|
|
|
home about archives |
05/22/2008 Send this article to a friend But Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters are trying to sell arguments that make little sense, and the media is reluctant to call them on it. Here are the three main Clinton arguments, the first two official, and the third a popular argument among rank and file female supporters. 1. Hillary claims she is the real winner of the primary. Regardless of the fact that the rules of the Democratic nominating process give the nomination to the candidate who has earned the required number of delegates, Hillary argues that those are not the rules that should be used. She has put forward a number of rationales for her belief that she is the real winner, all of them requiring that the DNC change its rules in midstream. Her argument is that she has won the popular vote. Hillary says "more people have voted for me than for Barack Obama." The only way that might be true, however, is if you count the popular vote in Florida and Michigan, two states whose elections don't count because they violated DNC rules and held their primaries earlier than allowed. Hillary insists the delegations be seated in their entirely at the convention and that she be given the popular vote as it was recorded for her. Beyond the fact that all the candidates knew the elections wouldn't count, and many voters stayed home because of that, Barack Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary not only expects to be given all of the votes she won in Florida, but also all of the votes she won in Michigan, with Barack getting a big zero because his name wasn't even on the ballot. She knows this won't fly but she persists in stamping her foot. I have no doubt that if she were in the lead, and Obama had won Florida and Michigan, that Hillary would be insisting the rules set down by the DNC be adhered to. Another reason she cannot claim to be the winner of the popular vote is that at least four caucus states do not report the popular vote as cast in the caucuses. Delegates are awarded according to who wins the caucuses, but an actual count of who voted for whom is not released by these state parties. Therefore Hillary, who claims she wants all the states to have a say, is willing to discount the states of Iowa, Maine, Washington and Nevada. Now, Hillary is even reminding people of the problem with the 2000 election, saying Democrats believe the election was stolen from them because Al Gore won the popular vote and to not allow the votes of Florida and Michigan will be tantamount to stealing another election. That is a nonsensical rewriting of history. Of course Democrats don't like that Bush lost the popular vote and yet gained the office, but that is not why they think the election was stolen. Democrats think it was stolen because of the Supreme Court stepping in, stopping the recount and handing the presidency to Bush. Other presidents have lost the popular vote but won the election because of the electoral college, and we may not like that, but until the rules are changed we have no choice but to abide by them. Strangely, Hillary is also using the electoral college in a positive way to promote her argument. She says she has "won" more electoral votes, therefore she should be the nominee. What she means is that she has won the most popular votes in states that have the most number of electoral votes, however let's be clear. The primary nomination is not made on the basis of electoral votes, as the Democratic Party does not award electoral votes. Electoral votes are only operational in the general election. The Democratic Party awards delegates based on percentages of votes. We're talking apples and oranges here and Hillary is trying to confuse voters with her talk of the electoral college. Hillary also insists that if the Democrats were playing by Republican primary rules of winner take all, she would be the nominee instead of Barack, who has won in the proportional system the Party uses to award delegates. But of course Democrats are not Republicans, and the Democratic rules are different, so why is this even an argument? It's only an argument in Hillaryland, where any and all arguments, however illogical or ridiculous, are pushed in order to make Hillary the winner. 2. Hillary argues that she should be the winner because choosing the nominee should be about who can win in November, not who wins the most pledged delegates. Since she thinks she is more electable, she is encouraging the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate lead of Obama and vote for her. Here's why she thinks they should: Hillary argues that white working class voters won't vote for Obama (for racial reasons?) but they will vote for her. She cites wins in Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Of course, these are Appalachian states, which have a different sociological reality than other states (in the Midwest and West) where Obama did win the white working class vote. Also, in the general election, the Democrats haven't won the white working class vote since the sixties and if Hillary thinks these voters will automatically choose her over McCain in the general, she is mistaken. Both Obama and Hillary would have an uphill climb to win over these conservative voters. (Also, in current polls, Obama beats McCain in Pennsylvania, and both Ohio and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors who will be an enormous help to Obama.) Hillary argues that she has won the traditionally "blue states" like California and New York, but everyone knows any Democrat will win here in the general election. Hillary seems to want to confuse voters into thinking the primary is the same as the general election, and that people who voted for her in California and New York will not vote for the Democrat in the fall. This is absurd. Hillary says many of her supporters (especially women) will not vote for Obama in the fall because they are angry that she didn't get the nomination. Polls in some states show that many supporters would stay home or vote for McCain. But that is not something for a superdelegate to base their vote on. First of all, it is early in the season. Yes, the supporters of the losing candidate will be bitter and angry for a while, but in time Obama may win them over, especially if he makes a real effort to appeal to women. Secondly, any woman who voted for Clinton because she wants to see the ultimate fulfillment of female equality, will not want to take the risk of allowing John McCain to appoint as many as four conservative Supreme Court Justices who will likely overturn Roe V. Wade, give corporations more power to hurt individual citizens, and further reduce women's rights. Finally, Hillary's argument that Obama is unelectable, if it turns out to be true, will be true partly because she has helped to make him unelectable by turning many of her supporters against him. It is one of her supporters, Geraldine Ferrarro, who is still waging verbal warfare against Obama, using his race as an argument against him, even as she accuses him of sexism. How very interesting that Hillary and her supporters would do everything they could to make Obama an unelectable candidate, and then turn around and accuse him of being unelectable. But, of course, anything that works for them 3. Hillary and her supporters have decided that it is a woman's turn to be president. Hillary has built a large base of female supporters, the majority over the age of 50, who are veterans of the women's movement and still bear the wounds and scars of a patriarchal system as well as the fight for full equality. As Hillary is the first viable female candidate for the presidency, they believe they must all get behind her candidacy and support her. They look with suspicion on all of those women who support Barack Obama instead of Hillary, and see them as traitors to their gender. Hillary currently argues that she has been the victim of sexism in this campaign, and I suppose she has, just as Obama has been the victim of racism. But Hillary is nothing like the majority of her supporters who have no doubt experienced far more sexism than she has. Hillary has had every advantage any man or woman could have in this country, and yet her supporters see her as carrying the banner of gender victim hood for them. It doesn't matter to them that Hillary would not be where she is today without being married to a former president. It doesn't matter that she has been by his side as he climbed his political ladder since both were in their twenties. It doesn't matter that she is fabulously wealthy, a member of the Washington elite, and has access to the most wealthy and powerful members of the elite political and corporate communities. Since she is the first woman to go this far, however she got here, her supporters believe they must help her break the presidential glass ceiling. They cling to her candidacy as if she is their last best hope, and that if she doesn't win this time, there will never be another chance for a woman. Their passion makes them nearly blind blind with support for her and blind with rage towards her opponent, both because he is a man (and it's not a man's turn, dammit) and because he is black (how dare he be a minority and compete with us for a "first"). All of Hillary's arguments for why she should be the nominee are twisted in their logic, or purely emotional. All of her excuses for losing are rationalizations, distortions of what really has happened in this campaign. I understand them, but they are wrong. Here are the facts: Hillary is losing because in the first half of this primary season she ran a terrible campaign. For example, Hillary chose not to compete actively in the caucus states, whose delegates she now discounts. And her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, believed the Democratic primary was a winner take all contest. He mistakenly assumed that wins in states like New York and California would put so many delegates in her column, that she would secure the nomination by February. She has run a better campaign in the second half, but it is too late to make up the delegates that she lost by making these mistakes. Barack Obama, on the other hand, ran a magnificent campaign and outsmarted her. Even Hillary can't deny that. Hillary is losing because she is a flawed candidate. Yes, Hillary is an accomplished, brilliant, hard-working Senator and policy expert. She would probably be a very good president, certainly better than many of our recent male presidents, including her husband. But one doesn't get to be president unless one is first a good candidate, and here is where Hillary comes up short. First of all, Hillary brought a lot of baggage with her into the campaign. Yes, she was First Lady, but her husband was impeached. Yes, she has marvelous qualities to bring to the presidency, but she also brings Bill Clinton. Yes, she is popular with many Democrats, but she is also highly unpopular, not just in Republican circles but even in her own Party. Secondly, Hillary has no charisma and so adopts multiple personalities that change from one to the other whenever she needs to retool her campaign. She goes from tough to tender-hearted, from inevitable front-runner to scrappy underdog, from expert policy wonk to populist beer drinker. It's hard to know who Hillary really is and this makes people distrust her. Obama, on the other hand, is fairly consistent and measured in his demeanor and personality. Hillary is losing because she chose the wrong message(s). Her message was one of experience, to counteract the incompetence in the current White House. It couldn't compete with Obama's change and hope message. She has belatedly tried to adopt the change message, but unfortunately the change we see is mostly in Hillary, whose message is transformed daily. Hillary mostly mocks Obama's message, saying he can only give a speech about change, while she will enact change. This makes her look less like a leader and more like a disgruntled and jealous rival. Hillary is losing because she didn't see something that Obama did. She didn't see (and neither does McCain) that this election is about the future and a new generation, not about the past. Hillary is a baby boomer, and her campaign still harkens back to baby boomer themes of race and gender, whereas Obama wants to move the country in a new direction. He has so inspired young people who agree with him, that he has convinced thousands perhaps millions - of them to not only vote for him, but to send him small donations and volunteer to get out the vote. While Hillary's base of women is trying to make a statement about gender equality, Obama has not fashioned his campaign as one of racial equality, but one of inclusiveness and progress. Hillary is losing because she is not presenting anything new in terms of a winning strategy. She is part of the establishment, and her campaign is attempting to win with the old red-blue map. In that respect, her campaign is no different from that of Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom lost. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't just want to move past black and white, he wants to move past red and blue. Obama's strategy is to put more states in play, which is why he is winning the nomination. He used Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, and campaigned in small states and big states, red states and blue states. He offers Democrats a chance of winning states they haven't won in years, and this excites his supporters. Hillary is losing because she voted for the Iraq War. This complicates things for her. It makes it harder for her to distinguish herself from George W. Bush on foreign policy, and harder for many Democrats, who see the vote as a crass political move, to trust her. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, and this has gotten the progressive wing of the party and some might say the future of the party - solidly behind him primarily because of that. Finally, Hillary is losing because she is a Clinton. Bill Clinton, as the media likes to remind us, is wildly popular among some Democrats, but he is not universally admired. Bill Clinton is seen as responsible for many unpopular policies, including NAFTA, and for contributing to Al Gore's loss in 2000. Many in the party want to be rid of Bill Clinton, even more so now that he has said so many controversial things in his wife's campaign. To a lot of people, the thought of Bill Clinton back in the White House is a frightening one, full of the promise of drama and distraction, which is something we don't need after eight years of incompetence and criminality. Add to this the fact that the Republicans would have a field day running against Bill and Hillary (remember, you get two for the price of one) and that a second Clinton term would mean extending the Bush-Clinton dynasty to a total of 20 or possibly 24 years. Many Americans are hungry for someone new, and loathe the idea of another Clinton administration. I know Hillary Clinton's supporters are disappointed and angry. Her female supporters want a woman in the White House. I understand how disappointing it is for them to be losing, for this chance to slip away. I know they look at Obama and feel he stepped on their toes, that he should have waited "his turn," been respectful of the former First Lady, and allowed Hillary her chance. But that's not how politics works. Even Bill Clinton knows that. Clinton certainly didn't "wait his turn" to run in 1992. And so now Hillary, in her inability to grasp reality, is threatening to take her fight to the convention and demand her "right" to the nomination. And Hillary and her supporters are starting to blame sexism for her impending defeat. But this is wrong. Many, many feminists are opposed to Hillary and supportive of Obama for reasons having nothing to do with her being a woman or his being a man. And saying we women must all line up behind Hillary lest we betray our gender is just as ridiculous and anti-democratic as saying all blacks must line up behind Barack Obama, all Hispanics behind Bill Richardson, or all white men behind John McCain. Hillary and her supporters are shouting "sexism" when in actuality they are contending with anti-Hillary, or anti-Clinton sentiment. People are ready for a woman president, but many do not want it to be this one. Others are choosing to support a man, even though they would like to see a woman president, because of the unique qualities and message he brings to the contest. It remains to be seen whether people are ready for a black president. Hillary thinks they aren't. In fact that is part of her argument, and the fact that she is making that argument is turning even more people against her. It's not an argument that helps her or the feminist cause or the country. It appears, however, that Hillary and some of her supporters are die-hards. In Hillaryland, there is no candidate more deserving than Hillary, and nothing more important than breaking that glass ceiling for women. That is unfortunate, because Hillary's personal ambitions are not relevant to what is best for the country, and while breaking that ceiling is indeed important, it is not more important than defeating the Republicans, ending this war, lowering the cost of oil, fixing the economy, helping the poor, implementing universal health care, and returning the country to the American people. All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com |