Every day that Hillary peddles the let-every-vote-count mantra, she doesn't tell Americans the truth, that she wants to deny four states their caucus results, steal the entire delegation of Florida and Michigan (when she singed an agreement not to campaign or run there), and get the super delegates to overturn the result in Obama's play-by-the-rules effort. Yessiree. Hillary could only "win," by getting all the MI and Florida vote, which she is prepared to demand. And so, she wants all the delegates of those two states for herself, none for Obama. He and we should have known that Hillary, like Bush, doesn't mean what she says. It was the finger-crossed, wink-wink signature, she placed on her agreemnt with the other candidates and the DNC, the "count the vote" of only primary states -unless she had won the caucuses. Hillary's calculation would also require that four caucus states' results be dumped. What was that about letting everyone's voice and vote be heard?
Funny thing is that, as many have pointed our here and elsewhere in the blogosphere, the system we have (including caucuses) was designed to assure that insiders like Hillary Clinton win. But Obama did the "unforgivable." His audacious and brilliant campaign beat the insider-Clintons at their own game. He took the hand he was dealt, and overcame all obstacles to succeed in playing that hand. Hillary tried to rig the game, but she was defeated, ultimately, by it. And now we are supposed to feel sorry for her and revise the rules, post-hoc.
How low Hillary is prepared to go, is finally clear. She doesn't care about what she signed, or what the process is, or what the real result is. She wants the rules to change by the week, or the day. She gives new meaning to parsing the word "is."
And here's the thing: We are the ones getting screwed by her manipulative MI and FL ploys. We are being robbed of a fair race in those two states. Our guy kept his word and he and we, it is argued, should just lump it. Her proposals are highway robbery. And we shouldn't take this insulting, degrading and despicable treatment of OUR candidate.
We've been hanging back, trying to give Hillary space to accept reality, and that has failed. We've refused to get down in the muck. We've blogged precious little about her daily snipes and nasty accusations about this process. We've let her get away with the malicious lie that she has "won" the "popular vote." But her outrageous efforts to subvert the process, and steal this nomination persist. I am and will be proud that our candidate behaved above board on this. However, it is time we declare to the Supers, "Hell No, We won't Go (to Hillaryland). She's behaving just like George W. Bush.
Yes, they've denied this possibility, but back in Nov. 2007 they were saying that the Florida and Michigan results wouldn't be counted either. They've sued on two occasions in this election cycle to block votes from happening (in Iowa targeting college voters and in Nevada targeting the casino sites -- which ironically helped the Clinton team win the popular vote; in Texas they targeted major minority areas in cities in Houston and Dallas for endless legal challenges of Obama caucus convention participants -- the list is pretty long) -- so much for making sure that every vote is counted.
Obviously words mean nothing to the Clintons -- and their pledges are useless.
At this stage, I say screw 'em. A couple weeks ago I was thinking that the VP slot might be a way of working around the impasse. At this stage I think one of the Clinton supporters might still be offered the position simply to cut the legs out from the Clintons -- who seem to be absolutely set on the presidential slot, the VP slot, or nothing else.
However, nothing more is owed to either of them. I would be pretty ticked off at this stage if there was a joint ticket.
Not much else to say about either of them. Their sense of entitlement is pretty breath-taking.
Intra-party politics is not an all or nothing contest. Obama will win the nomination. but when you spend huge money on a campaign and win 49% of the vote and 49% of the delegates, you have earned something. What, exactly, will be a matter of negotiation.
As the victor, the ball is in Obama's court now. If he just gives Hillary the high hat, she will not be very supportive this fall, and neither will many of her supporters. Not me -- Obama is the nominee in my view, and that's that. But I would understand it if people who were emotionally invested in her canddacy more than I get ticked.
PS - At one time, I thought a Supreme Court seat would be a good fit for Hillary, but someone someplace set me straight that at 60 she is too old.
PPS - I saw a report on CNN this morning that the Clinton Camp was trying to figure out an exit strategy that lets Clinton gracefully exit the race. One proposal was to make her the VP, but Obama is resistant to that.
Another is to publicly offer her the slot, with the understanding she would turn it down, but apparently there is distrust between the camps, and the Obama camp fears that Clinton might actually accept.
The third proposal was for the candidates to get in a room ad try to work things out, then send some white smoke up the chimney.
PPPS - I would just want to point out that as this campaign ran its course, Obama is not the only aggrieved party. Both Clintons took plenty of blows from the Obama camp. Despite what some critics write about them, at the end of the day they are people too and have emotions, as well as vested interests, wrapped up in all this.
To be even more clear, I don't think she is the best pick for him -- I think Jim Webb is -- but I'm not sure it would be a disaster either. Certainly, there is precedent for it -- Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan/Bush come to mind.
If Obama were to pick, say Sebellius, I could understand if Hillary Clinton were really, really pissed. If there is going to be a history-making woman on this ticket, then I would argue that Hillary has earned that right is she wants it.
I would point out, for example, that in a recent survey at Open Left, Webb came in third (behind Sebeillus and Richardson), and several national media commentators have mentioned Webb's bona fides, so I don't think he is just a Virginia thing.
It is possible for someone to think highly of Sen. Clinton and also render the considered judgment, with you may or may not agree, that she ought not to be on the ticket in good faith.
On the Democratic side, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is only sixth in seniority among the associate justices, but second in age behind John Paul Stevens (who was only 55 when Gerald Ford appointed him). Stephen Breyer, the only other Democrat on the Court, will turn 70 in August.
It's not a question of whether Hillary would be good in the job; I have no doubt that she would. The point is that, if we want a Supreme Court that creates a consistent, liberal body of law over a long period, our best choice is to beat the GOP at its own game by appointing younger justices (and lower court judges) who can build just majorities over decades.
That was pandering for sure, but what politician isn't guilty of that? It is not, in my mind, representative of her legal philosophy.
See these Congressional Hearing that the Democratic Congress is conducting with Oil Executives, that's pandering, big time. But the public just loves this.
" ... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it," she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.Clinton said she didn't understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.
Her remark about an assassination during a primary campaign drew a quick response from rival Barack Obama's campaign.
"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
If that is what she's thinking, well, then, she should definitely sign up for the VP slot.
Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said the senator was only referring to ... Kennedy "as [an] historical example[...] of the nominating process going well into the summer and any reading into it beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous."
Really, Mo, outrageous? And that's why she used the phrase "assassinated in June"?
But, hey, if it's only an historical example, there's also the historical example of JFK getting assassinated three years into his first term. And Obama's been compared to JFK. So, yeah, VP.