Another Great Example
Here's a great summation of how I've been feeling about the Clinton campaign, courtesy of Keith Olbermann...
In any argument, once you define every conceivable result as something you can claim as a victory, your claims of victory become hollow. They're on record as defining nearly any result as truly a win for the Clinton camp, which means a claimed win by the Clinton camp means nothing at all.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 5/06/2008 12:01:00 PM
9 Comments:
Mostly true, but if either Democratic candidate carries Wyoming or Utah in the general election I will personally eat this mousepad.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:59:00 PM
That's true. The point, though, is just how many different rationales the Clinton campaign has given for why we should consider her to be the winner, as she loses under more and more ways of looking at things.
Sure, there are some states that are probably not going to go Democratic at any point in our lifetimes. On the other hand, Clinton has also been trying to sell the idea that some of the solidly blue states might suddenly switch to red if she doesn't win the nomination, since she won the primaries there, and that's just as spurious.
Ah well, it's much too late to be doing serious political punditry. :-)
Liam.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 12:09:00 AM
Hey, now THAT video is funny! And clever. Did you write that, Liam?
I got a headache and a little dizzy following all that, but that must be the point, or at least one of the points.
Hmmm, after watching that, my first impression is that somehow every State and voter in the country was effectively insulted ... not good for garnering votes come November, even if Clinton were to magically win the Democratic nomination.
And ok, I want to see a show of hands of those who understand what super delegates are (notice my hand is being raised).
Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:40:00 PM
I wish, but no. I'm not affiliated with Keith Olbermann's show at all.
I just thought it was a great expression of some of what has turned me from a pretty strong fan of the Clintons into someone who honestly doesn't view her as any better than John McCain as an option.
As to super-delegates...
The idea, whether we like it or not, is for the Democratic party to have a measure of control if the general membership selects someone completely unelectable or otherwise inappropriate.
Super delegates are party insiders. Most Democratic governors, most Democratic Senators and Congressmen and a selected batch of other Democratic party insiders (the two leaders of the College Democrats, for example).
Basically, though, when the Democratic party went to having primaries, instead of simply selecting their candidate in the proverbial "smoke filled back room", they wanted to keep some measure of control.
There are about 1/3 of the total delegates who are thus designated "super". If the party membership at large (and those independents and republicans who choose to vote in the primaries in open states) are overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate, the supers won't be able to overturn it.
But suppose the situation that happened this year had happened even earlier, and McCain had pretty well sewn it up after the first 3 or 4 primaries, and Rush Limbaugh, instead of suggesting his people go out and vote for Clinton to keep the Democrats off balance, instead suggested that they all go and vote for Mike Gravel, and enough Republicans and Independents followed his lead (and enough honest to goodness Gravel followers) that he narrowly beat the other candidates.
But... Mike Gravel isn't going to win the election. He's simply not, not against anyone more seasoned and more... stable.
And so the theory is that in that case, Gravel could win, but not by an insurmountable margin, at which point the supers could get together and throw their collected support behind someone else and prevent themselves from having to run Mike Gravel.
Now, it does frustrate us all when we sit here thinking "We all took the time to go out and vote, by every objective measure Barack Obama should be our nominee, but it's been so close that Hillary Clinton could conceivably call in enough favors from the supers to overturn the collective will of the national party members", but there is at least some measure of sense behind the reasons the system was set up as it was.
Liam.
P.S. For record, I'd rather see the system changed as well. Then again, since I'm an Independent, I really don't have any right to be voting in either Primary, I just take advantage of the fact that NH law avails me of the opportunity.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 6:38:00 PM
Thanks for the explanation. It helps, but I suspect it will always confuse me at some level or another -- politics and government usually do. But I do appreciate the informative explanation. I may have actually learned something.
Do you think it could come down to duking it out at the Democratic Convention, like they used to do in the old days? At least then the media folks weren't yawning out of boredom.
But I do hope it gets resolved soon. But on the flip side, it may keep the Republicans from zeroing in on just one Democratic candidate to battle for awhile. But then, it seems they've already selected Obama as their target.
I too am saddened by Clinton. But I think she underestimated many things, particularly the mood of this country and its peoples' observations. We may well be judging candidates not so much on who they appear to be, but by who they surround themselves with. Her candidacy has been botched by poor campaign management. And she underestimated the country's view of a dual presidency which you've commented on. None of this makes one candidate any better than the other necessarily. But how a candidacy is run seems to be particularly important to Americans right now.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 7:54:00 PM
Technically speaking, if Clinton does not drop out of the race, it will almost certainly come down to "duking it out at the convention", at least metaphorically, because while the math says it's next to impossible for her to win the popular delegate count (she needs something like 82% of all remaining votes cast), it's also just as mathematically impossible for Obama to take enough elected delegates to make him "bullet proof" at the convention.
Now, most of the current crop of supers seem disinclined to overturn the will of the electorate this year (because there isn't any clear and compelling reason why either one should win over the other, from a party standpoint), so the "duking it out" is likely to be over very quickly, the supers cast most of their votes with Obama, he wins in the first round, and it's over.
But... Clinton does have a much longer history in Washington than Obama does. She's got more contacts, more strings to pull, and there's always the chance that the next "Rev. Wright" fiasco will be big enough to seriously tarnish Obama.
Add to that the fact that technically, even elected delegates aren't REQUIRED to vote for the person they were elected to vote for, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that it could come down to a fight on the floor.
Actually, I heard someone suggest an interesting third possibility that is really not beyond the realm of possibility: if Clinton stays in it and she beats up Obama so badly that he's not really electable any more, but in the process also tarnishes herself badly enough that she's not, either, then the supers could decide to split their votes evenly in the first two rounds of voting. This leaves neither one with the 50%+ majority of votes needed to win.
Traditionally, in the third round of voting, that's when it all opens up and delegates can vote for whomever they want (and deals start getting made). So just suppose the delegates looked at these two, decided that Clinton had broken Obama as a candidate, and that she didn't deserve to be rewarded for it, and decided instead to all join up and cast their votes for Al Gore. Or John Edwards. (Or some other person, but I would guess that Gore, as the current "Grand Old Man" of the party now that Bill Clinton has tarnished himself, is probably the most likely candidate, with Edwards as the "close third" in the race as the second most likely).
Now, honestly, I don't see that happening. If Clinton had something on Obama she could really destroy him with, she'd have done it by now. But mathematically it isn't impossible, and would be interesting to see.
(By the way, I think that's a more likely scenario than that Clinton ends up with the nomination, to be honest. I think the supers might just feel that although they'd alienate a lot of the party by going "off the board" to pick a third candidate, it would probably be fewer than if they reversed the decision of the majority of the voters who have selected Obama over Clinton with no one else in the race.)
In my view, though, the most likely possibility is that Clinton resigns in the next week or two, realizing that she's only going further into debt in a losing cause and after coming to some sort of deal with Obama for him to use some of his massive war chest to help pay off some of her rather large debt.
And, actually, I think that's Clinton's best (if very slim) chance at the nomination. I really think if the supers think like I do (and they very likely to not), if somehow Obama got ruined as a candidate between now and the convention, I'd have a really hard time handing the nomination to the person who held their own good over that of the party or the nation. On the other hand, if she bows out and by that time has a cordial relationship with Obama, and something happens to him, THEN she's the obvious choice to take his place.
Enough babbling for tonight. :-)
Liam.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:13:00 PM
Well, at least it hasn't been dull!
We'll see which of your scenarios pan out. Thanks for your insights!
Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:35:00 PM
"In my view, though, the most likely possibility is that Clinton resigns in the next week or two..."
I think you're too kind to our friend Hillary.
Two observations:
1) Hillary isn't in this for the good of the party and she isn't a team player. If she were, she would have dropped out and thrown her support behind the front runner after Super Tuesday.
2) Hillary is a long term thinker... she's wanted the presidency since she dropped her hyphenated name in Arkansas. She's not above fighting this out until the convention, keeping the dems fractious so McCain (who says himself he'll be a one-termer) can win easily... and she can come back in 2012. Candidates who lose presidential elections rarely receive the party nomination twice.
In short, if Obama won the presidency, Hill would have to come back in 2016 or if Obama's coattails were broad enough 2024. A McCain win serves HER best interests.
Hill plays for keeps.
good vid and commentary though.
Monday, May 12, 2008 10:46:00 PM
I guess I wasn't clear. I don't have any illusions that HRC will do anything for the good of the party or the country.
However, as soon as someone convinces her that she's spending ever more money on a slimmer and slimmer possibility, I think she just might take Obama up on an offer to absorb much of her debt (he's got the cash, she's got the debts). She currently owes herself over $11 million and at least another $10 million to other people. She stands to be out of pocket a huge amount, and if she comes to realize just how little a chance she's buying with those millions, I think she might just roll over for personal monetary gain in ways she wouldn't for the good of "party unity".
I do agree that it isn't necessarily beyond her to sabotage Obama in order to have another shot in 4 years (rather than 8), but somehow I think she's tarnished herself badly enough that in 4 years she might have a hard time even placing.
Then again, people do reinvent themselves all the time, and we as the electorate have a depressingly short memory, so perhaps.
On a side note, I was thinking that Obama has 6 more chances, realistically, now that McCain has set the bar at 72 for running for President. If Obama loses and runs in any of the next 6 elections, he'll still be younger than McCain is today.
Liam.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:14:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home