Why is Clinton Really Objecting to the DNC's Decision?

I write here not to open wounds but to begin to find a way to move on. It is very difficult to accept a loss in a long and competitive campaign, but it is virtually impossible if one believes that his or her candidate was treated unfairly. Talk of Clinton having won the popular vote leaves this impression. People are led to believe that this may be Florida in 2000. It isn't.

The DNC reached a compromise yesterday (May 31st) on Florida and Michigan. It is fair and prudent. The Clinton camp appears satisfied with 50/50 split in Florida, but unhappy about the resolution in Michigan. From the Clinton camp:

"We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast." http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Are we really supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton, after stating publicly that the election in Michigan would not count--an election in which her opponent was not on the ballot--is now in a position to claim that the decision of the DNC has undermined democracy? Does she really believe this? Is she actually outraged?

I believe that there is outrage in Hillary's Camp. Just listen to some of the reports about what went on at the DNC meeting. And I also believe that Bill and Hillary may actually be outraged. The DNC's decision results in four more delegates for Obama than Hillary would have awarded him. In terms of the delegate count, four delegates can't be the source of the outrage. The practical consequences are nil and genuine outrage over principle is suspect. So if there is outrage, what is its source? Here is my hypothesis.

Hillary's Camp has been playing the metrics game for several months now. She has grown especially attached to is the so-called "popular vote" metric. However, any statistician or pollster worth his or her salt will tell you that you can't combine votes from caucus and primary states, for the former simply have many fewer "voters" involved. It is a classic case of apples and oranges. If you did combine them, the citizens of the caucus states could claim that they were being disenfranchised. Further, the primaries had different rules, some allowed independents to participate, some even allowed Republicans to cross over, while others were solely for Democrats.

The problem with the DNC's Michigan decision is that it undermines the plausibility of counting Michigan's votes in a popular vote total. According to the DNC, giving Obama the "uncommitted" votes is an inadequate solution to the Michigan problem. No one knows for sure how the vote would have gone. So it simply took the request of the Clinton Camp, and the request of the Obama Camp, and split the difference, awarding Obama four "additional" delegates. This is meant to make a statement. It shows that the state's popular vote is not to be construed as decisive or legitimate, for the delegate count does not match the "popular vote" (which in fact is non-existent since Obama wasn't on the ballot). The compromise was one over delegates, and the way that the delegates were handled signaled that Michigan's popular vote should not be counted.

The outrage from the Clinton Camp is real, but to be more exact, it is really fury at the DNC for undermining its case about the popular vote. It is not clear how she wants to use the latter at this point, but whether it is for posterity, for the VP slot, or for her next run for the presidency, the popular vote total remains very important to the Clintons. The problem, however, is obvious. By insisting on this false metric, they are undermining Obama. They are making it appear that she somehow won the election, as did Gore, and then had it taken away from her by an unfair system. But the analogy to Florida in 2000 is specious. Hillary and her Camp will have to take responsibility for any damage done to Obama's chances by continuing to "strongly object" to the DNC's reasonable compromise.

I hope that we can get past the "popular vote" and move on to the general election, asap.

To this end, I offer something to Obama and Clinton supporters who also happen to be BSG fans. I offer you the twelth cylon as a way to get going in the race against the Republicans.

"The Twelfth Cylon Revealed"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/



Display:


Re: Why is Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Hillary should have been given 118 delegates in Michigan to Obama's 0.

Obama chose to take his name of the ballot even when he knew the election would count.

Michigan had record turnout.  Every Democrat who wanted to vote did so.  Nobody stayed home.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:16 PM EST

Oh (2.00 / 2)

Not only do they strip Clinton of half of her delegate leads in states she won, but they also went out of their way to hijack 4 of her Michigan delegates for the sole purpose of attacking her populist symbolic victory.  Oh, and they called it a "compromise."  

The abuse of this woman is totally shocking.  

Clinton's supporters are going to swing the election.  Sure, some will swallow the fix and vote for Barack Obama, but some won't.    


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:43:40 PM EST

Re: Oh (1.66 / 3)

Most Clinton supporters aren't spiteful little monsters who'd rather leave the women of this country at the mercy of a John McCain SCOTUS.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (1.00 / 2)

We can also think longterm and not just instant gratification.  Winning this presidency would be  Pyrrhic.  

Being a Democrat doesn't mean you vote uncritically for anything that crawls out of Chicago, merely because it has a D next to his name.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (2.00 / 1)

See above. I'm sure there are exceptions. You seem to be one.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Right and in a certain fantasy view of the world I'm one of few.  

In reality, we have 18,000,000 voters who, as the primary progressed, became so cemented in our views that in May primaries, over 70% of us said we would not cast a ballot for Barack Obama in the fall.  35% from Pennsylvania was bad enough.  50% from Indiana and North Carolina was a serious problem.  Over 70% is out of control.  

Now the RBC coup has given Hillary supporters a reason to feel justifiably outraged.  We will have no qualms returning the favor to a party with which we only partially identify.  

I'm genuinely undecided at this point, for better or for worse.  I'm not a very quintessential example of the committed anti-Obama partisan you seem to be looking for.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As I said above... (2.00 / 1)

...most Clinton supporters are decent, thinking, human beings. They'll vote for the Democrat.

You vote for whomever you wish, and have the courage to do so without implying every Clinton supporter's association with the party begins and ends with Hillary Clinton, as yours seems to.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I said above... (none / 0)

Look virtually all Hillary supporters on Mydd will vote for the winner of the Democratic nomination whoever that person is. . .

. . . But, unless Obama makes serious overtures to Hillary's supporters (the non-political junkies like us), there is irrefutable empirical data from the previous general election that there are significant numbers of democratic switchers that voted for Bush over Kerry.


by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I said above... (none / 0)

And look at what happened by voting for Bush. Do we want to make the same mistake?


by Politicalslave on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I said above... (none / 0)

Right because being an undecided voter ipso facto signifies that I am not a decent, thinking, human being.  

My association with the party begins in the 1990's and I am not eager to renounce it.  This isn't a flippant decision for me.  I am undecided.  

But I'm competent enough not to be swayed either way by a handful of Clinton-supporter hating squabbles on an internet forum.  Whatever I decide will have nothing to do with net-people gloating, condescending, etc.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You were enraged enough before. (2.00 / 1)

Now you're just instigating and trying to bring people to your side.

The RBC ruling was not dissimilar to the offer from the Michigan Democratic party a couple of weeks ago, a compromise midway between the two candidates positions, a attempt at a fair seating of the delegates in a no-win situation for the committee. It does nothing to effect the outcome of the primary season except to take away a talking point (though you're now trying to create a new one).

I get it. Your position hasn't changed in quite some time. You'd rather have McCain than Obama. Good luck with that. Myself and others will be working hard to defeat John McCain, and apparently you, come the fall.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were enraged enough before. (none / 0)

I will both campaign and volunteer my time and finances for the candidate I support in Northeastern and Southeastern Pennsylvania.  I realize this doesn't matter to anybody here, but I am used to "not counting" everybody in the NeoDemocratic Party.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:39:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Very offensive. (2.00 / 2)

I "crawled" out of Chicago also.


by futbol dad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very offensive. (none / 0)

Same here.  Since that's all I could do.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very offensive. (none / 0)

Oh yes, how faint-worthy.  My verb choice was by far the most offensive thing that's been posted on the internet in decades.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I was wrong in thinking you were slamming the commenter, but that was my first read.  Even if not, please do not use the word monster any longer because it was disgusting when Power did it.  Moreover, spiteful is a word used mostly against women.  Also, little is rather nasty to small people.


by Montague on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (2.00 / 1)

The abuse of this woman is totally shocking.

Comparing a decision by a Democratic rules committee to this nation's epidemic of domestic violence is unbelievably offensive.  Please apologize.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (2.00 / 1)

Um, no.

Spare me the lecture on domestic violence and the concomitant faux outrage.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Um, yes.

There are women in this world who are actually abused.  For you to compare Hillary Clinton not getting what she wanted out of a committee meeting to the experiences of those women is pretty damned offensive.

Please apologize.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Please keep your homophobic implications that only women are abused to yourself.  

And please keep your bizarrely results-oriented misconstructions of my word "abuse," designed to paint me as unsympathetic to women (ha!), to yourself as well.  

Get educated on emotional & psychological abuse as well.  I wrote a fantastic article on this last year.  

I can't dignify your faux outrage any longer.  Have a good evening.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

You're so precious!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

I know you mean that sincerely, and so I thank you sincerely.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

I wrote a fantastic article
Good on you.  I helped nominate a man who will be a fantastic president.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

You talking about Wes Clark?  John Edwards?


by Montague on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Agreed, if you meant "Would have been" vs. "Will be".


by semiquaver on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:16:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Then we must agree to disagree.  Edwards was okay although his public resume was as thin as Obama's.  Clark was an unusual opportunity whom people didn't pick up on.  Too bad, our loss.  Obama will never be president, so you may as well enjoy the feeling while you can.  


by Montague on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Just stop.  Nowhere was such a comparison made!  You are being ridiculous.


by Montague on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

Oh for fuck's sake.  There's more than one kind of abuse, and by the way Hillary has been treated horrifically, and as a woman, I am totally fucking appalled on her behalf and on behalf of women everywhere.


by Montague on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

You sound a lot like me.

Very well done.

Mojo for you.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

I guess I will quote StudentGuy...

"laughs at parody troll NT"


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh laughing, laugh laughter (none / 0)

What is a parody troll?

IF someone laughs at parody troll, can someone then laugh at the one who laughs at parody troll?

And if someone laughs at the one who laughs at the parody troll, is it okay to laugh at the one who laughed at the one laughing who laughed at the parody troll?

I mean I think laughter is good but to what exponential power would you like to take this?


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

538 (none / 0)


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh laughing, laugh laughter (none / 0)

You are actually half-decent at this comedy routine and your baroque quasi-philosophical humor distinctly reminds me of someone here.  

Er... what I meant to say was...

Is this snark?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:46:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh (none / 0)

The choice was between 0 delegates and what she got, not between 100% of the delegates to his 0.  She knew that, which is why HER PEOPLE took the compromise.


by libertyleft on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Clinton Really Objecting to (2.00 / 1)

I agree.  This has nothing to do with delegates or more noble pursuits such as enfranchisement, etc.  They wanted official validation of the popular vote total.  Of course, there are so many problems with throwing together the results of closed caucus states, open caucus states, closed primaries, open primaries, projections from caucus states that never reported, trying to figure out how the candidates and states would have behaved in a pure popular vote contest, etc. that few supers would buy the argument even with the Michigan results thrown in.

It's sad that the voters in MI and FL are simply pawns in all of this.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST

Clinton is objecting ILLEGAL RBC's decision (none / 0)


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:49 PM EST

It's always her fault (2.00 / 1)

Assigning blame to Hillary for any damage to BHO is just silly.  Hillary has a right, under the DNC rules, to appeal to the Creditials Committee.  She also has a right to continue the campaign just like Teddy in '80.

Stop blaming her for everything, please.  BHO is a big boy, right?  He only has himself to blame for any damage, e.g. resigning from his church.

Hillary supporters have a right to be pissed; she got a raw deal on Saturday.  Like Ickes said, the "remedy" does nothing to foster unity.


by Chicano on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:11:54 AM EST

Re: It's always her fault (none / 0)

Clinton has every right to take her case to the convention (as Teddy did in '80), and the superdelegates have every reason to back Obama so they can block this from happening (as they did in '84 to Gary Hart).


by IncognitoErgoSum on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's always her fault (none / 0)

Unless they hail from heavily partisan districts increasingly intent on making this a long-term issue.  I for one will vote against my Congressman if he endorses Obama.  He's undecided.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Clinton Really Objecting to the DNC's D (none / 0)

millions of democrats showed in 1980 that country is above party, we cant risk this country with an un experienced neo marxist   lets start organizing to save this country


by awayer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:24:27 AM EST

Re: Why is Clinton Really Objecting to the DNC's D (none / 0)

  • Florida and Michigan have to have all voting power not just half. This alone will change Nomination NUMBER to 2210 instead of wrong 2118.
  • full seating of Florida will give her 105 delegates instead of 52.5 and 8 supers instead of 4. For Obama it will be 66+5 so total will grow for her to 1677+294=1971 and for him to 1771+332=2103.
  • full seating of Michigan without giving him any vores and delegates: it will add to her back 34.5+4 delegates and 3.5 supers and take away from him (he was not on ballot, because he wanted to please IA) 29.5 delegates. This will bring her total to 2013 and his total to 2073.5 with difference only 63.5 delegates.
  • this means that she needs 197 more delegates and supers and he needs 135. This is a huge difference and this is what she objecting in RBC hijacking illegal vote.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:10:33 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.