Posts on the Rules Committee Meeting/ Clinton Protests

[Dr Ron]

I'll start with the earliest post here and add related posts as replies.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3333


Obama Still Out Smarting Clinton By Taking The High Road

May 31st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

For a politician who was supposed to be the inevitable winner of the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton really has not been very smart.

Barack Obama’s campaign has out smarted her every step of the way. They out smarted her by playing close attention to the party’s rules, and using them to win. They out smarted her on message, having opposed the Iraq war from the start, and being the candidate who supported diplomacy as opposed to continuing George Bush’s policies. As Hillary Clinton stuck to a top down mind set, both in her campaign and support for the increasingly unpopular nanny state, Obama stressed a bottom up mind set to empower individuals.

In a year when voters were sick of the Bush years, Obama beat Clinton by calling for change while Hillary Clinton offered more of the same. Clinton also tried to claim she represented change, failing to understand that you had to provide hard evidence that your campaign really represented change. Just repeating the word change was not enough.

While Clinton took the low road, Obama took the high road. While he was not my first choice, the difference here was too vast to ignore and won my support, as well as that of many other voters. Each time Clinton engaged in Rove style dirty politics to try to stop Obama, it only demonstrated further why we should support Obama over Clinton.

Today is another major event in the fight for the nomination. While the Clinton forces are engaging in silly arguments (and hissing at Obama supporters) on the inside, and protesting outside, the Obama forces are once again out smarting Clinton as the rules committee meets.

If we were only looking at fairness, neither Michigan or Florida should count at all. As Josh Marshall points out, changing the rules in this manner is unfair to those of us who live in those two states, and represents the true act of disenfranchisement. When voters are told that an election will not count the results are not indicative of the real wishes of the voters of the states. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that only Clinton’s name was on the ballot in Michigan, and Obama most likely would have won in the state if there was a fair primary. For all practical purposes she began campaigning at the last moment in Florida. Neither the voters of Michigan and Florida or Barack Obama, the candidate who followed the party’s rules, should be penalized by counting votes for Clinton in those states.

There are further dynamics in play. Obama would be well within his rights to protest any settlement which awards Clinton more delegates, but he is again out smarting Clinton by not doing this. Obama has agreed to a compromise which does give Clinton an edge she does not deserve in Florida.

The rational for this is quite clear. Just as Obama took the high road over Clinton in the manner in which he campaigned, attracting the support of many voters and superdelegates in doing so, Obama’s camp realizes that much of what happens today is also for the benefit of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. While Obama cannot risk giving Clinton enough delegates to erode his lead, he can afford to give up a handful. In the process he shows himself as the candidate willing to compromise for the good of the party. This comes as a stark contrast to Clinton’s demands with regards to Michigan, where they seek to deny Obama any delegates in a state he otherwise would have won. Not only are they claiming the delegates based upon an inflated vote count due to Obama not being on the ballot, but they are denying Obama the support of the uncommitted vote, which undoubtedly was anti-Clinton. Even write in votes for Obama did not count in Michigan.

Not even Putin was as undemocratic as Hillary Clinton. He at least allowed the pretense of a choice in the last election.

Superdelegates will see a choice between Obama, who was willing to compromise when he did not have to, and Clinton, whose demands are totally unreasonable. If by now there really are superdelegates who are undecided between these two, this might be the final straw to get them to choose Obama.

[Dr Ron]

1. The Clinton Protest

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3334

The Clinton Protest

May 31st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Looking around the blogosphere, Steve Benen quotes from the report at The Stump on the Clinton protests which I linked to in the previous post:

Howard Dean may hope that the “healing will begin today,” but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally’s speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of “promoting equality and fairness for all”; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, “Howard Dean is a leftist freak!”; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads “At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen” and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.

“They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there,” the blond Sinclair–who’s looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket–says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of “Obama’s DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex” fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, “I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!”

He’s not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. “You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs,” sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair’s credibility doesn’t seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he’s treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is “good in bed.”

This selection, along with the rest of the post, certainly demonstrates considerable hostility towards Obama from the Clinton camp. What is bizarre is that while Obama supporters can provide real examples of dishonest campaigning from Clinton, as well as real differences in policy, the objections from the Clinton camp come down to a pack of nonsense. You know that their arguments are weak when they resort to quoting Larry Sinclair, who has already failed a lie detector test regarding his ridiculous accusations. This attitude from the Clinton camp leads Steve Benen to be concerned:

Hillary Clinton has said, on multiple occasions, that she will work her heart out for the Democratic ticket this year, whether she’s on it or not. I have every reason to believe she means it, and will follow through on her commitment.

But I get the sense some of her supporters are going to need more convincing than others.

Considering the huge numbers of people who have voted for Clinton this year (even if less than those who voted for Obama), it should not come as a surprise that there are vast differences among them. Some, such as the person in the video above, will need more convincing than others.

Some are socially conservative working class voters who might wind up voting for McCain. Whether or not that makes sense is a different matter, but there is a distinct portion of Clinton’s support which is closer to Republican than Democratic voters of recent years. There’s also a racist element who will not vote for Obama.

There are also many long time Democratic voters who are unlikely to vote for McCain over Clinton once the passions of the primaries are over, regardless of what Clinton does. Most will vote for Obama, especially if Clinton keeps her word and backs him.

There’s a strong feminist component to Clinton’s support. Some want a woman president, and are willing to overlook Clinton’s lack of ethics, her lack of experience (as they promote the fantasy that her years of proximity to power are the same as actual experience), and her many flawed policy positions. At the moment they might say they will vote for McCain in revenge. Three words will ultimately change their minds: Row versus Wade.

Obama will undoubtedly lose some votes due to the fanaticism of some Clinton supporters. He will also pick up far more votes from independents and disenchanted Republicans who are supporting him, but will not support Hillary Clinton.

Matthew Yglesias quotes from another report on the Clinton rally and questions if it makes sense for Clinton supporters to vote for McCain:

Meanwhile, people who are seriously drawn to Hillary Clinton’s plans on health care, climate change but also think they might vote for John McCain in the fall rather than the candidate with plans that are very similar to Clinton’s are being a bit confused. People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

Perhaps the ultimate answer comes at the end of the report at The Stump:

Inside the Marriott’s gift shop, the sales clerk tells me that Democratic bumper stickers have been selling like crazy today. “Mostly Hillary?” I ask.

“Actually, mostly Obama,” she giggles.

[Dr Ron]

2. Democrats Reach Compromise While Clinton Threatens Convention Fight

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3335

Democrats Reach Compromise While Clinton Threatens Convention Fight

May 31st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Despite all the protests outside and hissing from Clinton supporters inside, the rules committee actually managed to end the day with a compromise. Clinton picks up a net of 24 delegates. This is more than she deserves but, as I discussed earlier, it is far smarter for Obama to accept such a deal. Obama shows himself to be willing to compromise for the good of the party while the Clinton campaign will continue to lose support from superdelegates with stunts such as threatening to take this to the convention.

The Clinton campaign continued to be embarrassed by the action of their supporters. While normally a campaign might not be blamed for such statements, in this case it is warranted considering how the Clinton campaign has encouraged the protests. To add to the video and reports of the protests I posted earlier, there is another video (above) showing a Clinton supporter indicating support for McCain over Clinton.

It is remarkable how, after starting out as appearing like the inevitable winner, the Clintons managed both to totally destroy any future for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party and destroy the legacy of the Clinton presidency. Bill and Hillary Clinton have become the Richard Nixons of the Democratic Party.

[Dr Ron]

3. Post updated:

Update: It turns out that Obama had the votes to obtain a 50:50 split on the Michigan delegates but would have only won by a couple of votes. Instead he chose to go for the compromise allowing Clinton more delegates than she really deserved, allowing this to pass 19-8. While the Clinton supporters will still claim this is unfair, despite the fact that Obama would have done far better if a sanctioned primary was actually held, having the compromise pass by this larger margin will prevent very many people from taking Clinton’s complaints seriously.

Obama could afford to give up these extra delegates. After today’s changes, he only needs 62.5 delegates to win the nomination. Clinton needs 238 to win. The final primaries should give Obama over forty additional delegates, meaning he will only need to pick up about twenty more superdelegates to clinch the nomination.

[Dr Ron]

4. Further Thoughts on Yesterday’s Compromise

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3340

Further Thoughts on Yesterday’s Compromise

June 1st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

While most Democratic leaders see yesterday’s deal as a positive accomplishment, there continues to be considerable nonsense coming from the Clinton camp. I’ve already discussed the deal, and the reasons why Michigan and Florida did not represent valid results, in several previous posts. At this point I will just quickly comment on the major spin heard on the morning talk shows today:

Harold Ickes is arguing that the rules committee overstepped its authority in giving Obama delegates. There are two different versions of this complaint. One is that they gave Obama four delegates which Clinton supposedly won, and the other version is that Obama should not receive any delegates at all as he was not on the ballot.

Michigan and Florida were not valid primaries and therefore Hillary Clinton did not win any delegates. Obama was not given four of Clintons’s delegates as Clinton won zero delegates in both Michigan and Florida. The vote which did take place did not represent the wishes of the voters of either state as many did not vote after being told that the votes would not count. Even Hillary Clinton had initially supported this view.

The Democratic Party had no choice but to arbitrarily divide up the delegates. The Michigan compromise was the easiest to go with as the state party, dominated by Clinton supporters, were pushing for it. It would have been just as valid to award Clinton zero delegates, which might be justified as it was she who violated earlier agreements. Obama had the votes to achieve a 50:50 split and but wisely went for this compromise for the sake of party unity, even though it gave Clinton more delegates than she deserved (or would have won if there was an actual primary).

In response to the protests from the Clinton campaign and her supporters, some are now saying that it was pointless to offer any compromise as the Clinton supporters would only be happy if they got everything, regardless of how unfair and undemocratic their demands are. While true, the reason for compromise was to win over the remaining superdelegates, not necessarily to satisfy the Clinton camp.

The Clinton supporters continue to claim that they are leading in the popular vote, but that is both untrue and irrelevant. There is no meaningful popular vote total when we have to mix the authorized primaries, the two unsanctioned primaries, and many caucus states where there is no popular vote comparable to primary votes. While the popular vote number is meaningless, Obama still leads if all the votes are counted. Even if there was a legitimate count of the popular vote, this would remain a poor argument as the nomination is based upon winning delegates. If the nomination was based upon the popular vote, Obama would have conducted his campaign differently to increase his vote in states where he had an overwhelming majority.

Perhaps the most absurd comment of all came from a conservative claiming that the big winner was the Supreme Court. An analogy was made between the Democratic Party settling the delegate count and the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election. The difference is that there was no valid vote for delegates in Michigan and Florida and it fell upon the party to settle the issue. In contrast there was an election in Florida in 2000 which should have been settled by a fair counting of the votes, and not by the Supreme Court blocking a recount authorized under Florida’s laws.

The big loser might be the Democratic Party unless they can resolve the issue of primary order for the future. This settlement will only give more reason for states to think they can get away with moving up their primaries and ultimately have them more or less count. The manner in which Clinton conducted herself will also give more candidates reason to ignore any party sanctions out of fear of placing themselves at a disadvantage. Early primaries give an advantage to the front runner if nobody campaigns. A future challenger in Obama’s position might see no choice but to campaign in such states to avoid the situation of a future front runner receiving an unfair advantage as Clinton has this year.

[Dr Ron]

5. Unity Among Democrats or Realignment?

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3339

Unity Among Democrats or Realignment?

June 1st, 2008 by Ron Chusid

Despite all the protests seen from the most rabid Clinton supporters, most likely after the final primaries are over Hillary Clinton will realize that further fighting is futile and will accept a dignified settlement from the Obama campaign and begin unifying the party.

To partisan Democrats that is the only rational outcome. To an independent such as myself, this is the most probable outcome. It is also the most realistic outcome to home for if the Democrats are going to defeat John McCain. As I hope to see the defeat of any supporter of the Iraq war (including both McCain and Clinton) as well as the defeat of any social conservative (again including both McCain and Clinton), unity between the diverse Democratic factions appears to be the desirable goal in the short run.

This isn’t the only possible result. I discount the claims of Clinton supporters that they will vote for McCain. The videos I posted earlier with such claims are a product of both the passions of the moment and of the tendency of both the media and internet to report the most controversial and extreme views. Still, the fact remains that both parties contain diverse groups which are unified more out of political expediency than common views. Congressional votes deliberately organized to fall along party lines often provides a false sense of two unified parties when candidates are evaluated based upon their voting records as opposed to core beliefs.

The divisions among the Republicans, ranging from near-libertarian to the religious right, are far more obvious, but similar divisions exist among the Democrats. This division is increased with the trend, started before the 2006 elections and greatly accelerated by support for Obama, for independents and moderate Republicans (such as the Starbucks Republicans) to vote Democratic. While older (and often bitter) Democrats have tried to cling to the New Deal coalition, losing election after election in the process, younger voters working in the information age have a different view of government. Many of us independents voting Democratic are more interested in matters such as government reform, changing our disastrous foreign policy, stopping both the Iraq war and the drug war, increasing civil liberties, and strengthening the wall of separation between church and state. We have no love for “tax and spend” liberalism of recent years. This is quite different from the big government, nanny state views of Clinton and her supporters.

The Obama campaign has walked a fine line to present policies which will most likely be backed by both factions of the Democratic Party. While Obama seeks a more inclusive party, the Clinton camp has written off the views of Obama’s supporters and declared us to be a band of elitists. In many ways the Clinton supporters would be much more at home with the party of George W. Bush, Richard Milhouse Nixon, and Sprio T. Agnew. While Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy, the Clinton supporters remind me more of Spiro Agnew who condemned liberals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs.” The Clintonists might have come up with such a line if not for their anti-intellectualism which prevents them from expressing their views as well as the right wing, even when their views coincide.

While I believe the most likely outcome, for better or for worse ,is that the Democrats will become reunited, Cernig has presented a plausible alternative:

It seems to me that the schizophrenic nature of the Democratic Party may finally resolve itself. There’s a good chance that the right wing of the party will follow the Clintons into GOP-land. They always were “compassionate conservatives” and that’s probably where they belong. The Dems could end up looking a lot more like a European social democrat party as a result and if so the GOP will most likely fracture in its turn too. The far right won’t be able to call the shots quite so much, with what will then be a massively enhanced left wing of the Republicans able to steamroller them, and they’ll head for the exits to form a new hard right bunch of God-bothering, xenophobic helicopter-chasers. That way lies their consignment to history as a part of a ruling coalition, although they’ll be able to exert pressure from the finges. It’s probably the most positive role they could possibly play. Likewise, on the other flank of the main two, I think we’ll come to see democratic socialists and greens providing pressure from smaller but still influential partries on specific issues. The GOP will be left looking far more like a European conservative party.

If we don’t see Clintonista defections in droves, then it will be because the Republican hard right is just too odious for them to contemplate making common cause with. That will have pretty much the same efect, since in that case the GOP leadership is going to have to engineer a move leftwards just to recapture that party’s electability. The same fallout would then ensue as the hard right will still decamp following such a move and the Dem tent now has so many holes in it that a lot of those further left than right of the Dem center are likely to look to other parties to support so that they don’t have to relive the feuds of this primary season. Their trust that the Clinton camp has roughly the same aims as they do has been seriously eroded.

Either way, then, I think change is coming. The US has been further Right than the international mean for decades now, mainly due to the interplay of power centers in both the main parties rather than any intrinsic rightwingedness in the nation as a whole - but the adjustment has to come sometime.

I’ve often stated that I do not vote for the Democratic Party when they nominate conservative populists such as Hillary Clinton and, if not for the fact that it would mean electoral defeat when the Democrats do have a liberal candidate such as Barack Obama, would not mind if they left the party. I have much more in common with the diminishing type of Republican who is moderate on social issues and stresses civil liberties as opposed to social conservatism and support for the war. There are both those such as myself who currently lean towards the Democrats as well as many disenchanted Republicans who would prefer a realignment in the parties. Such a desire is also expressed by Mark at Publius Endures:

The Clintonites now threaten to pick their ball up and go home if their candidate is not the nominee. Obama supporters should not have a problem with this- the Clintonites are as illiberal as could be and are an anchor that weighs down any claim that the Dem Party is a force for good in this country, as I explained here. Instead, the Obama campaign and the remnants of the Dem party should start looking at reforming their coalition- let the Republicans be the party of authoritarians. In the process, the Republicans will lose a pretty good number of their own members, who either vote for Bob Barr (like me) or for Obama, with whom they will have more in common than McCain and the Clintons.

Most likely the Democrats will reunite and the same divisions will persist. Our greatest hope is actually not that the party will fracture at this moment but that the new voters will change the nature of the Democratic Party for the better. Demographics favor this outcome as the views of the younger voters will have dominance over those of the older Democratic voters as long as they turn out to vote as they have in the primaries.