Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute, said that Clinton can cite recent polls to bolster her argument as to why she should be the nominee. A Quinnipiac survey earlier this month showed Clinton leading McCain in Florida (49 to 41 percent), Ohio (48 to 38 percent) and Pennsylvania (51 to 37 percent)... Read More
Doctors believe that Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts suffered a seizure at his home in Hyannis Port this morning, then a second seizure as he was being transported by helicopter from Cape Cod Hospital to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, according to an official briefed on the situation.
His condition was unclear early this afternoon, as a special police security detail gathered at Mass. General. Kennedy family members were called this morning and told to rush to Boston, according to sources.
CNN is reporting that Kennedy himself made a phone call a couple of hours after being initially admitted to the Cape Cod hospital to cancel his plans for the day. Encouraging sign perhaps.
Sen. Kerry was reportedly seen rushing into the hospital looking "very concerned".
CNN reports that the family is optimistic about his recovery.
Still waiting for official hospital statement.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.
Friday and Saturday are the last big days for voters in Oregon to mail in their ballots (all primary voting in Oregon is by mail or drop off, and voting began on the May 1, with all ballots due by May 20. The Clinton campaign wanted boots on the ground for these two big days for getting out the vote, so my boots carried me to a red-eye flight from Washington D.C. to Portland, Oregon, with layover in Las Vegas.
Quite exhausted when I hit the rental car counter, but what a pick-me-up after the following exchange. The man working there, 30ish, greeted me, asking me what brought me to Portland. I skipped a beat because Senator Obama's campaign has made it sound like there is not a Clinton supporter in the state. Plus, I was tired. But the entire point of this trip is visibility, so I replied that I had never seen Portland, wanted to go to the Rose Garden, and was using these as motivation to come and support my "preferred candidate." Pause. "Senator Clinton."
Next thing I know, the man's face lights up. As he checks me in he exclaims that his wife was totally for Senator Clinton even before Clinton announced she was running, they both always vote Democrat, but it took him a longer time to decide. He felt that given that the country is at such a dangerous moment (his phrase) he wanted to be sure he picked the person who "got it." Then, before I had time to utter my pitch, he added that he had already voted. Pause. For Senator Clinton!!
Meanwhile, I had learned that my hotel had an "inventory problem" - no rooms for me, arriving in the middle of the night - but they would find me a place to stay and comp the night. When I arrived, at 4:00 a.m. Pacific time, at the new room, they told me that, yes, this had been a problem for a number of hotels in town because of a quilting convention in town. This is when I realized that Portland is NOT Washington, D.C. In D.C. I would have been booted because of an association or lobbyist meeting, but here it is the quilters who bumped me for the night.
That was just a game, but this election sure isn't. Just a few days to go...though ballots are already being mailed in this weekend. So your calls are very much needed at this time. I listened in on a Hillary conference call Friday night...these calls are without a doubt making a huge difference.
If anyone has a link to the video from Hillary's Oregon town hall, post it in this thread. I'm sure a lot of us would love to see it. If so, I'll try to put it up later.
People are right to decry boorish anti-Clinton comments, offensive jokes, and the bilge, bile, and billings-gate of the talk-radio blowhards, as well as occasional over-the-top utterances from cable commentators.
But let's not mistake the Bruegelian sideshow for the political mainstream. Even allowing for all that stupidity, the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster.
Hear that? If you think sexism might have had something to do with Clinton's position in the race, you're illogical, and isn't it just like a girl to get all whiny and flighty about it?
Consider: Last fall, Clinton was widely judged the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. In early October, she led Obama by a staggering 53 percent to 20 percent in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. At that point, her average lead in national polls was 20 percentage points.
Therefore, if gender bias really were the cause of her primary problem, one would have to posit that a epidemic of resurgent sexism suddenly infected the country late last year.
U-huh. Sen. Clinton's earlier numbers reflected her name recognition, not her popularity, and they certainly were not an indication of the country's view of women or, more narrowly, women in politics. One would not have to "posit" any such thing, because sexism, as any serious, logical person knows, is often a response to events, and maybe seeing just how successful Clinton has been woke up some people and their dormant sexism, too.
It is no more logical to say that Clinton's candidacy has not been hindered by sexism than it is to propose that Obama's has flourished because the country has turned the page on racism, which is a fantasy in which no one should indulge.
But that's just my girly logic. Where's the fainting couch?
It was just between Hillary Clinton and bloggers who have her back.
I taped it for all of you so you could hear it for yourself.
Peter Daou introduces the call, which included bloggers who support Clinton, especially on getting the votes counted in Michigan and Florida. But invitations had absolutely nothing to do with blog clout or traffic. It was about talking to and thanking people, because we're all in this together. Clinton's appreciation is evident in every word exchanged. It reminds me of seeing her at the women's generation event in D.C. last week. When she came over, saw me, took my hands, then said, "Thank you. Thank you." That was the tone and message of the call from Clinton.
It's doubtful that anything surprised the insiders of the Clinton campaign more than the relationship Hillary has experienced with her online supporters, but especially the bloggers who have made the case for Clinton as time has passed.
We've got your back, Hillary. We're in it all the way.
The comment section has gotten out of control. Calling anyone a "drug dealer" is unacceptable and will not be permitted. Others have been banned, which I detest doing. Obamabots disturbing and being profane in the comments are not welcomed. Continue sending these comments to us.
However, I will not, repeat, will not allow people to make defamatory statements in
the comments. People are now being put back in moderation if their comments
are of this order and magnitude.
Some of you need to get a grip.
It is my extreme regret to punish those of you who are civil, on point and excited about Hillary's candidacy. Please accept my apologies.
However, some of you need a time out. Consider this exactly that.
UPDATE (5:30 p.m. eastern):Okay, so take another breath. We'll be back soon. ...and you'll love what I'm going to post.
TM NOTE: This letter was sent to each of the 50 Chapters of NARAL by a
California Democrat who emailed the text to me. I thought I'd share it with
you, because I think it speaks for many of you. I added the graphic and title, because it speaks to me on the subject. Hillary Clinton
deserved much better than she got from NARAL. At the very least they should have stayed neutral, backing the final nominee. As I've said before, I do not belong to or support NARAL. But if I did, I would not give them another dime. It is my plea that none of you do either. Perhaps support local chapters, like the one in St. Louis that came out to distance themselves from this horrendous decision, which is one choice. Send a message. Hit them where it hurts. Choke off their money.
Dear NARAL,
I would like to share my reasons for being disappointed with your decision
to endorse Senator Obama. For an introduction, I have had a life long argument
with my mother's sister, my Aunt. My Aunt is a Carmalite lay nun for the Catholic
Church. When I was conceived, my mother attended a party and had alcohol for
the first time in her life. My father had made a bet with his high school friends
that he could have sex with my mother. In 1967, as you know birth control was
illegal. My mother was in her second year of high school. My father had been
a baseball jock who could have gone to college on a scholarship. I have told
my Aunt hundreds of times that if my mother had the choice to have an abortion,
that would have been my preference.
Being the product of a Cherokee Grandmother and Filipino Immigrant Farm Worker
who worked hard to raise his inter-racial children in the atmosphere of racial
hostility, I also became the child of two teenagers who were not prepared to
raise a child. My mother's parents had died before I was born. Imagine that
she was only Sixteen when she was pregnant with me. She was an orphan living
with her Aunt and Uncle. She had not even gone through the pain of the grief
of the loss of her own two parents before I was born. Given the choice to give
me up for adoption or raise me, my mother became one of the large statistics
of single mothers. I attended to 12 schools before I graduated from high school.
There are very many wonderful things about my life. My Aunt can point those
out to me.
However, she did not live in my shoes. That Native American saying, "You
must walk a mile inside another's mocasins until you know how they feel"
has been with me since I was a child. My father's ancestors walked the Trail
of Tears. The personal Trail for my father and mother destroyed their future.
My father became a drug addict, my mother treed religion. Neither has satisfied
the loss of their youth. I consider myself lucky that I know my father because
many of my friends in college did not know their fathers. I realized that a
lot of children grew up without knowing how they were conceived. One of my best
friends in college never knew who here father was until she was about 26. When
she contacted him, he told her that he thought that her mother might have been
pregnant with his child but it was during Vietnam era and he never asked. My
friend was heart broken when her father told her that he was a Christian, had
a family, and that he could never tell them that he had another child. So many
Trails of Tears and not enough time to hear or tell them.
As someone who's family roots are in the soil of the very beginnings of our
country-Mayflower voyagers, I have maintained open discussions about such issues
as abortion with my family members who voted for President Bush. My Aunt(s)
love me. Yet, if the world was enforced by the rules of their beliefs more children
will live through the trials and errors of young parents who are unprepared
for child rearing.
I will leave you with one more story about that. In 2003, I was invited as
a Minister to visit my Uncles' Ministry in the Philippines. While I was there,
I was asked to perform a blessing on a child who was being fostered by a woman.
The child's eyes were bulging like marbles with no skin padding his eye sockets.
His limbs were like sticks. He weighed nearly nothing. I was told that his mother
was a heroin addict. In the Philippines, the law states that a mother can bear
five children, each one dying from neglect before their government agencies
can step in and save the child. That woman was fighting with the parents for
custody. It was explained to me that the mother would beg on the streets with
the child, that she did not breast feed the child, that people would give her
money, and that she would buy drugs with that money. That opened my eyes to
the world of addiction and child abuse. I had already known that child trafficking
was happening around the world. And, now I can understand more about how people
lose their souls. The children of the world are not asking to be treated like
that.
Last year, when the campaigns began last year, I did research. As a promise
to my Republican Uncle, I researched his candidate and opponents. Of course,
I researched the Democratic candidates. I have read Dreams of My Father by Barack
Obama. More recently, I read a book about Hillary Clinton. However, I had been
struck for some years that the First Lady was a heroine for all those women
who could have left their husbands and did not. Like many women, she worked
on her relationship. That is a model for families. Not all men and women are
meant to be life long partners. A romp in the woods does not make a life time
of sharing philosophies belief. However, when people share common ground in
their relationships, wounds can heal. I began to respect the First Lady for
the first time because I grew up with a single mother. I understood what it
meant to not have a father except on an occasional weekend. I also knew what
it felt like to be told how many women my own father chased and was chased by.
Being young is simple but not easy.
When I read Senator Obama's book, I was stuck with a sense of a young man who
was missing his own father like many people I have known. However, in his quest
for a father, he replaced the father figure with an idealistic desire to be
fulfilled by religion. When I have analyzed his words and actions, I see a man
who struggles with understand how other people feel. The example was one night
when his mother took him as a teenager to a movie about an inter-racial couple.
She likened it to the romance she had with his father. In his book, he tells
the reader about his own thoughts about her reactions to the movie. His analysis
is not one of compassion but one of almost sheer mockery. He reduced his mother
to an idealist child in his own eyes. I was struck by how little compassion
he felt about his mother telling him how she felt about his father. That struck
a chord within me to observe every nuance of his words. Since that time, I see
him his a person who could have attended a Neuro-Linguistic Programming Workshop
where he could have learned the techniques of aligning his mannerisms and speaking
patters to his listener. Let us face the facts. Hypnosis is a well known media
of accessing people's behavioral responses. Behavioral Psychology was well studied
in the fifties. People knew how to illicit emotional responses were not only
possible but probable. The only effect that those so called scientists could
not to achieve was prediction. No one can predict how a person will react when
given a certain stimulus. A person could cry or become angry.
However, to a degree there are some predictable reactions. In Dreams of My
Father, Obama states:
Black politicians less gifted than Harold discovered what white politicians
had known for a very long time: that race-baiting could make up for a host
of limitations. Young leaders, eager to make a name for themselves, upped
the ante, pedaling conspiracy theories all over town-the Koreans were funding
the Klan, Jewish doctors were injecting black babies with the AIDS virus.
It was a short cut to fame, if not always fortune; like sex, or violence on
TV, black rage always found a ready market. Barack Obama. - Dreams from
My Father (Chapter Chicago, Pg 203. 1995. 2004.)
It is clear to me as a minister who has counceled thousands of people, who
has given lectures and presentations, who has been accepted and considered an
advisor to a non-profit research board sitting next to a former NASA Psychologist
who respects my professional opinions of the mind, body and spirit, that Senator
Barack Obama has been using all of the techniques of a good orator, showman
and hypnotist. When I have seen Senator Hillary Clinton speak, I can see and
hear and feel that she is speaking from both facts she has accumulated and mastered
and her own experience of learning. The difference is someone using Neuro-Linguistic
Hypnosis Techniques and a teacher giving her class some data. I am more disappointed
that other women, who are holding the keys to the gate for the freedom of all
women to choose to control their own body could be seduced to believe that this
man is more prepared, unites more people than the woman who gave her heart and
mind to support you organization.
I will say, I am proud of those Chapters who have not been seduced into empty
promises with no evidence to prove that more than lip service and money is the
end result.
It's projected that Hillary Clinton will have more popular votes than Barack Obama on June 3rd. Some news organizations have already declared her the popular vote leader.
Yet many party officials seem anxious to coronate Barack Obama prior to the Democratic convention. They must have short memories, and have forgotten the sense of outrage and injustice we (the Democrats) experienced when Al Gore was robbed of his election mandate 8 years ago.
"Hillary Democrats" will feel aggrieved if the Superdelegates over-turn their votes. It's naive to assume that they'll jump on the Unity Express to join forces against Republican enemies in November. Millions of Democrats (and some others too) -- the majority of whom belong to that key demographic called women -- are already steaming mad at how Clinton is being treated by her colleagues, aided by a misogynist mass media.
As a reminder, Hillary Clinton has dedicated decades of her life to fighting for progressive causes and Democratic candidates. She is a 2-term Senator from the 3rd largest state in the union, and a major voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. At the end of this primary process, she will have inspired nearly 20 million people to get out and vote for her. Millions of them are just like me -- actively campaigning and donating for the first time in our lives.
Now, this takes nothing away from Senator Obama, as he has also inspired millions of people. But he's getting the respect due from Democratic peers while Hillary Clinton -- champion of children and sick people and veterans and women -- is being treated like a nuisance. Some have even attacked her character and dignity, such as Obama surrogate Ted Kennedy who recently said that Clinton is not "in tune with...the nobler aspirations of the American people."
In the absence of a rational explanation for this abuse, millions of women (and men too) are fuming because, frankly, it reeks of good ole fashioned back-slapping sexism. I'm not alone in wondering out loud whether a man in Clinton's position -- that is, a serious contender for the presidential nomination who has won swing states (most recently by 41%) and built a formidable coalition needed to win the White House -- would be taunted, ridiculed, and treated like an outcast.
As a woman who has been on the receiving end of double standards, and one who happens to believe that Hillary Clinton will be the best President of my lifetime, I want to urge Senator Clinton to take her campaign all the way to the convention floor. By earning more than half the votes cast, she has every right to make her case directly to party representatives in the proper venue, and even a responsibility to the voters.
See, this is the way it is for Clinton supporters. If you throw Hillary under the bus, we go with her. And although our leader would be gracious in asking us to disregard the injustice, millions of "Hillary Democrats" will be unable to do so. "Backlash" is a real social and psychological phenomenon. Don't say I didn't warn you.
The steady release of Obama superdelegates continues.
Among the four today, the most significant was Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Since May 6th, over thirty Obama superdelegates have announced, averaging about five a day. The bad news for the Clinton campaign is obvious, but it also makes me wonder.
If the superdelegate announcements continue at this rate until next Tuesday, there will have been around fifty in this two-week time frame. Could these be the "fabled fifty" residing in Obama's back pocket that we've heard about for months? And, if so, could his superdelegate capital be mostly spent after Kentucky and Oregon? I'll admit that I'm not privy to such information...but we'll find out soon enough.
The timing of these has never been an accident. They are announced on good days to strengthen the momentum and bad days to help bandage the bleeding. And they are often accompanied by cookie-cutter statements that often include the Obama magic words: "hope", "change", "inspiration", etc. This two-week stretch does seem like a logical place for such a prolonged superdelegate dispatch, as he needs all the West Virginia/Kentucky help he can get.
I can't help but be struck, however, by the juxtaposition between these continuing announcements and today's headlines. For even as the superdelegates rush headlong to give him the nomination, we got a nice little taste of what McCain vs Obama will look like, as well as the Tennessee GOP's (admittedly amateur-hour) revival of Michelle Obama's "proud of my country" remarks.
So in response to this, I just gotta ask: Superdelegates, you do know that the far-superior Democratic candidate is still readily available, right? Right?
There is something else that I've been thinking about for quite a while, which came
into the forefront with the Edwards endorsement. Immediately upon this event
people started talking about Edwards as a vice presidential choice. Talking
heads on cable began their projectile analysis that we were now witnessing the
political Butch - Sundance team that would lead the working class voters to
Democrats and the Party to victory in November.
There's only one problem.
It's huge.
No, gigantic, in fact.
What would an Edwards vice presidency say to all of Hillary's millions and
millions of women? I won't print the answer on this blog, but it begins with
"f" and ends with you.
Oh, and for the record, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius nor Janet Napolitano will do. Ask a Clinton supporter ready to cast a protest vote for McCain. She'll tell you.
As I've said many times recently, I will work hard to defeat John McCain if Obama is the nominee. If Clinton pulls it out, I will work tirelessly for her. I hope everyone is clear about the distinction. The ideals and principles of the Democratic Party mean too much to me, even if the Party elite are acting like thugs.
However, make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party has sent a signal to women that Hillary's candidacy isn't
historic. They're nonchalance over her fight about Michigan and Florida, as well as the undemocratic nature of caucuses, not to mention their breezy attitude about pushing her out before this race is through has wounded a lot of people. Ted Kennedy took his fight to the floor with far less of a case than Hillary Clinton has today, yet she's being screamed at to get out. The Democratic elite seem to be saying that the little women got their play in the political pond, but let's get serious, shall we? With the proclamation that Obama was the "presumptive nominee" ready to declare "victory" on
May 20th, the women of the Democratic Party were once again proclaimed invisible and
expected to fall in line for The One.
Try winning in November without them.
But taking this further, what does this Butch - Sundance storyline say about the traditional
media and the Obamabot world, which obviously doesn't get that if Clinton and her female supporters are not respected, they have the
power and could stand up and walk out on the Democratic Party to send a message
that will reverberate for months and years to come. That message will result
in a McCain presidency.
For anyone who doubts this could happen please start reading the comment sections on the Hillary Clinton blogs. Some are over the top, but most people are coming from thoughtful political perspectives from activists who are very serious about what's now unfolding in the Democratic
Party. These Clinton supporters who are threatening a protest vote for John
McCain are large in number, many of whom are regulars on this blog and in the
comment section, with hundreds of emails from lurkers to me every day saying
they will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee. The disrespect for Hillary Clinton has been too wide and too deep in the Democratic Party, and they're not going to support it anymore.
Regardless of the outcome of the nomination battle I will continue to honor
my reader's choices and welcome them here, respecting the battle they've waged for
Clinton, what they've sacrificed, as well as the heart they've given to elect
the first female president in U.S. history. I will also make sure they have a voice on this blog, because they've earned respect from me, as we've fought together to get Hillary nominated, and by God I will honor that relationship and shared call. I will do so because no voting block
in my lifetime has been so utterly disrespected, vilified unjustly with accusations of racism,
and basically had to endure endless harangues, while the Democratic Party and so called "progressive" coalition has shown more disrespect to women supporting Clinton than the Republican Party, treating Clinton supporters as second class citizens, especially if you happen to be named Hillary
Clinton.
Memo to the Democratic leadership elite: Consider yourselves on notice. Hell
hath no fury. Believe it.
Greg Sargent ponders NARAL's move and thinks that one "can't avoid the fact that this was a really mystifying decision for NARAL to make." According to this piece in the Washington Post, NARAL chapters local to Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Washington, Texas and New York "have issued statements signaling their continued neutrality in the Democratic race and emphasizing that the national group did not speak for them on this matter. These groups represent nearly a quarter of NARAL's state chapters." The Missouri chapter felts so strongly about it that it "recorded a robocall in the wake of the announcement, which the group then sent to 8,500 households emphasizing its neutrality." Good for them. Why in the world NARAL would choose to endorse a candidate who, in the State legislature, chose to vote "present" seven times in matters of choice is beyond comprehension. Why they would endorse a man whose campaign said "Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade" is mystifying. Every restriction has been found to be compliant and consistent with Roe's "framework" by the U.S. Supreme Court. Will Sen. Obama find future restrictions to be just as consistent? Which restriction will be one too many? None? Back to the drawing board with you, NARAL.
The impact of John Edwards endorsing Barack Obama on Wednesday can be measured in next week's Kentucky primary. The Obama camp surely hopes to deny Hillary Rodham Clinton the chance for another blowout like what happened on Tuesday in West Virginia.
Proving strength among voters who are not warming to Obama could give Edwards a shot at running mate, or at least indicate how he can be best used in a general election campaign.
Hum. Edwards did absolutely nothing for Kerry in 2004. Much has been made about his candidacy this time around, but I don't think he'd have much street value in a general election since, contrary to popular belief, Edwards is not a "hero" to the working class. Kentucky might be a test, but it's Obama who needs to pass it.
Joan Walsh ponders the lessons of Mississippi and draws the wrong conclusion from the special House race. Democrat Travis Childers beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, by 8 points which, Walsh believes, may be proof that efforts to tie Childers to Obama backfired:
Of special note, efforts to tie Childers to Obama seemed to backfire. If the Rev. Wright issue didn't work in a safe GOP district in Mississippi, I'm not sure where it will work.
Jay Newton-Small wades through Obama's flag pin word fog. This whole affair is absurd. Patriotism isn't measured by what one wears one one's lapel or by how fervently one waves the flag. Patriotism is a matter of heart and of principles and, in that sense, Obama has been getting a raw deal, but he's also been contradicting himself, which makes his position on the matter appear to fluctuate at the mercy of precarious political winds. False patriotism, which we have in abundance among the political classes (but not only there), is very lamentable, but so are Obama's efforts to walk back a principled position.
Like Marie Cocco, I could come up with my own list of Media Matters clips and offensive merchandise that I could use to argue definitively that racism is worse than sexism. But I'm not sure what that would prove, other than that I believe the prejudice I've faced is qualitatively worse than the prejudice I know nothing about. I see racism and sexism as intertwined if not interdependent, so I don't understand why for some people the Democratic primary has become a competition over who has it worse.
Good grief. If it's not a competition, and I agree that it should not be, why are you debating the merits of Cocco's op-ed vs. the merits of one you could write about race? Cocco's concern is with the presence of sexism, not an assertion that racism hasn't surfaced, and because she assumed some would not take her seriously (imagine that!), she turned the argument on its head. Her concern, one that I share, is that sexism has gone largely unchallenged, unchecked and unanswered, and that we are perhaps more vigilant when it comes to racism. That is a virtue, and we should be just as alert to other biases. Condescension is not the right response, and neither is nescience.
One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect.
[…]
We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
Andrew Sullivan, who is often a foil for Nightline, has some of the more moving posts: The key points, a clear and correct rejection of those who argue the California Court engaged in "judicial activism," a tearful reaction - yes, of joy! - and a family portrait.
This won't be the last word on same-sex marriage in California but, for today, justice's bells are ringing.
McCain's "victory" notion in Iraq isn't new. Clinton called him on it today.
""This morning, John McCain said that four more years of the same
strategy will produce victory in Iraq, though he provided no new approach
or new proposals. This is not the first time Senator McCain has predicted
victory in Iraq. He promises more of the same Bush policies that have weakened
our military, our national security, and our standing in the world. Our country
cannot afford more empty promises on Iraq. When I am President, the United
States will no longer give Iraq a blank check. I will bring this war to a
swift and honorable conclusion, and bring our troops home, beginning within
60 days of taking office." - Senator
Hillary Clinton
Clinton also slammed Bush for his outrageous performance in Israel:
"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers
is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of
his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no
place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment
like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point
seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to
expect from President Bush."
Let's examine the "will of the people" in selecting our 2008 Democratic nominee. Many party leaders and superdelegates have emphasized its importance.
First, it should be noted that the DNC's decision to strip Florida and Michigan of its delegates made no mention of disregarding the popular votes from these two battleground states. After all, how can you ignore 2.3 million citizens, including a record turnout in Florida, who insisted on casting ballots even though officials told them it was pointless? That would be un-American. (See more thoughts about Florida and Michigan below).
So...setting aside the matter of Florida and Michigan delegates --a matter to be reviewed by the RBC on May 31 -- let's take a look at the popular vote.
Following Hillary Clinton's historic 41-point win in West Virginia, in which she netted nearly 150,000 votes, the popular vote totals from Real Clear Politics (RCP) for the primaries are:
Total votes cast, including estimates from the caucus states of IA, ME, WA, and NV: 33,949,071
Obama: 47.7% (BO leads by 80,751)
Clinton: 47.5%
Notes on the Popular Vote:
1. As stated above, there is no authority for disregarding raw votes from Florida and Michigan. Any claim that they should be excluded from popular vote totals is especially problematic given Obama's opposition to re-votes in both states, and the fact that he ran TV ads in Florida in violation of the pledge. Also keep in mind that Obama voluntarily removed his name from the Michigan ballot, against the advice of some of his allies, for political gain in Iowa. As Obama now heads to Florida and Michigan, presumably to campaign for general-election votes for the Democrats, it's increasingly ludicrous to cling to the position that these 2.3 million votes shouldn't count towards selecting his party's nominee.
2. The RCP estimate of popular votes that includes caucus states is skewed towards Obama given the undemocratic nature of caucuses. There are now at least three examples -- Texas, Washington, and Nebraska -- where the candidates were virtually tied in primary elections but caucus results in the same states heavily favored Obama. Two new myDD stories provide excellent analyses about this dynamic, here and here.
3. A blogger also points out that Clinton has now won the popular vote in 195 US Congressional Districts, compared to 187 for Obama. Including Florida and Michigan, it would be 227 for Clinton and 195 for Obama.
A virtual tie:
By June 3rd, no matter how you slice it, this race will be a dead heat.
Clinton is likely to lead Obama (and McCain) among all votes cast in presidential primaries, even when including the skewed caucus results. Obama will maintain his pledged delegate lead, but it will be narrower than it is now, possibly within 100.
Of nearly 20 million votes cast and among 4,000 or so delegates, they will be separated by a fraction on both metrics.
How Superdelegates will decide:
Now, Obama and his supporters rightly point out time and again that delegates, not popular votes, determine who wins the nomination. True, but only if you get 2210 pledged delegates. Since neither Clinton nor Obama will reach that number -- it's the responsibility of the automatic (or "super") delegates to vote at the convention.
You may disagree with the power and authority given to the superdelegates -- and the party could change its rules after this election -- but that's for the future. Currently there are no rules requiring the superdelegates to award the nomination to the leader of pledged delegates.
The purpose of the superdelegates is to ensure that the best general-election candidate, and best potential president, is nominated. Any factor may be considered, including the "will of the people" as reflected in the popular vote. In fact, to overturn the peoples' choice based on the results of a complex delegate apportionment system (itself in need of reform) could backfire in November.
*Correction:Popular vote totals have been corrected in this post.
