« April 2008 | Main | September 2008 »
June 20, 2008
June 06, 2008
Hillary's Empty 18 Million Voter Gambit
Tuesday evening marked a historic occasion in what's been a historic campaign. Sixteen grueling months later, it's finally over. Obama did his part on Tuesday, delivering a gracious, yet electrifying and celebratory speech to a crowd of over thirty thousand energized voters in St. Paul, Minnesota.
But Hillary? She petulantly refused to concede, notwithstanding the fact that Obama reached the magic number of delegates. By doing so, she effectively spoiled what should have been a triumphant evening for the Party, initiating a new round of speculation and uncertainty and pissing off legions of voters and high-ranking Democrats in the process.
Why did she do this? Because she wants something, obviously. But what the hell does she want? We still don't know because, although she posed the question to herself in her "victory" speech on Tuesday night, she refused to answer it directly.
Nor is the rumor mill of any real assistance. Earlier this week, the buzz was that Obama was going to offer her a cabinet position and pay off her campaign debts. No word on whether this would be acceptable to her. Then she let it slip that she'd be willing to be Obama's running mate if it would help the party. Meanwhile, Howard Fineman reported on Tuesday night that according to his sources, Hillary only wants to be offered the VP position so that she can refuse it, and that Obama is perfectly willing to offer her the position if he's guaranteed in advance that she won't take it. During the same broadcast, Tim Russert reported that according to his sources, Hillary does want the VP spot and all of her posturing and muscle-flexing of late is to this end. Pundits were quick to pan Hillary for actively campaigning for the VP spot as a major faux-pas, which apparently prompted a Clinton aide to release a statement on Thursday stating that she is not seeking the VP spot, and that this decision is Obama's alone.
Whatever she wants, some of her more vocal supporters have strongly suggested that unless she is appeased, they will not back Obama. They'll vote for McCain, or they'll sit on their hands in November.
Put politely, I have a hard time believing that this threatened scenario will actually come to pass. Of course, there are some die-hard Hillary supporters out there who, as Sam Stein reported a couple of days ago, really feel that Hillary has somehow been unfairly deprived of the nomination because she's a woman. To those people I say two things. One, undoubtedly there are sexist Democrats out there, just as there are racist Democrats. Two, Hillary lost the nomination because she didn't have a plan after Super Tuesday and because Obama beat her soundly on the ground (grassroots organizing, etc), and through the air (inspirational oratory, etc).
There are also women out there who feel that Hillary represented their best chance to have a woman elected president in their lifetime. To those women, I say that I have a daughter, and I too would like to see a woman elected president during my lifetime. But only if she's the right candidate. Although I can't help but be excited at the prospect of this nation's first African-American president, I support Senator Obama because I feel that he's the right candidate, not because he's black. Quite frankly, if a green hermaphrodite appeared on the scene and promised to end the Iraq war, invest a significant portion of the savings in the American people and otherwise make a firm commitment to the development of a hydrogen/electric-powered hovercraft fit for everyday use, I would vote for this person in a heartbeat. How can anyone say no to a candidate on the right side of the hovercraft question?
More to the point, how can any HRC supporter that actually cares about the issues say with a straight face that if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, they're going to either vote for McCain or not vote at all? In terms of their respective positions on the major issues facing this country, Obama and Clinton live on the same block in the same neighborhood, while McCain lives on another planet, some remote, barren world where everyone owns eight houses and 100 year wars are to be encouraged. I would think that anyone who wants the troops out of Iraq, or that doesn't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas, is NOT going to sit on their hands, and is NOT going to vote for McCain/Bush . . .
. . . unless, of course, Obama were to pick another woman as his running mate, without asking Hillary first. Depending on the timing, a slight of this magnitude might really put the Hillary faithful over the edge. If his numbers with white women over 50 don't improve in the next couple of months, Obama just may find himself in the compromising position of having to ask Hillary to serve as VP so she can turn it down, before considering other women VP candidates.
My intent is not to denigrate these voters, but instead to voice my opinion that I just don't think a majority of Hillary's supporters are actually going to forsake Obama in November. I believe that in 2008, the American electorate is too intelligent, too informed, and too pissed off at the Bush administration to either cast some sort of vengeful retaliatory vote for McCain or to abandon the field altogether.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post - Off The Bus.
June 02, 2008
Michigan and Florida: The Biggest Losers
There are at least two reasons why the DNC's rules committee should not have met on Saturday to discuss Michigan and Florida.
First, the DNC's partial reversal of its previous decision not to seat these delegates is most troubling. I am not taking the position that the DNC should not have made some provision to ensure the seating of delegates from these two important states. What I am saying is that it was eminently foreseeable that voters from these states might be more than a little pissed off at not having their votes counted. I, for one, am wondering why the DNC did not fully explore the possible ramifications of this decision before making it. If it had done so, the DNC might have avoided this entire situation by deciding to exact a more reasonable penalty. Instead, here we are.
Second, let's all remember that Hillary had no problem with the fact that the Michigan and Florida delegates were not to be seated at the convention until her "inevitable" campaign strategy imploded somewhere between Iowa and Super Tuesday. If Hillary cared so much about having these delegates seated, why didn't she lobby these states to move their primaries to an acceptable date? Just as important, why didn't voters in these states raise more of a stink about this alleged "disenfranchisement" before these primaries took place? The same goes for the protesters at the DNC event, both outside and inside. Where were you folks before these primaries?
I absolutely believe in seating these delegates. However, I do NOT believe they should be allocated in a manner that "fairly reflects" the votes cast, as argued by Harold Ickes. As Senator Carl Levin correctly noted, these are "flawed" primaries -- there is no way that any rational, honest person can believe that those results accurately represent the actual will of the voters. For example, in the days leading up to these two contests, the media relentlessly characterized them as "completely meaningless." How many busy, hardworking Americans heeded this message and didn't even bother making a trip to the polls? We will never know, I suppose.
To allow seating these delegates while recognizing the flawed nature of these primaries, a 50/50 division between Obama and Clinton would have been the fairest solution. The fact that the Clinton faction successfully lobbied for an arrangement that allowed her a net gain of twenty-four delegates between these two states is more than fair, and should be more than satisfactory to all reasonable Clinton supporters. However, as Florida State Rep. Arthenia Joyner succinctly put it, Clinton and her supporters "want it all." They want their candidate at the top of the ticket by any means possible, be it fair or unfair, right or wrong, divisive or not.
As Democrats get ready to don their blue jerseys and take the field in the most important election of our generation, here is my final scorecard with respect to Saturday's event. The very fact that this meeting occurred counts as a loss for the DNC, forced by the Clinton faction into a reversal of its previous mandate and into a decision that Howard Dean acknowledged at the beginning of the day would not be satisfactory to everyone. Although the goal was to promote party unity, at the end of the day it appears the party is as divided as ever. Moreover, given the fact that it was the DNC's ill-advised decision that caused this debacle in the first place, the blue team should be wondering whether a coaching change is advisable before they enter the general election arena.
Saturday was also a bad day for Clinton, as it emphasized her worst qualities as a politician. Although Howard Wolfson claimed victory for Clinton by the mere fact that the meeting took place at all, in the end, Saturday's events are further evidence in support of the widely held opinion that Clinton will say or do anything to secure the nomination. Senator Clinton is a tremendously talented politician who has run a tough, tenacious campaign and I am hoping that by the end of this week, she will have gracefully exited the race and endorsed Senator Obama so that we can all move forward together. However, we need to move forward, with Hillary, in a manner that does not turn voters off. Enough said.
Most importantly, however, Saturday was a loss for everyday voters who desperately want and need change in Washington; it served as another distraction from the real issues facing this country today.
A wise man once said that the lessons learned from today's loss help one to achieve victory tomorrow. Let us hope that is the case for the Democratic Party and its members.
This piece is cross-posted at The Huffington Post - Off The Bus.
