Political Punch

to Roland S Martin,
You are right, and I insist that this is the fight for nomination but the whole deal is about who is the most viable when it comes to taking back the White House to the Dems. That's why HC should not be pushed out for many reasons. BO and his supporters try to push her out, HC and her supporters resist, that's fair politics but stop throwing the negative about her, sound like republican anti-Clinton machine at work.
I came to conclude about left wing conspiracy, after reading Matt Bai informative analysis "Mr Triangulation" and David D. Kirkpatrick's 'When Hillary Runs Some Old Foes stand on the Sidelines." (New york Times webpage on HC). And with theCityedition.com I kind of got the full map of what I read from the press and from supporters. For me it's important to understand. If you support BO that's your right. But stop being agressive with people who don't. This is not addressed to you Roland S. Martin but to some BO supporters.

Jane,
The only explanation for your insistence that HRC can and should get the nomination is that you are writing to us from Planet Hillary. I don't recall you ever mentioning anything about the rules of the DNC. No matter how much HRC and her supporters are complaining about them, they are the RULES, the ones agreed upon at the begining of the contest. George Bush didn't like the rules (the Constitution) and look where that got us! With Superdelegate support, Obama will fairly and rightly and triuphantly and finally win this nomination, and there is nothing HRC can do about it. There is NO left wing conspiracy at work here, one of the new and creative and utterly false notions circling HRC's campaign. And what do you think of Obama's support greatly increasing in HRC's base? Check out those numbers! We all need to remember the Democratic platform that both HRC and Obama are supporting - is that not why you are voting Democrat? Or do you just want some estrogen in the Oval Office? HRC and her supporters need to fight for the platform now, not for HRC. Please return to Earth HRC, and and any other Democrats lost in space!

Excuse me if a look of bewilderment crosses my face when a surrogate of Sen. Hillary Clinton's starts off on the "we need hard-working white workers to win in November" mantra.

Roland S. Martin contends the Democratic nominee will need a broad-based coalition to win in November.

The candidate herself has now made that notion the primary -- and latest argument -- to superdelegates to convince them she's the best person to beat Sen. John McCain in November.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today.

The newspaper quoted her as saying that an Associated Press article showed how Sen. Barack Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Now, I know I'm not one of those voters she's talking about, but the reality is that hard-working white Americans alone will not put Clinton or Obama in the White House.

Neither will African-Americans alone or young voters, senior citizens, the college-educated, the "no-working" Americans, gays and lesbians, nonreligious voters, veterans, Hispanics, women, etc.

Don't Miss
Martin: Wright issue will haunt conservative elite
Martin: How Obama can get beyond Wright
Snow: Democratic nomination comes down to personality
In Depth: Commentaries
In fact, Democrats alone won't do it. You also must take a good portion of independents.

No Democrat can win the White House unless he or she is able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it's downright silly for the Clinton campaign to assert that idea that hard-working white votes are the only ones that matter.

Sure, the Clinton camp will contend that's not what it's saying. But it sure sounds that way (and no, I don't agree with what's being said on blogs -- that this is playing the "race card").

Is Clinton suggesting that whites who voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African-Americans" whom Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?

Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and states won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.

Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working-class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania -- states the Democrats need to win in November -- shows she's the best choice.

But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all the traditional Democratic constituencies will offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion.

Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young and African-American voters, and without them, she loses.

Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and he had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.

Small states? Sure. Winnable? Absolutely. Their electoral votes can be as important as the big states.

If Democrats are serious about winning, they are going to have to put on ice this notion that white working-class voters or any other constituencies are the be-all and end-all in November.

Winning the White House is about building a true broad coalition. You should judge which candidate has been able to do so in the primaries. If it's Obama, he's the nominee. If it's Clinton, then she is.

Such a coalition should be on the mind of every superdelegate -- not the debate over which ethnic group reigns supreme at the ballot box.

Hillary Clinton is a liar with a unlikable/truswt rate of 67% SHE will never win a general election. NO ONE with those numbers (actually no one has ever had that high) has ever won it. Add in her perverted husband who sleeps around with women his daughters age and then try again to tell me that Hillary stands a chance in the GE?
ROTFLMAO and now ask yourself why a black man named Barack Obama raised by a single mother, and who HAS family values was able to knock the brand name Clinton off the top of the heap?
Obama 08

Clinton, Obama offer lengthy interviews to the St. Pete Times:
Clinton is pressed on why she didn’t object to the delegate decision earlier, and is told some state Democrats initially supported moving the primary date.
Responds: “That’s not my reading, but of course you have more direct information.”

AMAZING!!!

The Dem's wanted to move the Primary in FL!

Anti-Clinton bias.

The popular vote total is the votes cast by individuals in state primaries. Caucus votes don't count in the popular vote total because they are counted in terms of delegates, not votes, and many states don't count the number of people attending caucuses. How is Hillary accounting for that? She wants to count Michigan where she was the only candidate, and Florida where many voters stayed home, but not the nine caucus states? That’s her idea of counting every vote?
Caucus state include (Obama won all of them) Washington and Texas caucuses (also won by Obama) not included because these states hold primaries AND caucuses
• Iowa
• Alaska
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Kansas
• Minnesota
• N Dakota
• Nebraska

Something tells me that if the votes were falling the exact opposite of the way they are and Hillary were ahead by the margins Obama has, no matter how small, she would think the nomination process was just fine.

Posted by: fool me once | May 21, 2008 9:24:10 PM

-----------------------If Chief Black Hack were in this position you would be circling your wagons!!!
there would be riots in the streets and super delegates would be hanging in the square!!!

Jane

When Bill was prez and challanged by Gingrich, Hillary cired "right wing conspiracy" Now Hillary is loosing and the fact that every vote simply anc't be counted (as she suggests but eliminates the caucus states won by Obama) you decry "Left wing conspiracy".

There is no conspiracy at work here. For all its failings, this is how the democratic process works. She knew the rules going in. She was riding on hopes of super delate votes when she saw her lead shrinking, now she has formulated a mathematical calcultion by which she wins using some of the popular vote. The problem is she says she wants every vote counted, but her math does not do that. It must be a Hillary campaign conspiracy

The number of delegates Bo has now, then, or EVER will not win him the GE! Barry who?? Barak a what?? Obama? OBOMBA? is that what McCain said about IRAN???

BO is unelectable, no amount of delegates or media hype can change that FACT!!!

To Sharen,
don't you know that JFKennedy had many affairs in the White House. His wife suffered in silence and the staff around avoided the subject?
History books now only talk about how he handled the cuban missile crisis and what have you.
And how many republicans who cried foul supporting the crushing anti-Clinton machine turned out to have affairs themselves?
Can't you see this is wasting of time and energy and money about some soap-opera affairs while real issues are overlooked?

According to the primaries contests results she seems more likely to win the electoral college, than BO who built up his delegates number based on the caucuses.

The mistakes made by HC campaign were their underestimating of the left wing conspiracy which includes Dean, the pro-Democratic Leadership Council governor who switched side to discredit her, as he is now chairman of DNC and spokerman of MoveOn.Org.
I got information from the Cityedition.com that the republicans started their usual discrediting of HC from the very beginning, all the vocabulary used "pandering", "polarizing", "power-hungered" etc...which was taken up by the left-wing side as projections of all the negative on HC as a character, a politician etc...
In this case it's like using the enemy's weapon to defeat your closest enemy, your running opponent, except they are from the same party. The republicans largely crossed lines to vote for BO in the caucuses. And later even when it was signalled to cross over to vote for HC many republicans did it except that they voted for BO. Those voters are called oneday democrats.
Now are these votes real enough to be reliable in November? The caucuses exclude a lot of voters because of the voting conditions, that's to say the people who work or don't have much mobility. And the numbers of voters are small in caucuses, yet the difference in the popular vote even if small allow a difference of delegates that is mathematically disproportionate.
In Michigan it was said that he removed his name because he deducted that he would get anyway little support there.
The real math should be what votes are reliable in November, and who is more likely to get them. The real issue at hand is to get the White House back to the Democratic party. It looks like Dean and the left wing trying to show that they can do well without HC and Bill legacy.
So their strategy was largely helped by the republicans, in pushing the anti-Clinton machine through press coverage and the republican crossing line votes. That's why they push hard to get HC to step out. Now not all superdelegates have had their say yet. And for them winning is the most important factor.
BO electability based on the caucuses votes can be very questionable. And how can one establish electability in terms of math, realistic math and not one that is manipulated by republican cross over line voting, without taken into account big states votes like Florida's and Michigan's.
That's why HC want to take this matter to the convention. So if the DNC rules help BO for the moment, they may not help him in November. Besides, for the moment his support fails completely among white working class and white blue collar workers and among the majority of women voters.
The figures as calmely and rationally studied will speak for themselves. So all of this, and the upcoming votes in 3 more states, will add and will be examined carefully for the superdelegates to decide.
HC supporters don't accept her being pushed to step out and they wait to see the unfolding of the process and reserve their decisions for casting their votes in November. Don't buy the skin of the bear before you have it. That's a wise saying I heard.
And beside, why should she be wrong when Ted Kennedy brought the matter to the convention while he was about 700 delegates behind, as I read it from many sources. Should she be wrong because she is HC ?

Obama will not win GE. Obama is unelectable. I support Hillary but I will Never vote for OB.

How often will Hillary and her supporters persist with the "winning the popular vote" myth. You people want the voters of Florida to be counted, and Hillary's own supporters in Michigan, but you don't want the votes of hundreds of thousands of people whose States held a caucus to count. Nor those people who wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan. You would rather we forgot that barely a few hundred people in each of the caucus States are counted in the figures you claim represent the will of the American people. Neither do you care that not one single Obama supporter in Michigan was able to register their vote for him. You are trying to deprive all of those people of their democratic right to support their candidate because he respected the views of the National Democratic Party and left his name off the ballot.

Stop this misrepresentation of the facts now. Stop it because it smacks of being a bad loser. Even the most blinkered and embittered Hillary fan should be able to see that for the popular vote to truly count you have to count the votes of everyone. No matter which nominee they wanted to vote for. Every person who wants to vote has to be able to do so and each and every vote must carry equal weight. The only way this could happen is if we repoll Michigan and count the hundreds of thousands of voters who wanted to place an X next to Barack Obama. Then repoll every single caucus State and turn the hundreds of votes in each into the hundreds of thousands that would have voted in a primary. But if that happened then the figures point to Obama extending his lead still further. Something that would blow the popular vote myth to pieces. Something that would consign Hillary to the political dustbin because her last chance to be Vice President would be destroyed.

What no side should do is to use every trick in the book to exclude ordinary working people in the States that they lost whilst including those in the States they won. Neither should you reward those States who illegally held a primary early - while at the same time punishing those States that held a Caucus. Florida and Michigan broke the rules. The caucus States did not. Had the "popular vote" been the measure at the start then every single caucus State would have held a Primary. You can't change the rules at the end and punish those States. And for anyone who tries to do that. Shame on you. In fact shame on anybody who quotes the "popular vote" myth because its the only thing you have left. A twisted, statistically unfair, highly politicized version of the true facts.

The saving grace of course is that the people who now need to be convinced of the "popular vote" myth are the Super Delegates. People who are experienced politicians who know full well that the claim is a false measure of what the American people are saying. The ardent and blinkered fans who often frequent these internet chat threads may be convinced of the myth, but its not so easy to convince the only people who can actually save Hillary now. If anyone can spot a lie when they see it - its a politician. And they are already indicating they aren't listening to this claim.

As for the other claim, that the media is sexist, now that really annoys me. It sets back the woman's movement by years when a woman uses the sexism card to justify their own failings. I have no doubt that some people will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman, and some will not want her to win because she is a woman, but there are just as many people who will not vote for Obama or want him to win because he is black. However these people are in the minority. Is anyone really suggesting that there are so many sexist Americans that they could have turned around the huge lead Hillary possessed at the start of this campaign. Or saying that the American people are so dumb they simply vote for the person the media tells them to vote for? If so why did these same people indicate they were going to vote for Hillary just a year ago? How can Hillary have so little confidence in the integrity and decency of the people she hopes to serve as President? Remember this time last year she was the clear front-runner. She had almost won the race before it began. Yet somehow she threw it away. That isn't the media's fault. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. It is her fault. President Truman had a sign on his desk that famously said "The Buck Stops Here". As President the winner in November will have to live by that motto. Every decision they make. Every policy they endorse. Every act will define the lives of millions of people. And if and when it all goes wrong they can't turn around and blame someone else. They have to take responsibility. Just as Hillary has to start taking responsibility for snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Otherwise how could we ever be sure she wouldn't pull the same trick every time the press disagreed with her policies?

Women all over America may feel let down. However when history look back on the last few months it will show they were let down not by white men, or by blacks, or by the media - they were let down by the ill-conceived and astonishing incompetence of Hillary Clinton and her advisers. They lost a race that was there to be won. A race that was almost impossible to lose. No amount of complaining about how "unfair" it was will change that fact.

SMB

While I am sympathetic to Ivan, and I actually do think that Hillary might be the strongest general election candidate, I do not think it right to claim that somehow the collective wool has been pulled over the eyes of the nation. I saw in Obama that stopped me from going out for Hillary even though I love and respect her. I agree with the idea that sexism may have played an issue, but she ran a more hardcore foreign policy push than Obama and the people responded to him just as much. I love Hillary, would be thrilled with her as VP and would vote for her over McCain anyday, but its ridiculous to say that this process of selecting delegates is totally bogus simply because she played it wrong. Also, super delegates are smart people. Some are aligning for support, some because they believe in Obama's vision for America. Don't act like everyone has been duped.

I am a staunch Democrat. I will vote for a Democrat in November. I will write in the name "Hillary Rodham Clinton" mainly because I can't get behind a candidate like Obama that has such hateful supporters. I don't care if McCain wins--at least we know a little something about him. We know nothing about Obama except he supported his preacher before he didn't support him and his wife is proud for the first time and that he goes to closed door meetings with his fellow elitists and bad-mouths working people. I hope Clinton supporters will join me in sending a message to Move-On, MSNBC and all the co-conspirators that stole this election for Obama. Bitter? You bet!!

I find it profoundly sad that the Clinton supporters on this blog have been so misled by someone who I once loved and respected. The rules are the rules, no matter how you slice it or spin it. Please come to your senses - we have a dear man who has won the nomination of the democratic party who needs all democrats to come together to heal all of our country's wounds. Please put your hatred aside and think about your actions and the darkness that you find yourself in right now. I genuinely feel sorry for your loss, but as we all know, when you are grieving, the first thing you must do is accept the reality of your loss and move on. Obama has won by all of the rules everyone agreed to prior to all of the primary voting this year. We are patiently waiting for your renewed support for OUR democratic party. Democrats unite under our nominee: Barack Obama! Don't wait until it is too late.

It's the Obama people that do not understand the rules. The super delegates were not created to bless the outcome of the primary season. They were created to have the courage to vote based on the electability of the candidates. The ones that have made an endorsement can change their minds. It's not likely. I'm sure the Obama fan club can sleep well knowing he has won the nomination but there is no doubt that they never understood this basic rule and they were never willing to abide by it. All we've heard over the last three months is how the super delegates can't overturn the pledged delegate count. Whine whine whine without any understanding of the super delegates with their backroom cigar smoke.

Something tells me that if the votes were falling the exact opposite of the way they are and Hillary were ahead by the margins Obama has, no matter how small, she would think the nomination process was just fine.