will only be because she gets more delegates to vote for her. There's no "theft" involved. It's extremely unlikely she'll be able to get Michigan's delegates seated, in any event, as Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. But if she does, it would only be an issue if the Michigan delegation were needed to make the necessary margin. Also, she surely could give a damn if she damages Obama's campaign in a doomed effort to capture the nomination, because, if Obama loses in November, that opens the door for her to run in 2012. Make no mistake. Cersei/Hillary will be president.
Although, come to think of it, why don't they just stop monkeying around with this election bullshit and stage a coup.
Fall in line, McCardle.
Learna spell, McUgh.
You just discovered a new form of irony, denser than any other ever before witnessed, Tom.
Loved that line about "Cersei/Hillary!"
When Hillary struts her roly-poly, guacamole,
sack of frijole derriere across a Texas stage
informing us that hot peppers are a key to
her physical well-being....well...that should
get your vote right then and there! No pre-paid
stupordelegates needed! Gal got it locked down!
Bill can go back to homebase and start chasin' some tail again, Chelsea can start up her
Marcel Marceau mute act again, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief.....the Bill and Hillary
Flying Circus is a'comin' back to save us from ourselves. N'est-ce pas? I'm voting for her because she will "fight for me"....I'm 5'9", (so
I'm the "little guy" she talks about)......and
Rush Limbaugh told me to.
McMea McUlpa, Tom - I (truly) feel like a McIdiot.
Speaking of which, McDonald's must have some manner of breakfast sandwich for people like me. The McDummy with bacon, perhaps?
Er, no, if Hillary wins the nomination, it will only be because she gets more delegates to vote for her. There's no "theft" involved.
If Obama garners a majority of the popular vote, and Clinton persuades enough superdelegates to go against that, then I think "theft" would be a reasonable characterization. After all, how would she get superdelegates to thwart the majority will? By making promises, threats and bribes.
dearieme wrote: Where are all those Democrats who objected to events in Florida in W's first presidential victory? Are their views on electoral validity suddenly inoperative?
Exactly the problem: Those were views, not principles, and perspectives change.
If Obama garners a majority of the popular vote, and Clinton persuades enough superdelegates to go against that, then I think "theft" would be a reasonable characterization.
Why? Superdelegates and popularly elected delegates each each have one vote. And, unlike the latter, superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish. Popular vote should be taken into consideration, of course (and certainly will be if Hillary wins the popular vote but comes out shy in pledged delegates). There's nothing in the rules saying he who has the most pledged delegates or popular votes is the nominee. There's no rule breaking if a candidate puts together a majority using superdelegates to beat a candidate with a plurality or majority of pledged delegates. And there are strong reasons why the Democrats are wise to allow for this type of flexibility. It allows for an orderly, within-the-rules means of giving the nod to the stronger of two candidates when two candidate are tightly matched in support.
Now, you may feel that Obama is the stronger candidate, and will remain so. And if enough people feel as you do, you'll have no worries in getting Obama nominated. But were a shift in opinion polls to occur, or a significant change in momentum (Hillary takes Pennsylvannia by huge margins after winning Texas and Ohio convincingly?), or were there an eruption of problems in the Obama campaign (Rezko?), the Democrats would have a perfectly "legal" way to nominate Clinton.