The Clinton Campaign Vs. The People

The Politico should really just be called out for what it is: an outlet for right-wing nonsense to attack Democratic pols. A lot of the people who write for Politico think that the era of "journalism" from '91-present where the press exists to slam Democratic politicians (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Obama, Clinton) and suck up to Republican ones is the normal state of things, and if it means servicing Massah Drudge they're more than happy to do it.

But it isn't real journalism in any sense of the word.

Oliver Willis--April 19, 2007

Oliver, when you repeat this "Back of the Bus" crap, you tinge the moral high ground that Obama supporters, and yes Obama himself, has. Cut it out. Don't pull the same king of crap your boy Mark Penn would.

Yes, its the Politico and you have to take it with caveats, but the quote from Ickes is what it is.

I'm not taking any cues from anyone on the back of the bus. If Obama has the lead and he is pushed to be the veep nominee, is that not the back of the bus? It is how I and many will see it - and not just black folks.

The Politico is playing you, OW.

Ben Smith even wrote: "Ickes didn't actually suggest that the Clinton campaign would court pledged delegates," but you're still willing to go with "The Clintons are already laying the groundwork for subverting the primary process."

What Ickes said happens to be a fact, one of the rules of the convention. Smith, writing in The Politico tells us nothing at all about the context of the statement, but you're ready to put the worst possible face on it.

I know you're not taking cues from anyone, but backlash from playing the race card like that will still go against Obama.

I think, Oliver, despite your comments last night that Obama would be ahead by nearly 100 delegates come today, you've lost sight of that bigger picture and some other reassuring facts:

- despite clinton's kitchen sink strategy and negative campaigning, obama barely budged. within the week he'll have made up much of the delegate count change with the wyoming caucus and the mississippi primary.
- this morning, with the final tallies in, clinton did not win ohio by the 20% or so she had when news organizations started calling the state - in the end she won by 10% - as more urban districts came in, obama steadily closed the gap. in the end she got a spread of 12 delegates there. add rhode island's 5 and 4 for the texas primary, and you have 21. so yes, clinton slowed obama's momentum, but she hardly made a dent in his 100 or so delegate lead in 2 of what should have been her strongest states, demographically. if she can't do better than a 54/44 split in pennsylvania, she's got no prayer of leading the delegate count, even if michigan and florida are re-done.

Hillary needed a knockout punch. She didn't get it. So cut the low blows. It's much more likely to backfire than to make any significant change for Obama.

Ickes is a hardballer. You think he just floated that fact without reason? Come on.

That's my point. Obama has a 100 delegate lead, and more to come. I wish to nip the talk of him settling for the veep spot in the bud. No back of the bus.

You think he just floated that fact without reason? Come on.

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. You demand that the Clinton campaign play by the rules, but cry foul if they mention what the rules are. Like I said: ready to put the worst possible face on it.

I wish to nip the talk of him settling for the veep spot in the bud.

And if he does? What then? If you walk away in that case, then it's not the party or the candidate you support. What is it?

So far, only outlets that seem to be reporting the Ickes comment are The Politico and Wonkette (quoting The Politico).

Going back to how Clinton is determined to tear down the Democratic party no matter what the outcome of the primaries, here's a compilation of clips of her boosting McCain over Obama

Obama needs to ask her a simple question and demand an unambiguous answer, "Will you support the democratic nominee in the Fall for the White House, no matter who wins the primaries?" If she says "yes, of course" hammer her on why she would support someone she has openly stated on multiple occasions is not fit for the job and is, in her opinion, less qualified than John McCain. If she says "no," well, then that will speak for itself, won't it? Either she favors party over country or herself over the country. That's quite a corner she's painted for herself.

She's painted a preposterously huge bullseye on the party. She backs caucus rules right up until she might lose, then suddenly the game is fixed against her, unless she wins, then it's all smiles. How can she call out McCain on his support of campaign finance reform and subsequent attempt to weasel out of public financing when she has done everything she can to subvert the caucus rules she and her political allies created in the first place? Thanks to her openly defending her lobbyist support, she can't really go after McCain there, either. Iraq? Their voting records are nearly identical? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran? Kyl Kyl Kyl, Kyl Kyl-Liebermann.

Hillary, welcome to your self-invented reality.

Why mention it in the first place then? If I say something like "Guys named Quaker only date supermodels. I'm not saying this guy does, but there's a precedent." I'm clearly implying something.

I would not be able to support a Democratic party that pushed the delegate leader into the veep slot. If Obama loses the fight fear and square, so be it, but not getting shoved in the back of the bus.

Why mention it in the first place then?

Who knows? Only Ben Smith is reporting the remark and he absent-mindedly forgets to tell us why.

Are you thinking that Ickes was giving the Obama camp advance warning? Or that the remark was made apropos of nothing at all?

Here's a thought: maybe Ickes was answering a question! Whatever the reason, Ben Smith gives us no clue to Ickes motives. That's not stopping you from filling in the blanks.

Played.

when she has done everything she can to subvert the caucus rules she and her political allies created in the first place?

Uh, Bill? WTF?

Quaker, kind of like when Hillary said she had "no intention" of running for President?

The Atlantic is talking about it as well:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/dueling_spin_the_big_picture_v.php

They WILL NOT both be on the ticket. Deal with it. One of them will be the nominee, the other will NOT be the VP pick. It's just not happening.

Hillary's sending out this trial balloon for two reasons: 1. to start embedding the subtle impression that Obama is "lesser" in stature than her, ergo not one who should be voted as more important than her, and 2. to create the atmosphere that her machinations with the delegates won't kick Obama out of the race entirely.

In either way, she's essentially suggesting that she'll have some lovely parting gifts for Obama, and given the current layout of the race that's both insulting and idiotic. Pennsylvania may change that in six weeks but by every single metric, Hillary is LOSING right now.

kind of like when Hillary said she had "no intention" of running for President?

Sorry, Jay. You're going to have to make the relevance of that remark a bit clearer for my feeble little brain.

Nevertheless, congratulations on finding a second source that insinuates without explaining. When I Googled it, the bots apparently had not yet found it.

I would not be able to support a Democratic party that pushed the delegate leader into the veep slot. If Obama loses the fight fear and square, so be it, but not getting shoved in the back of the bus.

By "delegate leader," am I correct in assuming you mean leader in elected delegates? Let's explore one possible scenario:

We get to the end of the primaries and Mr. Obama has a lead in elected delegates of (and I'm totally pulling this OMA) 60 delegates. There's 700-and-some "superdelegates." Let's further suppose that Ms. Clinton wins 70 more superdelegates than Mr. Obama.

Is Mr. Obama being pushed out? Is Ms. Clinton playing by the rules?

Quaker,

Hillary was well aware of, and in fact agreed to, the Texas caucus rules months ago. Then with only a bout a week to go before the primaries when she feared she would lose and Obama rendered unstoppable, her team threatens to sue.

Not good enough? Okay...

She knew that Florida and Michigan were having their delegates disqualified for breaking the agreed primary schedule and holding their primaries early. Now she wants them counted after effectively shutting out her opponents who, at least in Michigan, weren't even on the ballot.

More? Alrighty...

Remember Nevada? She tried to change the rules to prevent casino workers from voting at the casinos, again claiming the rules were unfair after signing off on them months ago.

Really, I can't believe any of this slipped by you.

Ummm, WTF?

her team threatens to sue.

What was the basis of the suit? In what way did it "undermine" the caucus rules?

Remember Nevada? She tried to change the rules to prevent casino workers from voting at the casinos, again claiming the rules were unfair after signing off on them months ago.

I remember this differently. I'll let you know what I find.

So for "everything in her power to undermine the rules" you have 1) a lawsuit that didn't happen, and 2) Nevada caucus locations. Is that it?

Here ya go, Bill:

Nevada: The rules establishing at-large precincts for the caucuses were created by the Nevada Democratic Party at the end of last year. (Your evidence that Ms. Clinton "signed off" on them?) The lawsuit against the rules was brought by the Nevada teachers' union, not the Clinton campaign (and no, the teachers' union didn't endorse Clinton, although some of the union's leadership is in her camp). Your evidence that Ms. Clinton "did everything in her power" to push the lawsuit?

So now we have 1) a lawsuit that didn't happen and 2) a lawsuit in which Ms. Clinton had no apparent involvment.

Everything in her power?

Look, let me put my cards out here. I'm for Obama. On the other hand, if he's not the nominee, I'm not stomping off in a corner to sulk. I'm also not willing to let it slide when people make unsupported, inflammatory charges against Ms. Clinton.

If you think she tried to "undermine the rules" then make your case. Saying it doesn't make it so.

OW, here's another reporter's take on the same phone call. The comment by Ickes doesn't even rate a mention.

This is ridiculous.

The candidates and their campaigns are under the authority of the DNC.

Caucus rules, the Credentials Committee which will eventually decide the fate of the sanctioned delegates from Michigan and Florida, the newly implemented Nevada Caucuses, and many other issues and aspects of this race are also under the DNC.

The super-delegates were DESIGNED with precisely this scenario in mind: Two equally qualified, equally legitimate candidates fight it out to a virtual draw, which is exactly where we are today.

The superdelegates are SUPPOSED to decide the Election. Been that way for 20 years.

Hillary is not saying she will claim the Florida and Michigan delegations. She is saying the DNC needs to find a way to resolve precisely because the conflict between the DNC and the local party politicians is what created this problem in the first place.

Of course, if you are an Obama, it is even MORE evidence of the bitch doing every underhanded, evil, doublecrossing maneuver and chicanery to get her way.

If you're a Clinton suppporter, she has shown remarkable restraint in not going ballistic and nuclear and demanding an immediate resolution to this ridiculous DNC-FL and DNC-MI fight in her favor.

Wellstone, here's another Quaker prediction:

The Dems will cook up a do-over for Florida and Michigan.

The outcome from the two states will have an imperceptible effect on the margin between the number of delegates committed to the two candidates.

Take it to the bank.

Quaker, I took it to the bank, but they would not take that deposit, something about a post-dated check, lol.

Because of the first round results, advantage in MI and FL goes to Hillary.

She also holds the upper hand in PA right now.

Should she win all 3, she will have erased Obama's leads in pledged delegates AND the popular vote AND she can make the valid claim she was elected by the Democratic base in the big states, she won big in the crucial swing states of OH and FL and TN and NJ and new in-play states like NM, AZ, and OK. And her majorities did not depend on crossover Independents and Republicans, or Caucuses.

Illinois, his home state, will be the only big state with more than 100 delegates in Obama's bag.

At that point her argument for Dem Candidate becomes almost overwhelmingly difficult for Obama to counter and demand a win from a majority of the superdelegates.

No, Obama knows the handwriting's on the wall: If the re-vote happens in MI and FL, he's finished. He had his best shot March 4.

Florida and Michigan broke the rules. Their delegates, as currently allocated, will not be seated. Sen. Obama has the lead.

Howard Dean was on Morning Joe, and all sorts of possibilities were on the table.

The Governors of both MI and FL went on the record yesterday as supporting re-votes, with the only sticking point being who will bear the cost.

Howard Dean is now directing the Party leadership in both MI and FL to sub,it a plan to the leadership on what this re-vote would look like.

As to the cost, Howard Dean says he will not spend the DNC's money, and the Governors are sayting they are having trouble allocating funds for this, so fine.

I say It would be trivial to open a donation webpage and have Dems from all over who want a re-vote contribute $5. I would do it in a heartbeat, not just because I am a Hillary supporter but because by rights the enthusiastic Democratic voters of MI And FL, who turned out in spite of the debacle, should not be punished for the stupidity and arrogance of their state Dem leadership in defying Dr. Dean and the DNC and should be offered a chance to express their wishes for a candidate.

The superdelegates are SUPPOSED to decide the Election.

You mean the nomination, yes?

Quaker,

As I understand it, the Nevada rules were established last May and ratified by the DNC in August. The contention that the Clinton campaign had no connection to the Nevada Teacher's Union is hard to swallow when their top leaders endorsed her (though not the union itself). I believe one of those leaders actually worked for the Clinton campaign in some fashion directly (I'll need to look that up). Then you have to consider Bill Clinton's tirades over the Nevada caucus system to the press using virtually the same language found in the lawsuit. Finally, you have to consider the timing of the suit, coming just two days after the Culinary Union endorsed Obama. Not a problem before Jan 8th, but suddenly a problem immediately after. So either the Clinton campaign was astonishingly stupid and walked into a caucus unaware of the rules (really, how plausible is that), or they let surrogates, including her husband, fight the battle to keep their hands clean.

As for Texas, the threat of a major lawsuit to disrupt the primary/caucus results is a big deal regardless of whether the suit actually got filed. If, as has been argued, she played the lawsuit game to take control of the news cycle and score some positive headlines after the initial popular vote tallies came in kill some of Obama's momentum, mission accomplished. You still have to weigh that against her campaign's willingness to cast doubt and sow mistrust about the democratic nomination process. Like the McCain fluff statements, she and her campaign seem to be all too willing to throw the party under the bus to get what they want.

Hold on, bill.

Your original claim was that HRC "did everything in her power to undermine the caucus rules."

Your paragraph on Nevada offers nothing to back that up. The teacher's union brought the suit. If you can't connect the Clinton campaign to the suit with anything stronger than "Bill used the same language," you have failed to support your argument.

If the threat of a lawsuit is a big deal regardless of whether the suit gets filed, then both candidates played that game. Besides, no news report I saw revealed exactly what about the caucus rules was the issue. Do you know? A disagreement over the rules is not "doing everything in your power to undermine the rules."