Politics

Clinton Cover-up Exposed!

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

In a recent interview in South Dakota, President Clinton announced that Hillary was the victim of a "coverup" at the hand of unspecified people or groups intent on ignoring Mrs. Clinton's ability to win a general election against McCain, or holding certain "key states" required for victory.

In the interview, President Clinton claimed his wife was treated rudely for continuing to run. "I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. [S]he will win the general elections if you nominate her. They are just trying to make sure you don't. I can't believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these super delegates to come out."

He raised his assertion that an increasing number of computer projections show Mrs. Clinton winning the general election by taking numerous "battleground states" from Obama. "She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence. And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. Her only position was, 'Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win but let's let everybody vote and count every vote.'"

A recent analysis by Newsweek does show Clinton beating McCain by 4%, although the Senator from Arizona ties Obama in national polling. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign announced that victory is imminent for their side and is preparing to face McCain in November.

An added intrigue comes this weekend, days before the South Dakota and Montana primary. The Democratic National Rules committee will meet and decide whether to seat the contested delegations from Florida and Michigan, states that were captured by Clinton after Obama either removed his name from the ballot or refused to campaign there after the states were castigated for violating party rules. If the committee approves the Clinton campaign request it will likely prolong the primaries right into the convention as super delegates will be forced to make the decision of who to nominate. The meeting is expected to turn into a circus, with throngs of Clinton supporters expected to be bussed in to rally for their candidate. If the Clinton appeal is rejected, her future looks bleak. Writers and supporters are already calling on her to leave the race for the sake of the party.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, Hillary Clinton, no chance in hell (all tags)

This story: 22 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

forget something?

gerrymander.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

days before the South Dakota and Montana primary

Also, days before the Puerto Rico primary, which at 63 delegates, weighs more heavily than the Montana and South Dakota together (25 and 23 delegates, respectively). This matters because if poll numbers are to be believed, this will make the third contest in a row where Obama loses some ground of his delegate lead. It won't be enough to push Clinton into the #1 slot (far from it), but it does indicate that she has the right idea about staying in the race until the end.

3

^ 1

Re: forget something?

PenitenziAgite.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

PR doesn't help the 'popular vote' argument, though.  You know what else?  Popular, shmopular.  It's delegates that count.  This is a Democratic party thing, not a general election thing, so this whole bullshit civil rights argument she's making about FL and MI is just crap.  Those people were not 'disenfranchised'.  If I send in my absentee ballot after the deadline, I can't go whining about being 'disenfranchised', now, can I?  Same principle applies here.  Clinton agreed to the arrangements regarding those primaries.  If Obama had the majority in those two primaries, I don't think Clinton would be making such a courageous stand for those primary voters' franchise.

I think it's pretty clear that her objective is to go to the convention and try to okey-doke Obama there.  Whether that equals a loss for the Democrats is not easy to say.  If history is any guide, it's not a comforting thought.  

I think the Clintons suck, though.  I used to have respect for both of them, but now I just think that Hillary is an asshole, and fuck Bill for good measure.  What a putz.  With the Republicans losing all over the country in once-safe districts, the President's approval ratings at low ebb, one would think that the presidency would be a gimme for the Democrats.  They still have to run a campaign, and if Clinton takes it to the convention, that gives the nominee two months, realistically six weeks to run an effective campaign?   Thanks, Hil.  Not everyone who wants to be president gets the job.  I honestly do not think Clinton would win the general, and I never have.

Clinton has to know what the stakes are, the fact that she doesn't seem to care really bugs me.  If she snarfles the nomination out from under Obama, I will still vote for her, but if she wins and becomes Margaret Thatcher II, I will work my ass off to back a primary challenge in '12.

If it's McCain, I dunno.  We're probably going to move to Bulgaria.  If I'm going to live in a country where the government is rife with corruption, I'll take mine out in the open instead of all this Fox News rah-rah freedom bullshit, and I'd prefer to live in a place on the upswing instead of a decline into whatever decrepit cesspool awaits us in the McCain years.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

5

^ 3

Re: forget something?

zyxwvutsr.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:46:11 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I think the Clintons suck, though.  I used to have respect for both of them...
Did the Clintons change, or did you?

11

^ 5

Re: forget something?

PenitenziAgite.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST

3.00

Good question, but what I do know is that ever since her presidential campaign began, I thought she was totally phony.  The forced laugh, the changing accents, it just made me want to punch her in the gob.  Now, I always figured Bubba could be a sonofabitch if he needed to be, but it seems that this campaign has brought out the worst in them.  I never bought any of that Arkansas project bullshit, but I guess I just thought they were better than that.  Some of it, no doubt, is due to some hugely bad advice from the likes of Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe, but this just illustrates a tremendous lack of judgment on her part.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

10

^ 3

Re: forget something?

gerrymander.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:26 AM EST

2.50 (interesting)

If I'm going to live in a country where the government is rife with corruption, I'll take mine out in the open

If you honestly believe this, then why the Hell do you support Obama? His entire political career is based in Chicago, where shady, underhanded, backdoor corruption is mother's milk. Rest assured that Tony Rezko is only the most blatant tip of what will be a very large and deep iceberg if Obama is elected president.

12

^ 10

Re: forget something?

PenitenziAgite.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:58:54 PM EST

2.00

Oooo...  Chicago...  Any politician from there must be crooked.  

Well, they better dig up something more than Rezko, a mere bagatelle.  If somehow I'm to believe that Obama is more crooked than say, Bush, those opposition research people better get cracking, because all I've seen is a lot of guilt-by-association stuff.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

13

^ 12

Re: forget something?

gerrymander.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST

2.00

Any politician from there must be crooked.

What you post as sarcasm, I point to as fact. Trust me; if Obama gets elected, every person with "clout" in Illinois will be lining up for their turn at the trough. Not all of them are smart enough to avoid getting caught; recent evidence suggests quite the contrary.

15

^ 13

Re: forget something?

thefadd.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:49:25 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Yeah that Tony Rezko. That's some deep do-do there. I thought for sure by point #6 they'd be having butt sex or at least engaging in shading activity together. Holy shit what a fucking waste of my time.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

2

^ 1

Re: forget something?

pO157.

Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM EST

none

You are right, I accidentally omitted that contest. I apologize. My apologies. Thank you for pointing that out and helping with your analysis.

14

^ 1

Re: forget something?

thefadd.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:42:15 PM EST

none

It doesn't matter in terms of poll numbers because Puerto Rico doesn't get any electoral votes in the general election.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

20

^ 14

Re: forget something?

gerrymander.

Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST

none

As long as Puerto Rico gets to seat delegates at the Democratic National Convention, then yes, poll numbers reflecting the Clinton v. Obama race for the Dem nomination matter quite a bit -- 63 delegates worth, in fact.

21

^ 20

Re: forget something?

thefadd.

Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:06 PM EST

none

reflecting the Clinton v. Obama race for the Dem nomination

which is already over

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

22

^ 21

Re: forget something?

gerrymander.

Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST

none

It's over when one of the Democratic candidates can claim a simple majority of total delegate votes. That hasn't happened yet.

4

question for Democrats and those who lean that way

wetkarma.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:52:53 AM EST

3.50 (interesting)

Why the rush to select a candidate ahead of the convention? As I recall -- one of the refrains of the Democratic party in recent elections is that every vote should count. So why try to force a decision when the matter is still undecided?

I'm not exactly Bill Clinton's biggest fan (have said before that he should have resigned), but the man does have a point.

Separately -- is it so hard to play by the rules you have agreed to? I always thought that Harry Potter's Quidditch game was extremely dumb because (it seemed to me from peripheral reading) whomever got the little ball flying thing won the game. But those are the rules, and at least it made some sort of sense. It strikes me as the worst kind of dirty-pool to be changing rules in the midst of an election.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

6

^ 4

Re: question for Democrats

Shy Elf.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:49:10 AM EST

4.00 (astute, interesting)

First of all, the election is decided already.  Obama already has an insurmountable lead, and we knew how the rest of the election will go.  Clinton will win PR, and then on June 3 Obama will win SD and MT, completing the primary elections.  Rasmussen and most other polling organizations have already dropped primary election coverage, because the election is over.

The Democratic Convention has been moved from it's traditional timeslot at the end of July to the end of August, in order to avoid attention being stolen by the Olympics, leaving an extra short general election campaign after the convention, and makes it more important this year that the election be resolved before the convention.  Nevertheless, were it just Hillary refusing to quit, and saying that she wanted to wait until the votes were counted, I can't see that causing anything like the resentment she's generated amongst Obama supporters.

Having already lost under the rules they agreed to, the Clintons demand the rules now be changed so that Michigan and Florida count, despite those primaries being conducted without either candidate campaigning there, and the Michigan primary being conducted with Hillary's name on the ballot but not Barak's.  Not only does Bill demand that the rules change, he's actually appears upset that the Democratic party is following the rules that Clinton long ago agreed to instead of changing them now that Hillary needs the rules to change in order to have a chance of a win.  I find this just incredible.  It's like watching a cockroach refuse to die.

Furthermore, even if we accept this demand, Obama is still well ahead.  She then wants to have the superdelegates overrule the elected delegates, either because of her nonexistent strong momentum, or because of a small difference in the electoral college.

There's still the simmering resentment from her supporting McCain over Obama.

Under the "every vote should count" principle, Democrats aren't at all happy with the FL and MI mess.  I can't see Dean hanging on as party chair for very much longer.  Clinton can't really ride this issue, however, because in the end she's asking for the superdelegates to overrule the elected delegates, which greatly annoys Democrats under the same principle.

8

^ 6

Re: question for Democrats

pO157.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST

5.00 (astute, informative, astute)

Under the "every vote should count" principle

Under the "every vote should count" principle Senator Clinton should have supported the 20+ Congress(wo)men whose objections to the Electoral College counts in 2001 were ruled out of order because  no Senator agreed to challenge the election results.

17

^ 8

Re: question for Democrats

permazorch.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:15:27 PM EST

none

I don't mean to defend her jerkness (being as I detest her viscerally), but H. R. Clinton had only been sworn into the Senate for 3 days when the caucus met. She didn't support them, and though she definitely should have given them her full weight, I can (cynically) understand her wanting to keep a low profile, and find her sea legs.

----- I, for one, renounce our insect overlords!

19

^ 17

Re: question for Democrats

pO157.

Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST

none

That's true, there is precedent for the newest people in Congress to immediately go shoot themselves in the foot* on their first days (or at least look like idiots).

My point is, if she feels so strongly about 'making every vote count' why has nobody really brought this up? Why is the media ignoring this obvious duality? She should at least apologize and say her silence in 1/01 was a mistake, if that is how she truly feels now.

*Personally my favorite part of that video is the the Rep back and to the left above Schmidt. If you watch the video on mute you can tell the exact moment where she starts go over the line just from his expressions. It's awesome.

7

^ 6

followup questions

wetkarma.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:17:49 AM EST

3.00 (astute)

Whats the point of having superdelegates if they don't have the inherent ability to overrule the delegates? Wasn't that what they were designed to do?

I'm not a member of the Democratic party, but it seems to me that HRC still has a shot at winning if enough superdelegates vote for her.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

9

^ 7

Re: followup questions

pO157.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:24:36 AM EST

none

My quick reading of the GOP (pdf) delegate rules indicates that they do have something similar to the "superdelegates" that the Dems enjoy. However, their number and proportion appears to make it much difficult for such a smaller amount to have a chance of affecting the outcome of a nomination. Then again, if there was a tight race between say, McCain and Huckabee then perhaps we would be worrying about at-large delegates or who district officials would be voting for.

16

^ 7

Re: followup questions

Shy Elf.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST

none

Popular use of the slogan "count every vote" was as far as I know invented by John Kerry.  The reason it resonates with Democrats in general, however, is that it ties into the core Democratic value of social fairness.

The short answer is that if you ask regular Democrats and not party officials about superdelegates, they don't understand why they exist either, and generally wish that they didn't.

The longer answer is that following dissatisfaction amongst Democrats with inside manipulation of the 1968 convention, state rules were changed (for Republicans as well since they run elections under state rules) in order to have more primaries, and party rules were changed to bind delegates to support the candidate they stood for at least on the first ballot.  This led to contentious convention, and the contentious convention in 1980 led to the presidential loss that year being blamed on democratic infighting over the presidential choice and the platform that year, and ultimately resulted in the creation of the creation of the modern superdelegate system.

The convention sets other policies other than just the presidential candidate, and is in fact the highest authority in the party.  Since all voters know about delegates is whom they support for President on the first ballot, the superdelegates tend to do a better job of representing the views of voters in general on other issues.

It's somewhat a situation of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.  The party wants to control the election so that a winner is picked quickly, while still having the result be determined by the elections.  In a case where you have an election result fairly evenly divided amongst three candidates or have the leading candidate "caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy" (or something else which damages them so that they clearly can't recover) between the primaries and the convention, the party can step in and pick another candidate with a chance to win the general election.  Since in this case the candidate clearly would not have won the primary campaign based on present opinions, this would not generate an excessive amount of whining about unfairness.

In a more normal situation, however, the expectation is that the superdelegates will act like an election jury to force an easy convention victory for the majority candidate.  Superdelegates always personally favor the inside the beltway candidate, and personally favor Clinton in this election, which was responsible for her early superdelgate lead.  It's in their role as an election jury that they're swinging over to Obama now.

18

^ 4

Re: question for Democrats and those who lean that

PenitenziAgite.

Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:48:14 PM EST

none

Why the rush to select a candidate ahead of the convention?

Well, technically this is not what happens.  What typically happens is that one candidate garners enough primary and caucus victories that the other candidates give up.  The actual nominee is not really officially selected until the convention, but in recent years, ever since 1980, a nominee has emerged well before the convention, enabling the nominee to begin their national campaign before the convention.

This year, the Democrats are really under pressure, because the convention is at the end of August.  What a lot of people fear is that if the Democrats do not have a presumptive nominee by then, McCain will have an already well-running campaign organization going while the Democrats will just be getting started, thus leading to them yet again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Historically, ever since 1972, any time either party's nominee has not been all but formally decided upon well before their conventions , they lost the November election.  There is a lot to be said for this argument, but in a campaign season that breaks historical precedents, who knows?  In an election year with a lot at stake, it's an awfully big gamble.  That Clinton seems willing to bet it all on what most agree is a small chance at winning the nomination is what earns the animus of those who believe that this is not a time to indulge Hillary's ambition.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

This story: 22 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment