NoaIzumiThe Clintons, Stalwarts of Disenfranchisement
April 25th 2008 01:37
Before the primary season even started, all democratic candidates agreed to NOT campaign in both of those states and signed off on agreeing to NOT having their delegates be seated at the convention because the two states broke democratic primary rules. Hillary, however, broke her promise and went to campaign in both Michigan AND Florida despite her pledge not to. Why would she do this? Well, the answer is extremely obvious and simple. Before the primaries even began, in fact even a year before the first primary, Hillary the “inevitable” believed she was going to steamroll through the primaries to the general election. Well she made the mistake of underestimating the intelligence of greater America and the greatness of one Barack Obama. So what does Michigan and Florida have to do with this? I am getting there, calm down. When she agreed to abide by the rules of punishing the two states for breaking DNC rules, she didn’t think Michigan and Florida will matter much anyway because she figured she will have the nomination in her pocket by then. Contrary to her belief of being ready on DAY ONE however, she was dumbfounded when it was actually Senator Obama who was ready on DAY ONE, winning the first primary in IOWA, rather easily to say the least. As the primary season continued and the Illinois Senator kept gaining delegates and supporters faster than the speed of light, Hillary who by then went to campaign in Michigan and Florida and of course won in the unimportant primaries, started making the preposterous case that she won those states. Need I remind everyone that hers was the only name on the Michigan ballot after the rest of the candidates agreed theirs won’t be because of Michigan’s failure to abide by DNC rules. Even then, more than 40% showed up to vote AGAINST the only name on the democratic ballot! So how on earth can Mrs. Clinton claim that that was a fair and square election? In Florida, abiding by the DNC rules as he has done all along, Mr. Obama did not even campaign and yes you got it right, Hillary claims those delegates should be seated. Even after both campaigns were on board to work out a way to seat the delegates, be it through another primary or whatever, Judges ruled that the original rules will be upheld.
Did this stop Hillary Clinton? She was down in delegates and popular votes so of course changing the rules to be in her favor would be great for her. Unsurprisingly she travels to Michigan and gives a stump speech ridiculing her opponent for not caring for their votes. Her husband former President Clinton also goes out on stumps to promote Obama as a disenfranchiser. This is the perfect way to get her supporters riled up right? If only they knew how hypocritical and devious the Clintons were being. Until now, Obama has clobbered Clinton in caucus states, so the Clintons claim caucuses don’t represent true democracy. Obama has won far too many more states than Clinton, so the Clintons claim his small state victories don’t count. The Clintons believe that only the states Hillary wins need to count, the so called BIG state strategy. How laughable an idea this is right? They actually believe Obama won’t win Massachusetts and California? They actually think Texas, where Obama won more delegates by the way, is going to vote for Hillary over Mccain? As a Texan, I will say hell no. In fact, according to exit polls Obama leads Mccain in Michigan and Ohio as well. Not only that, but Obama leads Mccain in the traditionally red state of Virginia in which he won in the primary by over 30 percentage points. To cut it short, if the general election was held today, Obama would win more electoral votes than Mccain than would Hillary, not to mention democrats nationwide favor the Illinois Senator 50-40% over Hillary. Furthermore, if anyone is disenfranchising anyone else, it is the Clinton campaign wanting to disenfranchising voters of 40 states according to their 10 big state strategy. Not only that, but if they actually want the Super-delegates to ignore the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote leader. then they are disenfranchising ALL voters in the democratic primaries. In fact the sole purpose of the primaries is to pick up delegates not popular votes. If it was popular votes, the metric Hillary now wants to use because she is running out of options, then Mr. Obama would have started with a whole different strategy to begin with! These arguments the Clinton campaign are making and the way they keep changing the rules is eerily similar to the way the Bush Administration changes its explanations for the Iraq war. In fact on January 9 this year, Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s campaign strategist, said “I guess one other thing I’d add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great - some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.” On yet another occasion this year he stated “And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party’s nominee.”
Hillary’s supporters need to realize that voting for her is just voting AGAINST democracy, if that makes sense to them. They are essentially just helping Mccain, because no matter how many votes Hillary gets from now on, even if she wins ALL remaining states, she will NEVER overcome Obama’s popular vote lead, his lead in states won, and most importantly his pledged delegate lead. In conclusion, none of her metrics will be relevant no matter how she splices them. The democratic party is about the people, and if she can only win by overruling the people, what is she trying to prove? Maybe she wants Mccain to beat Obama because that is just how bitter she can be? Who knows, but the truth is she can’t win this year without disenfranchising over tens of millions of voters. Being a lawyer, she should know that this is a country of Laws, at least to most Democrats.
| 71 |
| Vote |
