Superdelegates hiding from the wrath of the Clintons

There is a potential upside

to all this dragging out of the inevitable. The more the Clintons thrash and wail and lie, the more obvious it all becomes. Peggy Noonan (I know, I know), in her WSJ column today, rightly called it the largest case of cognitive dissonance in history. If we're really lucky, they will so damage themselves that they'll be incapable of threatening anybody because they will have no credibility and no real friends left. They really will be a joke, a has been that nobody pays any mind to. One can hope.

It's just a shame it'll take four years to primary Hillary for her Senate seat -- and barring success with that for somebody outside the party like Bloomberg to unseat her anyway. She will be a cancer on the the party in the Senate, a more monstrous Lieberman.

With each passing day more people understand just how toxic the Clintonistas are. This is ultimately a good thing for the larger progressive movement.

If she had behaved with any dignity or reason I would not wish her ill, but given her repeated and ongoing attempts to suicide bomb the party, I relish each mounting humiliation heaped upon her. She deserves it. All of it.

---

by: vanitysmurf @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 14:11:01 PM CDT

Good points, all

And I think your comment applies, not just to the Clintons, but the whole DLC wing of the party, as they kick and scream on their way downhill to total irrelevance.  And good riddance to the lot of them.  They were the ones who illustrated Ralph Nader's whole point about the two parties serving the exact same masters.  They have enabled (and often cheered on) Bush's entire Reign of Error, and I say, to hell with 'em.

---

by: popebuck1 @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:01:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I support Obama but...

...it can be reasonably argued that neither can Obama win without a very devisive fight, which is what we are experiencing right now. Personally I wish she would bow out but I'm not going to blame Clinton 100% for any fallout in the party. As they say, it takes two to tango.

---

by: Margaret @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:03:59 PM CDT

Wishing

Despite her rancid campaign tactics, and my diminishing respect for her because of them, I still wish her well--in the Senate.  When she was first elected, I was very happy, hoping that she would become a respected, authoritative figure, changing the face of that old boys' club forever, encouraging more women and minorities to run for the Senate, and taking us into the new century proudly. I would still like to see that happen.  In the short term, however, I think what we are seeing is her psychodrama playing out on a huge stage: her tremendous humiliation over the Lewinsky affair, the impeachment, and all the various and crazy attacks by the right wing have left her feeling she is owed this nomination.  It reminds me of lyrics from the song "Rose's Turn" in "Gypsy" (how gay is that?):

"Why did I do it?
What did it get me?
Scrapbooks full of me in the background.
......
Well, someone tell me, when is it my turn?
Don't I get a dream for myself?
Starting now it's gonna be my turn.
Gangway, world, get off of my runway!"

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:10:35 PM CDT

changing the face of that old boys' club forever

Except that she is an old boy, in the Karl Rove playbook.  She is contemptuous enough of her electorate in that she is willing to employ cheap tactics and downright lies to make herself look good, completing disregarding what affect that may have on the party, never mind on her supporters' intelligence.  My objection to this candidate isn't her gender, but that she is no different from the good ole boy sleazebag politics that have landed this country in such trouble over the past eight years.  Hillary isn't interested in America.  Hillary is interested in getting elected.  

We've had a president who isn't much interested in anything driven by handlers who were interested in getting him elected.  Now we have a candidate who is only interested in getting elected, and has proffered no vision for how she wants America to be.

Haven't we had enough of self-serving politics?

---

by: Brian @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:41:49 PM CDT

Hoping

I realize what you say is probably true, but I'm still hoping that losing the nomination battle and a return to the Senate will be a salutary experience for her.  Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I would be happy to forgive her if she would straighten up and fly right.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 15:59:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

aah yes, the uncounted, unnamed "they".

what whiners they are.  if these "they" do indeed exist, they accepted the honor and responsibility of being super delegates and now they have the nerve to whine about pissing someone off by exercising their roll?  of course they will piss someone off - it's practically written into the system.  for someone to win, someone else must lose, and the loser will be pissed.  tell me, who can get so high up in politics that they're a super delegate and still be so thin-skinned?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 17:56:44 PM CDT

I agree

If they are so "super" and have such wisdom that the unwashed masses have, then they should have the spine to say how they plan to vote. To me this nonsense proves that these superdelegates that are blabbing off the record are more interested in their political survival, contacts and access to power than democracy, no matter who they support.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I know many of the superdelegates

not personally, but I know their types.  They're the people who want to be in charge of things as long as they have the title but no actual responsibility.  They're like some of the bosses I've had who were too scared to fire someone who was toxic to the working group or the employees I've had who have been willing to whine and complain about a co-worker but insist that I not do anything for fear of making waves.

There seems to be a simple arrangement here: we give you the power to override the popular vote and choose your own nominee in a close race, provided that you never override the popular vote and choose your own nominee in a close race.  It reminds me of the arrangement between the nobles and the city of Ankh-Morpork in Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series: the nobles agree to pay any taxes levied by the city for basic operating expenses, provided that the city never asks.

Personally, I think it's a terrible system.  Restrict the superdelegates to the sitting Democratic senators, the living presidential nominees and the chair of the party.  No representatives, no unelected party chairs, etc.  

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:35:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

clinton trying to steal election

now that obama has more pledged delegates, hillary wants superdelegates to go her way.  more importantly she has asked pledged delegates already counting for Obama to swing to her side.  She effectively wants to change the decision of the voters.  this is not democracy.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:23:24 PM CDT

you're right, it's not democracy. it is a private organization.

i'd LOVE to see candidate selection done more democratically.  but the truth of the matter is that political parties are private organizations.  they can select their people by the most un-democratic means possible, if they want to.  i don't like it, but it is their absolute right.  if the partyies really cared about choosing candidates democratically, they would abolish caucuses.

as for pledged delegates, something interesting came in the mail yesterday.  it was the official packet announcing the agenda for my district caucus next saturday.  one of the scheduled items is called Presidential Preference CHange Period.  In other words, the party has set time aside for people to change from one candidate to the other.  that's right - it is a scheduled official event (in an obama-dominated state), not some shadowy, nefarious misdeed promulgated by one candidate.  i've stated elsewhere that i personally wouldn't feel right changing.  however, "pledged" delegates are truly free to wheel and deal and re-pledge for obama or clinton if they want to.  those are the rules of the party.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 18:37:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Could we please stop

the "Clinton is trying to steal the election" crap?  As Lurleen points out, the Democratic party has procedures in place, and Clinton is within her rights to use them.  Would Obama's supporters would be advising him to drop out and stop trying to "steal" the nomination if their situations were reversed?  Somehow I doubt it.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 19:47:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Down and Dirty

I support Obama but do not think Clinton is trying to steal anything, she's trying to win, with every tool available.  I think we're seeing  a return to old-style down'n'dirty Democratic primaries and manoeuvring.  No wonder people think Gore could step in like a deus ex machina and solve everything.  People haven't seen old school politicking with threats, slimy charges back and forth for quite a while.  The last few campaigns seem tame in comparison.  But both sides want to win; we'll see who goes the furthest in grabbing at the gold ring.  

And I still maintain the vociferousness of Clinton and Obama supporters and the invective they turn on each other is really misdirected--it's rage against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld that has had almost no effect whatsoever  Will it eat us up?  Stay tuned.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 20:30:18 PM CDT

I agree

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a bad sci-fi movie

"Nom Trek II- The Wrath of Hillary"


I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 13:28:00 PM CDT

Close...

but I'd got more along the lines of "Clinton:TNG"

I am Hillary of Borg- and you super-delegates will be assimilated. Resistance is futile...

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:42:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It Takes Two To Tango

Remember the problem.  Sen. Clinton has the support of a huge portion of Democrats in the country.  AND she has the support of Democrats in states most likely to vote Democrat in November!  Sen. Obama has picked up a lot of states ... states likely to go with McCain in November (the South for example).  The picture is not as simplistic as some would have it.

The problem is that Sen. Obama does NOT have the number of delegates needed for the nomination.  Neither does Sen. Clinton.

The REAL problem is that too few Democrats are remembering the convention that nominated Sen. George McGovern.  What a knock down, drawn out convention that was.  And when, at the end, the party faithful got on stage to raise their arms together in support of the nominee ... only George McGovern looked happy.  No one else did.  The process, from primary to convention, had been too bloody.  And a Republican became President in November.

This primary season is the same.  It is tearing us Democrats apart.  I, for one, am sick of it.  I have communicated such to both camps.  I have communicated alternatives to both camps.  To no avail.

If you think Sen. Clinton is "win at any cost," you HAVE to think the SAME of Sen. Obama.  He too is tearing the Democratic Party apart at the seams.  He does NOT have enough delegates to win the nomination.  He is NOT winning the states, especially the BIG states, likely to go Democratic in November.  

In the meantime, Sen. McCain is out there running for President!  It is nightmare!  A real nightmare.  And the only way I see out of it has been ignored by the Obama and the Clinton campaigns.  I despair.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:10:15 PM CDT

Dancing with the Candidates

Thank you Dagon for a voice of reason.
"If you think Sen. Clinton is "win at any cost," you HAVE to think the SAME of Sen. Obama.  He too is tearing the Democratic Party apart at the seams."

Seems Clinton can do nothing right.  She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.  Although to me the subtext is 'move out of the way girlie, make way for the guys coming through.  If it was two guys in this contention it would be toted as a great battle.  Instead it's get back to the kitchen (as NY Senator) and maybe latter you can play (NY Govenor).  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:20:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some clarity

Obama losing in California and New York is not meaningful to how well he'll do there come November.  If Clinton's winning in more states that are likely to go Democratic in November, that means that Obama is has added benefit by producing more interest in Democrats in red states and swing states.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:47:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

curious to know

about the alternatives you offered.

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 17:37:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but it is stealing...

if clinton is telling pledged delegates already for Obama to change their vote she is effectively going against the will of the people.  sure its possible, but it is unethical.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:51:37 PM CDT

Glass Ceiling

I think Karen in Kalifornia is correct ... or should that be "korrect?"  My daughter and I were discussing the primary.  My dearly departed husband thought a black man still could not be elected President.  My daughter chuckled.  She said any "man" had a better shot at the Presidency than a woman.  Sexism was just too rampant in the USA.  She thought (in early February) that before too much longer Sen. Clinton was going to be truely and viciously turned against ... even when she was winning.

Look at the last few primaries.  Sen. Clinton won.  Then look at the comments above asking her to step aside.  Does not make sense.  The ONLY thing that makes ANY sense is a dual ticket with both of them for FOUR years then flip the ticket in 2012.  That is the only thing that their supporters could possibly buy at this stage.  But no one listens to me ... why should they?

But I think my daughter and not my husband was correct.  The USA is more ready for a black MAN than it is for any woman.  Though if ANY woman can become President, that woman is Hilary Clinton.

Looks like McCain in 2008 ... especially if you read the investigative reporting coming out of Chicago ... Obama's hands are not clean it appears.  Too bad, really.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:40:55 PM CDT

If Obama weren't running

Clinton would probably be the nominee at this point.  But let's pretend that there's no chance a woman would ever been elected president and that all the problems with her campaign are because she's female.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 15:54:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Superdelegates need a secret ballot

If the superdelegates could vote by secret ballot, it would offer the fearful ones a way to join a head count without compromising their personal anonymity.

I'm not sure how this could be done without gathering all the superdelegates together in a room with slips of paper and a ballot box. Yet it's possible that someone has devised a clever way to conduct a secret ballot using the internet. (Tor might be helpful.)

The supers could physically mail in their ballots via U.S. Postal Service, optionally using a trusted intermediary in another part of the country to mail the letter. Postal mail is notoriously hard to trace.

In that case, the envelopes could be destroyed upon receipt in the presence of observers. Then each paper ballot could be destroyed immediately after being manually counted, to prevent later detective work.

All this is nice in theory, but it is unlikely to happen.

---

by: dratman @ Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 15:08:45 PM CDT

As long as we're talking about scared superdelegates...

I look forward to a lengthy piece on the AA Clinton superdelegates who are being bullied by the Obama supporters with the threat of a primary challenge, where they will be smeared as having stood in the way of a black president.

Goose, gander, sauce, etc.

It's politics, and no one has clean hands in this.

---

by: Susie from Philly @ Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:27:55 AM CDT