The pro-Clinton blogs are flogging yet another “How about THIS!!!???” idea designed to present yet another laughable justification for Sen. Clinton to be awarded the nomination she is losing. You may remember it by its more formal name from when you were a small child: Let’s pretend.
Obama’s advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.
It should come as no surprise that the piece is written by Sean Wilentz who while supposedly a historian should probably be described as a quasi-official flack for the Clinton campaign.
But the heart of the theory being pushed here is equally stupid. If Senator Clinton wished to run for the nomination of a party with a winner-take-all nomination process, she would be well within her legal rights to do so - she simply needed to have changed her party affiliation to Republican. Like it or not the Democratic party’s process is a proportional affair along with superdelegates. That is how it is. Nobody forced Sen. Clinton to design her campaign for a Super Tuesday splash where she would have the nomination wrapped up for the anointed one by early February. She has name recognition on par with Jesus and a campaign war chest ranking among the largest in history. Yet just like the sort of thinking we have come to identify with the Bush administration she failed to reconcile her fanciful plans with the facts on the ground. The Obama folks didn’t rely on stovepiped intelligence delivered to them by a sympathetic lackey, instead they read the intelligence reports and made the right decision.
Sen. Clinton should try that sometime before her career in public life is up.
Instead they are reduced to counting the amount of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. They come up with absurd scenarios to try and make their argument stick. It ranges from the idea of delegates not following the will of primary and caucus goers as they have since the nomination process began, to counting only states where Sen. Clinton won to counting only primary states and on and on. Yet Sen. Clinton did not express in any way her grave concerns over this nomination process when her husband won it in 1992 and 1996. When President Clinton won the Iowa caucus in 1996 we heard none of this discussion about how caucuses were not representative of the people’s will. Yet by her current standards (and they change from day to day depending on who is asking) President Clinton’s nomination was not legitimate. Heck, as late as a few months ago Sen. Clinton was more than willing to praise the entire process and abide by the DNC’s rulings against Florida and Michigan for their violation of party rules.
But then she saw it all slipping away and the entire nomination process became an unfair and untrustworthy thing whose rules should be changed when the process is 80% over in order to benefit her failure.
Senator, this is not Calvinball.
>> The glaring flaw in Sean Wilentz’s argument
>> Hillary Clinton a Victim of the System
>> Give It Up
>> If My Grandmother Had Wheels, Clinton Would be Winning
>> And if Hillary were Obama, she’d be winning
>> Wilentz Jumps the Shark
Calvinball! You found the perfect analogy. But all these arguments aren’t really trying to change the rules midway. They’re just designed to keep superdelegates from focusing on the results so they hold back their endorsements long enough to give her some role at the convention beyond usher.
It’s almost painful to agree with Oliver, but he’s right. (Cue the broken clocks analogy.) Clinton’s argument seems to boil down to “we had every opportunity to learn the rules of the contest beforehand, just like Obama’s campaign did, and it’s not fair that they studied the rules better and, worst of all, they’re winning! Even when we tried to cheat in Florida and Michigan by saying we’d stay out of their races and then ran anyway, we are still losing and IT’S JUST NOT FAIR BECAUSE IT’S HILLARY’S TURN AND SHE DESERVES IT AND SHE EARNED IT BY STAYING BY BILL AND HOW DARE THIS UPPITY NOBODY FROM CHICAGO (like Hillary) STAND IN THE WAY OF THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD BEING CORONATED AS IS HER DUE!!!!!!!!!!”
Or something like that.
Oh, and the “Calvinball” analogy has been around for a while. It’s just too good a metaphor to not be used.
J.
Their argument also ignores that Obama would have run his campaign differently if it was winner take all. Rather than spending the time to run up victories by double digit margins in states he knew he would win, he would have put more time into states that were essentially a draw. As it is, keeping a contest close in a big state but winning big in a small state netted him more delegates and the lead. Where oh where were the Clinton’s when this calendar and its rules were negotiated and announced years ago? Oh that’s right, they were involved, directly, in writing them and approved them. Essentially she wants to both set the rules of the game, and then change them after the fact if she doesn’t win. Also, her lead even under the winner-take-all after the fact rule change they want to assert is slim at best, as if you count Texas for Obama, he is ahead.
EVER HEARD OF
“WANTING HER CAKE AND EAT IT TOO”
more seriously she was indeed the dem contender of 2007 , what was not expected was that an unknown candidate would turn out to be a more likeable, more interesting, more saleable than her. She was expecting a coronation because she was once a FIRST LADY , the DNC theer is largely responsible for her disappointment which is legitimate. She was told to be the “for sure nominee” , but Bill Clinton got her only as far as the candidate to the primary , his know-how does not extend as making actually people vote for her. I am not saying she is a serious candidate and a worthy one to boot, I am just saying she was led to believe by people who should have known better that at the end the decision is made by WE THE PEOPLE and not by a former Pres. and his cronies. She thought she could make it and discovers being an ex-first lady does not mean she got it made. And this has nothing to do by being a woman, it has to do to get selected there are rules one has to follow wheter he/she is a man/woman white/black. the rules are gender and colour blind. And a lot of people missed that very essential point. “Respect the rules , that is Real Change”
That’s just what we need, California picking the nominee.
I really don’t understand this comparison of Clinton’s performance against Obama in various areas to Clinton’s presumed performance against McCain in those same areas come November. This argument is another version of that. But the fact is, it’s a totally different constituency. The primary is democrats voting against democrats to choose who they want on the ticket in November. Once they HAVE that name, I guarantee they will develop new feelings for the candidate when the only choice is between him/her and McCain.
I believe that one major piece of the equation that the Clinton people are trying to ignore is that Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote against Clinton, whereas they will not feel the same animosity toward Obama. Just my opinion.
Scratch:
Why do you think the Republicans really want to run against Clinton? You nailed it. For what ever stupid reason the wingnutters have a deep hate of the Clintons. I don’t know why, as they are basically Republican-lite on many things. My guess is that it’s due to Bush I and II being disasters. They are jealous of his(relatively speaking) success.
Calvin…
Just as Democrats think of McCain et al as just more Bush, so do Republicans think of Hillary as just more Clinton.
Plus, I am turned off by the apparent sense of entitlement in this election. I am really, REALLY enjoying seeing her on the ropes.
Dear Bartcop, Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson,
Thank you for all your good work on the Obama matter. You’re the greatest gift to the Republican Party since the Southern Strategy.
Yours in Christ,
John McCain
“Senator, this is not Calvinball.”
“Clinton’s argument seems to boil down to “we had every opportunity to learn the rules of the contest beforehand,”
Sean Wilentz.
Hillary Clinton.
It’s hard to see how you might have confused these two. They’re not spelled at all similarly.
Now if you want to argue that Mr. Wilentz is acting as a Clinton mouthpiece, go right ahead. As yet, though, you’ve merely taken the words of one and put them in the mouth of the other.
You don’t think Wilentz’s argument is likely to be soon repurposed as a Clinton argument?
Just as Democrats think of McCain et al as just more Bush, so do Republicans think of Hillary as just more Clinton.
Nailed it.
God, I am loathe to say this, but I agree with Jay Tea AND Scratch.
Armageddon is at hand, surely.
Scratch:
Who said they were any different? Would Hillary govern any different from how Bill did? Doubt it. She is a DLC member too, after all. She voted for the Iraq War(and Bill would have too, until he realized that was the wrong answer).
“You don’t think Wilentz’s argument is likely to be soon repurposed as a Clinton argument?”
I have no idea. Did you intend a preemptive strike when you attributed Wilentz’ argument to the Senator?
Didn’t we already get a version of Wilentz’ argument when Big Dog made comments to the effect that his wife would be considered ahead if only it weren’t for all those caucuses?
It amounts, as always, to the same thing…if the rules were different, Clinton would already be the nominee.
I’m sure that the Alternate Hillary Clinton in Earth-2676, where the Wilentz rules are fact, is enjoying a comfortable lead and is preparing to dance all over the dreams of Republican nominee Alternate Mitt Romney. Too bad for our Hillary Clinton, however, that she exists here.
Where’s Wellstone in this mix?
This argument, like all the pro-Clinton arguments before it, is worth less than the combined cost of the individual pixels that it is comprised of on my cheap-ass computer monitor.
I think that all this grasping at straws only serves to increase Obama’s relative appeal. He has consistently been the cool, collected one on the campaign trail. He looks and acts presidential. She, and her cronies, look ruffled, scared, desperate. It’s no longer amusing to me though.
I would like Obama to give a speech and address the absurdity of all the arguments that Clinton should have the nomination. Really, I think it would be great if he basically just pointed out the idiocy of these arguments and have a good, public laugh at her expense.
Does anyone know what happened to his proposal to split Michigan’s delegates 50-50? I never heard any response.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/04/07/if-my-grandmother-had-wheels-clinton-would-be-winning.aspx
Oliver,
If you haven’t seen it, you might enjoy Jon Chait’s response to Wilentz….
Good link, eagle. That’s how it’s done!
I linked to Chait’s post in mine. 15 hours ago.
Then you might have noticed that Mr. Chait addresses his complaint about Mr. Wilentz’s article to the author, not to Ms. Clinton.