If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Now that it looks like Clinton will lose, Clinton supporters are up in arms, comparing flaws they see in the system to slavery and rigged elections in Zimbabwe. These comparisons are troubling because, if anything, the system was rigged in Clinton's favor from the beginning.

Undemocratic? What else would you call an election where the establishment candidate started off with a 100-delegate advantage, before the first vote was cast? It's why at the time, many Obama supporters such as myself, viewed him as a longshot even if he were to do well in the early contests, because he'd have to pull ahead by an equal amount in pledged delegates, a nearly impossible feat in a proportional system.

As one journalist put it:

Think 100-yard-dash (I ran track in the pre-metric system days) with Clinton starting 20-yards ahead of Obama. To mix metaphors -- that's not exactly a level playing field.

The Nation had even harsher words, calling the system "rigged:"

The obvious beneficiary of the superdelegates this time around is another establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton. Before Super Tuesday, Obama had sixty-three pledged delegates, compared with Clinton's forty-eight. But as we went to press Clinton had a huge advantage in superdelegates, 184 to ninety-five, according to CNN. "Many of the superdelegates were in and out of the Clinton White House, invited to dinners, have received contributions from Clinton allies," says Hart, who has endorsed Obama. "There will be pressure brought to bear to cash in those chips."

Not only did the Clinton name allow Hillary to create this built in advantage, but the scheduling of the primaries calls into serious question whether the Democratic party should institute some kind of conflict of interest policy re: primary campaigns.

Clinton's campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, who ran the DNC from 2001 to 2005, is largely responsible for scheduling of the democratic primary system as well as the creation of the Super Tuesday national primary. Few have complained about this, but think about it for a sec. How would Clinton supporters feel if David Axelrod had set up the primary schedule?

Hillary benefited from the accelerated schedule in one huge way - name recognition. While Obama had to spend time and money introducing himself to voters, Clinton could count on being the "default candidate." How else to explain the fact that she had what looked like insurmountable leads in nearly every state, leading front page bloggers on this site to speculate that Obama might only win Illinois and Georgia?

As John Nichols puts it:
McAuliffe makes no secret of his desire to have Democrats mirror the Republicans' compressed nominating schedule-- which helped front-runner Bush dispatch the more appealing John McCain in 2000.

"If you tighten up all the primaries at the start, it will limit the serious choices for Democrats to those candidates who are well-known or well-financed, or both. That takes away the range of choices, it makes the process less exciting and, ultimately, less connected to the grassroots," says (Fred) Harris, a former senator and 1976 candidate for the presidency.

There's no doubt - success in the caucuses, which had fewer participants, was instrumental to Obama's ability to overcome Clinton's lead. But Clinton could have easily put substantial resources into the caucuses as well - part of the $30 some million she spent on Iowa, for instance. What Obama couldn't do was replicate the powerful built-in advantage Hillary had at the beginning of the campaign.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Is This Snark?

Serious question.

by alegre 2008-05-25 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Was it snark earlier when Jerome was whining about the difference in votes/delegates?

by proseandpromise 2008-05-25 07:22PM | 0 recs

Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary's chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied, "What has changed is that now we are behind."

http://www.alternet.org/election08/86359 /

by Destiny 2008-05-26 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes

It's impossible to complain about bias on the Rules & Bylaws Committee without acknowledging the disgrace of formally "undeclared" Donna Brazile.  

by BPK80 2008-05-27 01:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Ickes

That was a complaint about hypocrisy, not bias. You are aware that the Michigan and Florida ruling was unanimously voted for by Clinton's supporters on the committee, right?

by X Stryker 2008-05-27 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

No, and he's absolutely correct.  Do you deny the huge lead Senator Clinton enjoyed early in the contest, regarding superdelegates?

Do you deny that Terry McAulliff the primary calendar?  The story goes that he frontloaded it (Super Tuesday) so that Senator Clinton would have an easier time of it.  Having so many states go at once would swamp any candidate without a national presence, and national notoriety.

It didn't work, but that was the plan.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-25 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

In addition to my inability to spell worth a damn in that post, I'm apparently unable to get a response from Allergy.

Why, oh why, does she post if she won't engage?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-25 10:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?
it is dumb
let us not do it
by really not a troll 2008-05-26 03:16AM | 0 recs
possibly just a typo

... we all do 'em

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-05-27 09:13AM | 0 recs
Reaper was just saying that

she tickles his nose...

No harm, no foul.

by bookish 2008-05-26 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Alegre doesn't engage with inconvenient facts.

What she won't admit is that the sexism she and others consider the cause of Clinton's downfall is either

(a) proven in their opinion beyond a doubt by the fact that Clinton lost in spite of the huge institutional advantages detailed in this diary; or

(b) a convenient scapegoat for Clinton's terrible campaign, which squandered these advantages.

Alegre is left pretending that Clinton, as a woman, is the first candidate ever pressured to withdraw from a nominating contest.

She's left pretending that the media narrative during Obama's eleven straight wins in February was not Clinton must concede but in fact well, sure, but let's see what happens in Ohio and Texas.

And she's left ignoring that women, Clinton's strongest demographic, have comprised a majority of voters in every primary and caucus.

by deminva 2008-05-26 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

This is a bit off thread, but it does relate to Hillary's institutional advantage:

I've also noticed how these purported feminists are willing to trash any woman who does not agree with their partisan line. There was a thread last night from a poster who I will not name, but who said that Hillary doesn't represent black women. This poster was trolled and hounded immediately. But a word of protest from the house feminists? No.

It's a complete perversion of feminism, and brings both it and Hillary's supporters into huge disrepute. In this way, they're setting the feminist agenda back years. But fortunately there are some who can separate the principles of justice and equality from the cult of personality of one very well connected, superdelegate privileged and financially overloaded senator.  

by duende 2008-05-26 12:09PM | 0 recs
My girlfriend's view on feminism

My GF says: 'Feminism is about opening doors, not about forcing anyone to walk through them'.  She finds the idea that any woman should feel obligated to vote for Clinton only to 'break the glass ceiling' rather offensive.

by protothad 2008-05-26 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: My girlfriend's view on feminism

it was supposed to be about leveling the playing field...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-27 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: My girlfriend's view on feminism

My wife always thought she would vote for the first viable woman candidate. What she didn't know was that it would be Hillary Clinton; she voted for Obama, and all of her female relatives voted for Obama in the Iowa Caucuses (you could see them behind Obama last Tuesday during his rally in Des Moines)

by dantes 2008-05-27 07:20AM | 0 recs
Too bad their votes don't count

Caucus state votes don't count toward Hillary's "popular vote" total, so they might as well never have happened, don'tcha know.

by rhetoricus 2008-05-27 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: My girlfriend's view on feminism

I think thats what my GF means by 'opening doors'.... as in not having opportunities slammed shut in your face.

by protothad 2008-05-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Not everything is a conspiracy, If that's the story that goes around then that story was wrong.

I understand that some people want to make the Obama victory even sweeter then it already is for them by adding another comeuppance factor to it (they rigged the elections, but we showed them!), but it just isn't true and actually detracts from his already impressive win.

The frontloading happend because of a single reason: in 2004 the election was decided after 2 weeks after 2 states voted that had less then 2% of the vote and the states that were left out were revolting and wanted to go as early as possible.

In fact most people were thinking that 2008 would be an repeat of 2004, and that the voting on super tuesday would be already to late a date to do anything else but confirm the winner.

The party had to resort to drastic measures in fact to keep the states from going even earlier then febuary 5. That's why we have the FL and MI headache that we have.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 01:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Whether it was planned or not, it's hard to argue that the front loading McAuliffe put in place didn't have the effect of helping the best known candidate (Clinton). Obama, Edwards and the rest had a limited window of time to make their case and campaign on a national scale before Super Tuesday. Edwards failed to build enough momentum and was knocked out of the race by the costs of continuing. Obama surprisingly  hung on and survived to essentially lock up his pledged delegate lead the following month.

Again, imagine the scenario the other way around. If Axelrod had been in charge of the schedule and had engineered a series of primaries favorable to Obama, would we ever hear the end of it?

by animated 2008-05-26 01:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

It's also hard to argue with the fact that the Clinton campaign expected her to be the presumptive nominee after Super Tuesday, which McAuliffe had engineered.  That fact has been admitted by senior Clinton advisors and was on display the rest of February.

by deminva 2008-05-26 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

It's easy to argue that the frontloading McAuliffe put in place didn't have the effect of helping the best known candidate, because it wasn't placed there by McAuliffe and didn't help the best known candidate. Clinton effectively lost supertuesday. As far as I rememeber the rush to the front of the calender mainly happend by initiative of the states themselves under chairman Dean, as he was the chairman since 2005, long before the calender was finalized.

Edwards didn't get knocked out of the race because it was to expensive for him to continue, he was knocked out of the race because the electoral bases of Clinton and Obama didn't leave enough voters lying around for anybody else to compete. Unfortuneatly Edwards was already irrelevent before super tuesday because even in the states where he had years to make his case he didn't, and was suffering from a year long downwards trend there already.

That Obama wasn't knocked out wasn't surprising at all. It was always clear that he could continue beyond super tuesday from the beginning. He had the fundraising lead, the lead in iowa, and several clear victories both in the lead up and after awaiting him.  He was already the projected winner by bowers before the iowa caucus came about. That is not the profile of an dark horse, underdog candidate.

Again it was not a fight between David and Goliath, it was a fight between Goliath and Goliath.

Was winning a huge accomplishment? It certainly was. I'm actually quite impressed. But as soon as he declared he was a major contender.

What would've been surprising if my candidate who was chronically under funded and under reported had continued after super tuesday. Now that would've been an upset!

But Obama who was always one of the major contenders? I'm sorry, he did perform better then expected by most but anybody who thought he'd crash and burn wasn't in touch with reality. (And yes, that includes most seniour advisors to the Clinton campaign.)

by Ernst 2008-05-26 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Up until a few days before February 5th, polls had Obama behind everywhere. Clinton had the most experienced team and the most funds. She had deep institutional links.

Obama had a few lucky breaks, like Edwards dropping out, allowing him to consolidate the non-Clinton vote, and a wave of positive press at the right time, but it was only by out-organising Clinton that he was able to secure a narrow victory.

He wasn't an absolute underdog, but he needed to win enough contests on Super Tuesday to prevent Clinton pulling out a huge and unclosable lead and it didn't look like he was going to. He vastly exceeded expectations there.

Not David versus Goliath, but not Goliath versus Goliath either.

by Englishlefty 2008-05-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

You should know you write enough of them...

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Exactly. Of course they want to cry sexism now when it suits them. Nonsense, this nomination was Hillary's to lose and she did just that.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-25 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

how could you mistake this for snark?  

the diarist is right on

by Bargeron 2008-05-25 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

No, I don't think it is.

I'm sorely tempted to ask why you choose to criticize others for failing to respond to your diaries in detail, but don't hold to that standard all the time for yourself.

by Falsehood 2008-05-25 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

No - it's not.

And please expalin why the hell you would think that it is????

Everything in the diary was 100% - so why would you even ask if it's snark???

Or are you just trying to be a troll?

by Deano963 2008-05-25 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

And please expalin why the hell you would think that it is????

Okay, everybody, start holding your breath -- now!

by deminva 2008-05-26 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

OMG, I must have passed out.  What did I miss?  What was Alegre's answer?

by deminva 2008-05-26 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Why not address the substance? If Obama had started with a 100-delegate advantage and David Axelrod had set up the primary system, would you have a problem with it?

by animated 2008-05-25 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Does it seem sarcastic? To me it's reality. Hillary is such a bad candidate that she blew a huge head start and managed to drive up her negatives to unprecedented highs...oh wait, one person with worse negatives-- George W. Bush..

It's too bad she lost. Unless of course you change the rules in the middle of the primary. Which she has, but unfortunately no one else will validate her delusions.

I guess Hillary and her supporters can sympathize with other dead-enders -- Bush's last 25% of those who approve of him.

by stevema14420 2008-05-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
No, its bs

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that Clinton had all the institutional advantages, which is just not the case.  the establishment in this party has always hated the Clintons, they need a sockpuppet.  Thats what this diary is about, its about Obama supporter trying to convince themselves that they did, indeed, slay the big bad beast of the establishment democratic party- when it turns out, they have been cheering the establishment's champion all along.

by linc 2008-05-25 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No, its bs

Mind backing up that assertion with something factual?  The diarist has his opinion and based it on the fact that she started this nomination process out front with a huge number of superdelegates backing her before Iowa was even counted.  He pointed out that one of her Campaign chairs is Terry Mac. who set the calendar as DNC chairman before joining her campaign.  He pointed out that she had undeniable name recognition from eight years as first lady and then the junior Senator from NY.

Where are your facts to back up your opinion?

by shalca 2008-05-25 09:16PM | 0 recs
How many

senators have endorsed Obama?  How many Clinton?  Pelosi hates the Clintons.  Ted Kennedy IS the Democratic establishment in this party.  In American history, when have ANY elected officials called on one of the two candidates left in a late primary, to leave?  NEVER HAS HAPPENED, especially in a race this close and ESPECIALLY when neither candidate has actually captured enough actual delegates to claim victory.

by linc 2008-05-25 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: How many

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9C05E7DF143BF930A35751C0A9629C8B6 3&scp=1&sq=calls+for+candidate+t o+drop+out+of+race&st=nyt
This article is the first one I came across from just 2004.  I especially like this bit:

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has said he expects a nominee by the second week of March, but he advises voters in the meantime to let the process unfold. ''It's still early,'' Mr. McAuliffe said. ''We've only had two days of voting. Let the system work. The system will do it.'' Still, Mr. McAuliffe is quietly orchestrating efforts to narrow the field after today, some Democrats said.

Emphasis on "quietly orchestrating efforts to narrow the field. . ."

Despite what Hillary's campaign and what she herself has said, there has ALWAYS been pressure for people to drop out so that democrats or republicans could get behind their presumptive nominee.  Simply saying it has never happened insults the intelligence of the average voter who has gone through this every 4 years for quite some time.

by shalca 2008-05-25 09:36PM | 0 recs
What does

a journalist's opinion have to do with anything I wrote?  How on earth the article you cite, point that Clinton was the establisment candidate?  Again, for you  and many like you, she is the establishment candidate because you want her to be the establishment candidate.  Its the same, sensationalist, instant gratification bullshit that has fuel one half of this entire primary electorate.

by linc 2008-05-25 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What does

Superdelegates. There's a clear numerical representation of "establishment" support right there. Not to mention that Clinton had far more endorsements from governors, and members of Congress as of late last year. It wasn't even close.

by animated 2008-05-25 10:15PM | 0 recs
Is that still the case?

or is your interpretation of what makes the establishment candidate... weak, should I say?

by linc 2008-05-25 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Is that still the case?

LOL...well, yeah, I'm talking about what happened at the beginning of the race. It took Obama a LONG time to erode that lead, in fact wasn't it just last week or the week before that he overtook her in superdelegates?

by animated 2008-05-25 10:25PM | 0 recs
three short months

thats one fickle establishment- wonder how they ever got to be the establishment being so fickle...

by linc 2008-05-25 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: three short months

Three months? Is it still March where you live? No, it's been nearly six by my count, incredibly long by most standards, despite what Clinton would have you believe.

by animated 2008-05-26 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: three short months

Superdelegates started endorsing over a year ago, months before any voting took place.

It took Obama one year to take the lead in superdelegates - and to do it, he had to build a pledged delegate lead so large that the superdelegates could not ignore the clear winner.

He came from over a hundred behind.

by really not a troll 2008-05-26 03:20AM | 0 recs
Re: What does

/In American history, when have ANY elected officials called on one of the two candidates left in a late primary, to leave? /

I was responding to that comment.

by shalca 2008-05-25 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: What does

In 2004 at the time of that article Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards were still in the race against Kerry and even then the call to narrow the field was mentioned as unpresidented and counter the established practise candidates staying in the race untill the convention.

So whith far more candidates and early in the campaign it wasn't a good example.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What does

"In 2004 at the time of that article Dean, Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards were still in the race against Kerry and even then the call to narrow the field was mentioned as unpresidented and counter the established practise candidates staying in the race untill the convention."

Have you ever be involved in an election in the US? There's ALWAYS massive pressure to narrow the field, and the candidates being written off always complain about it.

by laird 2008-05-26 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: What does

Please reread the comment and read the article. You'll note that I simply placed the article in context and gave more information what it also said.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: What does

She is the establishment candidate because in many of the staes she had the party machine behind her. Think Rendell etc.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What does

Do you deny McAuliffe's role in setting up the primary calendar or his current role in Clinton's campaign?  Do you deny that Harold Ickes, one of her senior spokesmen, voted in favor of sanctioning MI and FL last year?  Do you deny that Clinton had a massive advantage in unelected superdelegates throughout the fall and into the winter?

If you're going to cry BS on this diarist, who supports his/her argument with facts, offer us something better than Pelosi hates Clinton.  

by deminva 2008-05-26 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: How many

How many DNC officials were in the Clinton camp before a vote had been cast this year?  I'll give you a little bit of information to serve as a hint, linc. The DNC unelected "party elders" were the very last category of super delegates with whom Clinton had an advantage over Obama.  They were in her pocket from last year up until the beginning of May or so, when Obama finally overtook her in that one last Clinton stronghold.

Now call me crazy, but I have a feeling that the DNC "establishment" is probably made up of DNC leaders.  Would the candidate who had the endorsements and support of the vast majority of these DNC leaders a half year before any votes were cast be the establishment candidate or not?  Hm?

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Then that begs the question:

If President Clinton was in the White House for eight years, why couldn't he build enough relationships with DNC members and members of Congress to make his wife the "establishment" candidate, a.k.a., the candidate with a substantial superdelegate advantage, for her Presidential run?

by Brad G 2008-05-25 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Then that begs the question:

The DNC superdelegates did actually go overwelmingly to Clinton in the early phase of the contest.

But because most super delegates are members of congress that have multiple loyalties and their independed power base they've always been more outside Presidental control and actively worked to keep it that way.

In order to keep their independence they promoted a rival as their own establishment candidate that was less treathening their own powerbase.

All very understandable, and it also explains why Clinton couldn't get their support, she was already too much the establisment candidate for their liking.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 01:57AM | 0 recs
the establishment has always hated the clintons?

Yeah. Those DLCers are just a bunch of DC outsiders.

(If doses of reality could be bought and shipped UPS, maybe I could help you out.)

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-25 11:37PM | 0 recs

The DLC never was organized enough to control the party. They simply became a shorthand for the right wing of the party that was dominant for a generation after the progressive wing took a very big hit in the early '80.

They've had some powerful members, but that didn't translate back into organizational power. Their actual influence was less then that of the more organized Blue dogs for example. The DLC certainly doesn't represent the direction the party should go for know (just like the blue dogs)they are not and never been the shadowy control group of the party that some make them out.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:19AM | 0 recs

" The DLC certainly doesn't represent the direction the party should go for know"

Then it's a good thing Hillary won't be the nominee since she IS the DLC.

But at least I cited some kind of establishment that Hillary is a part of (actually, leader of). The person who claimed that Obama is the "establishment candidate" provided nothing to support that ridiculous assertion.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-26 09:33AM | 0 recs

Well, if you wanted a non establishment candidate Edwards would have been your best choice. Both Clinton and Obama are fully backed by different parts of the democratic establishment.

Clinton's establishment roots are of course all to obvious.

Obama was fully backed by the very powerful Daschle machine which really helped him lock up talent and kick start his fundraising network. Durbin a quite established voice in the senate. Later also gained the full backing of Kennedy, whose power and contacts in the democratic world is second only to the clintons etc. Same in the house. In fact most of the major powers that didn't earn their position to clinton are backing Obama, a lot of them did so quite early. This nomination is also about which part of the establishment gets the upper hand in the democratic party.  

So yes, Obama is not some anti-establishment crusader. The DLC has a preference for the successor of their poster candidate Clinton but if Obama wins they'll still have direct access to him because enough DLC'ers backed him as well.

But it isn't all bad, Obama is favored by the more progressive under the establishment figures so those might counter the centrists and moderate right figures more then with clinton as a president.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 12:32PM | 0 recs

"Well, if you wanted a non establishment candidate Edwards would have been your best choice."

I preferred Kucinich in that regard. As a senator Edwards was a DLCer voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda along with Hillary.

But the biggest indicator of whether a candiate is establishment or not is who the donors are. Obama's are ordinary people. Hillary's are corporate interests.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-26 12:41PM | 0 recs

I've got a reasonable amount of respect for the man, but not a lot of faith in his abilities to govern or to get elected.

From a anti establishment "least bad" perspective Edwards was the only choice that could have made a credible anti establishment campaign work in my opinion.

But, personally I supported Biden so that should tell you all you need to know of my non existent anti establishment cred.

For me personally I think that the donors who contribute are a good indicator. but then again with the ridicules amounts of money both collected it isn't just so easy to make a clean devide. While Clinton is clearly more depended on large donors who are usually more corporate both candidates have had an enormous amount of small donors and both use super bundlers. Obama's small donation strategy was inspired and gives me good hope for the future of the party.

As it's an completely new phenomenon I'm reserving my final judgment until I've seen him act in office. But currently it's certainly looking good in that regard.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:06PM | 0 recs

In the first sentence I was talking about Kucinich.

Just to clarify.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:08PM | 0 recs
9 answers
including one from the diarist, and your reply to them?


by DemsRising 2008-05-25 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Yes, Alegre. This is snark.

The whole Hillary was First Lady & entered the primary process with 100 SD lead is snark. Made up out of sackcloth. It's all snark.

You know the real truth. Mark Penn is a Boy Scout, & Hillary is a poor coal miner's daugther doing her best against Elitist Boyz in Washington, her sworn enemies.


by catilinus 2008-05-25 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

As much as I feel sorry for her, this is pretty funny...

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Cheer Up Charlie Brown

: )

by optimusprime 2008-05-25 10:04PM | 0 recs
Serious question?

A question like this is just one reason why no serious person takes you seriously.

You couldn't even refute one word of this excellent and factual diary.

But why did Hillary blow every conceivable institutional advantage? Her "chief strategist," Mark Penn, doesn't know any more about political reality than you do. The difference is, he was rewarded millions for his ignorance (to the point of bankrupting her campaign).

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-25 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Please detail which exact words you find to be untrue.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 12:36AM | 0 recs
Is your sarcasm "snark"?

leading front page bloggers on this site to speculate that Obama might only win Illinois and Georgia?

Well, this just shows that a lot of people's judgment was not very good.  For example, since Jesse Jackson won 16 states in 1988, that had to be the baseline, the absolute lowest possible success level, for an equal or better Black candidate in 2008, in terms of how Americans would react to Obama's candidacy.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-05-26 01:57AM | 0 recs
Another high quality allegre post.

You should've insta-posted three horn-tooting posts as soon as this diary went up. You're doing it wrong.


by notxjack 2008-05-26 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Damn, really? Alegre isn't a troll.  I never agree with her, but she's definitely not a troll.  Her writing doesn't necessarily appeal to me, but I sure hope she's back in the democratic party if Clinton concedes.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

she's a troll if she writes specious diaries, refuses to engage with criticism, and posts short insulting quips in the diaries of others without further engagement.

That's the classic definition of troll.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-26 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?


she might not be a troll in the conventional sense in that she does write substantive diaries frequently (though I don't agree with them and they have their own problems).

However, this comment of hers is a troll comment particularly since she has since refused to engage.

by masterxi43 2008-05-26 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

She is a troll in the fact that she makes blanket statements about Obama supporters being sexist.

by iowa dem 2008-05-26 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Did you read it?  Serious question.

by herenow 2008-05-26 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

of course not.

It is one of the most sober and factual diaries I've seen on this site.

Most refreshing

by wrb 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

You crack me up, alegre. While it's nice of you to take time from penning so many POSITIVE diatribes (er, diaries), you have to knock this totally reasonable one.

I am just sitting back and enjoying the Countdown of your remaining relevance on this blog.

by OH Mark 2008-05-26 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Are you an idiot?

Serious question.

by masterxi43 2008-05-26 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Are you snark?

Alegre is unwilling to confront facts that don't mean Hillary wins.  The fact that her post routinely end up on the rec list is simply evidence of the pro-Hillary bias of MyDD.

In any event, I ask Alegre to explain to me:

(1) Why 100 SD to start does not constitute an advantage?

(2)  Why 100 SD to start doesn't suggest Hillary was the establishment candidate?

(3) How she can use the word "serious question" when a careful read of the diary spells out the very reasons that it is?

I can't wait until June so that Hillary supporters can remove their irrational blinders and come home to the Dem party.  Support the nominee, Obama.

by jv 2008-05-26 02:44PM | 0 recs
Perhaps you could be more specific?

Why exactly do you think this was snark?  What details of the post do you disagree with?  I am actually curious and promise to be polite and respectful in any reply.

by protothad 2008-05-26 02:51PM | 0 recs
Hillary has access to best staff, best fundraisers

and connections from her time as first lady of the nation and AK.  In addition, she has worked on 2 national campaigns before and for some strange reason, she had no concept of how the primary process, especially the caucus system worked. She had many built in advantages.  Obama overcame despite that fact that he is a "skinny kid with a funny name".

by mishiem 2008-05-26 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

in order to not run afoul of strange editorial decisions on the part of the site, I have avoided rating this comment.

However, it fits the classic definition of trolling.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Is This Snark?

Did you read the diary?

by TL 2008-05-27 11:36AM | 0 recs

Some of her supporters are allergic to them.

They would rather cry foul and blame Obama for Hillary's mistakes.

It's all his fault.


by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

No question, Hillary had every advantage--money, institutional support, and a primary system desinged to coronate the front-runner. She assumed she had it in the bag, and so she failed to prepare, allowing Obama to go on an 11-0 run. Obama out-planned, out-organized, and out-worked her. That is the real story of this nomination campaign.

by fugazi 2008-05-25 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

In many ways, it's a miracle Obama has gotten where he has. Super Tuesday was the turning point IMO. I was hugely pessimistic the week before, but the SC win and the Kennedy endorsement put him over the top.

by animated 2008-05-25 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Here's a personal story to back this up. NJ was one of the many states that had a primary on SuperDuper Tuesday. I have been active in local NJ politics for many years, and I know that you have to ask voters for their votes. You can't just assume that the voters will vote for you. The Obama campaign called and asked for our vote; the Clinton camp did not. While HRC won the state in February (and she did have strong support from our Governor), polls show that Obama would win today. She won the state primarily on name recognition. She was out-organized by the Obama campaign.

She started this campaign with 100% name recognition, a huge war chest, and strong institutional support. The nomination was hers to lose. She expected to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, and she was caught off guard. This allowed Obama to win 11 straight primaries and to take the lead in pledged delegates. She has not been able to catch up. In the end, it's not about sexism or racism or Tuzla or bittergate; it's about who ran the better campaign.

by blue jersey mom 2008-05-26 08:07AM | 0 recs
If there is any

question just refer to her interview with George Stephenopolous (sp)

She states the race will be over on Super Tuesday.  

by nextgen 2008-05-25 07:23PM | 0 recs
Hillary lost

That's all you need to know about the process.

If Hillary had won then she and her followers would have been happy about the process, after all, it is their process.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-05-25 07:26PM | 0 recs
The System Was Rigged

The system was rigged to ensure that a well funded candidate with institutional backing would emerge early as the nominee. Turns out this time we had two, but only one figured out how to game the quirks of the system.

Obama changed the game, it's an impressive feat, but that doesn't mean the system isn't broken.

by souvarine 2008-05-25 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

I agree, and you could argue the system was even MORE unfair to Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden and the others. But Hillary definitely had little to complain about, in December.

by animated 2008-05-25 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

I think she has little to complain about now, Obama used the process to win more pledged delegates. But that should not prevent her from making the case to the delegates that the system has distorted the will of Democrats. Persuading delegates is also part of the process.

by souvarine 2008-05-25 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

She is welcome to try.  She will certainly fail, but I don't begrudge her a reasonable amount of time to make a reasonable effort.

A few days after the final primary will be more than enough.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-25 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

I think she has little to complain about now, Obama used the process to win more pledged delegates.

What should Obama have "used" the process to do besides gain more pledged delegates, pray tell?

I think you've actually hit upon something that's been bothering me about Clinton's campaign at this point:

I have absolutely no problem with her staying in to the last, just as Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  My question to any enterprising blogger out there who knows how to google or who has access to lexusnexus, did Ted Kennedy openly criticize the system that awarded his opponent more pledged delegates and attempt to delegitimize the democratic party?  Because that is what Hillary is doing, and that is what is damaging.  Her being in the race is great, but if she continues to act as though there is some scheme by the democratic national committee to keep her out of the white house rather than admitting that Obama ran a kickass campaign against her, she hurts the democratic party in November.

Stay in as long as you want; no one should be pushing her out for staying in.  However, I can certainly understand people wanting her out if she's going to be criticizing the party and the process (that she knew about, her adviser created, etc etc) the entire way down the field.  Make the case you're more electable, but don't insult all the hard work that democrats for whom Hillary may not have been their first choice have done to put Barack where he is right now.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

I thought I was pretty clear on what Obama did, he changed the game. And he changed it through a better understanding of how to use the process.

As for 1980 Kennedy swept the last few primaries in June and used those wins to fight for Carter's delegates at the convention. In Wikipedia that convention is called one of the "nastiest on record". Kennedy's argument was, in part, that a broken system had nominated the wrong man. Kennedy had a little more than half the delegates Carter had and a little less than 3/4s the popular vote. In the 1992 campaign Jerry Brown hoped to use the California primary in June to deprive Bill Clinton of enough delegates to win outright, which would have given him reason to argue that the process was broken and that delegates should switch their support to him. Jerry Brown also fought to the convention, despite having barely 1/7th of Clinton's delegates and less than half his popular vote tally.

Hillary Clinton is in a far stronger position than either of those men, both of whom fought to the convention.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

I wonder how operation chaos figures in to the will of the people.   Indiana exit polls showed 1 in 8 Clinton voters would vote for McCain over Hillary in the GE, care to explain this support?   You take out operation chaos voters and Obama is cruising in the popular vote.

by realistdem 2008-05-26 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The System Was Rigged

Gaming the system implies cheating. I think a better way to put it. His team looked at Clinton's big state strategy and came up with a way to possibly beat it. Turns out they got it right.

by jsfox 2008-05-25 07:39PM | 0 recs
It's about Winning Elections

One team figured out how to win elections.

The other team didn't, and lost the elections.

The team that wins the elections is, logically speaking, the team you want to go forward to contest the next election.

And no, the argument that "The general election isn't a caucus" doesn't hold water - Obama's team figured out how to win caucuses, primaries, the money game, the media game, and the game of hardball that Hillary tried playing.

And they won.

Now we are asked to believe that the candidate who blew every advantage, turned a pre-primary delegate-lead into a deep delegate deficit, blew $200 million without leaving enough money to actually run campaigns in the states, lost more contests than she won, and ended up having to play pretzel logic number games to convince you that in at least one metric she is leading because she is totally NOT leading in any other metric conceivable, especially the one that counts... we are asked to believe that this is the stronger candidate going forward?

The name of the game is winning elections. How much you want to bet they have a game plan for November?

Obama has demonstrated that he and his team are able to win elections. And raise more money than anybody in history. And stand up to the media flak.

That seems to me like a good endorsement moving forward, and on to November.

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-25 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: In other words

One candidate was ready from Day One; one was not.

by Brad G 2008-05-25 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: In other words


by animated 2008-05-25 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Clinton has run her campaign to win the general and not get sabotaged by actions in the primary. The primary was always going to be the tougher battle. Obama has done the exact opposite - he has run his primary battle without concern for his general election battle should he be the nominee. Hopefully, the SD's will see through his crap and Clinton will poach enough delegates to triumph. Hopefully.

The general election is going to be a much easier haul for her. And if she makes it through the convention, I think she will prove to be one of the great presidents of the 20th century. My fear about Obama is that he is likely to be the worst Dem president since Buchanan.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-25 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

"Hopefully, the SD's will see through his crap and Clinton will poach enough delegates to triumph."

Ummm ... 'kay. We'll talk again in about a week.

by fugazi 2008-05-25 07:39PM | 0 recs
Two weeks from now:

Obama cheated!  We couldn't poach his superdelegates!  They must be sexist!  The system needs to be overhauled to make it easer to poach delegates!

by Dumbo 2008-05-25 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

What? On what do you base this?

by jsfox 2008-05-25 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Zoloft, maybe...

by fogiv 2008-05-25 10:27PM | 0 recs
Competence is competence

If there's one argument I can't imagine anyone making against the Obama campaign, it's lack of foresight.

This is, after all, the campaign that put out a spreadsheet back in February that's come within a delegate or two in EVERY contest of calling the eventual outcome, right down to the present moment.

What, exactly, is the source of your certainty that the Obama camp is operating "without concern for his general election battle"?

And in what universe can one run a campaign to win a general after losing a primary?

(Oh, right, US Senate, Connecticut, 2006. Do you REALLY want to go there? Really?)

by ipsos 2008-05-25 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Competence is competence

Apparently, the answer to that last question, amazingly, is...


by ipsos 2008-05-25 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Competence is competence

There are traps in primaries because in a primary you appeal to the activists of the party. What they want is frequently somewhat at odds with what the general population wants. Clinton has run her campaign to protect her ability to run in the general. Obama has not. How do we know this? Half of Clinton's supporters are saying they won't vote for him. He's had to burn some pretty serious bridges to get where he is.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-25 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Competence is competence

How can you understand what that half of Clinton's supporters is saying? I'm having a hard time understanding them as they stamp their feet and hold their breath like children in order to get their way.  

by matchles 2008-05-25 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Competence is competence
that tends to happen
when the candidate you support
tells you that their primary opponent
has not "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold"
right now
when pollsters don't mention Clinton
Obama's general election numbers go up
that trend will continue
most (but not all) of the clinton supporters
will come home
in the end
by really not a troll 2008-05-26 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Competence is competence

What a calming way to state facts.  Wonderful :)

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:35AM | 0 recs
I can't ask for a better quote

I think she will prove to be one of the great presidents of the 20th century.
She did run an amazing 20th century campaign.  Unfortunately, the times change and she ran up against a candidate from the current century.

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 09:04PM | 0 recs
sorry, didn't see that you responded below

by semiquaver 2008-05-25 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton


Ignore that little 50 state voter registration drive he has had in place for the last 2 month.  While your at it ignore his scalable funding machine he put in place.  Oh and since you are ignoring those two things, also ignore his stated plan to put all those "little" states in play for the GE, along with VA.  

Yea, your right, no plan.  

by nextgen 2008-05-26 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

glitterannebegay: "Clinton has run her campaign to win the general and not get sabotaged by actions in the primary."

It's true - Clinton's arrogant assumption that she would easily win the primaries led her to make two massive mistakes. First, she assumed that she would win the primary on Super Tuesday, and ignored the rest of the country, which is how she lost 11 straight primaries. Second, she positioned herself for the general election as a conservative, running against the core the the party, assuming that they'd have no choice but to vote for her.

That being said, she's not doing much that would indicate that she would do better in the general election. Obama's 50 state strategy puts more states in play, which is quite exciting - I like that he's not "writing off" states that he can't win in the GE, because there are democrats there, or there could be if we tried. Clinton's "Kerry+1" strategy is the same old "play it safe" strategy that has lost repeatedly. This year will be transformative in american politics, and Obama's positioned himself perfectly for that.

"...she will prove to be one of the great presidents of the 20th century. My fear about Obama is that he is likely to be the worst Dem president since Buchanan."

Judging by how they ran their campaigns, the reverse is  more likely. While she seems to be doing well as NY's Senator, I've seen no sign that Hillary Clinton knows how to run a campaign well. She started out with all of the advantages, and blew it. Obama has done a fantastic job running his campaign, starting with nothing and doing so well that he made it look easy. That's what I want in a President.

by laird 2008-05-26 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Here's a tip:

To win over Democratic activists, try not to let your obvious contempt for DFHs seep through too much. Telling us that Obama only won because he bothered to pay attention to us, whereas Clinton will be great because we'll be ignored for eight years, is perhaps not persuasive.

by Englishlefty 2008-05-27 07:47AM | 0 recs
Obviously, that's supposed to be

"one of the great presidents of the 21st century"

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-25 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obviously, that's supposed to be

No it was right, if she was going to be a great president it had to be in the 20th century.  She doesn't realize times have changed and she hasn't.

by matchles 2008-05-25 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Obviously, that's supposed to be

You're right, Clinton WAS one of the great 20th century presidents:D

by animated 2008-05-25 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obviously, that's supposed to be

It's quite amusing that you credit Clinton with planning for the general when Barack has a network in every one of the fifty states and Clinton does not.

What's more, Clinton tried to win the primary by using experience and a populist not-quite-liberal stance on guns.  Now, do you think she would have been in some trouble going up against someone with hugely more experience and unbelievably more credibility with the NRA?

The only way to form your argument into something credible (and also that fits with all the evidence about her thinking the race would be over by Super Tuesday) is that her hubris prevented her from recognizing that she would have a challenger in the primaries and thusly had to cobble together the most poorly thought out primary campaign ever.  

Clinton couldn't be thinking of the general, because she was losing the primary.  Therefore, everything went out the door.

"Oh, we should say that because McCain will kill us on experience in the fall?  Too bad, we're losing and have to get back in this?"

"What, we have to try to move to the right and portray Obama as a liberal elitist (cough, IRONIC) to try to siphon off votes from his moderate supporters?  Well, McCain will probably be more successful with republicans in the fall, but whatever, can't think about that now!"

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Clinton just blew it, quite frankly. It's not like it was a secret that some of the states were caucuses. She just dismissed them as unimportant, and filed to organize. And then there's the matter of the financial mismanagement in camp Hillary. They went trhough $35 million and were broke after Iowa. How do you let that happen? I could go on and on, but jeez what a badly run outfit.    

by fugazi 2008-05-25 07:38PM | 0 recs
You don't understand

any system in which voters can vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton is rigged against her, by definition.

I see alegre backs me up on this.

by JJE 2008-05-25 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Clinton began with every advantage, and lost.

Obama began with nothing but his charisma, and won.

This is a powerful argument for Obama being the more electable candidate in November.

by vinc 2008-05-25 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

and there's an even powerful one to be made that he's unelectable.

by glitterannebegay 2008-05-25 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

No, it's a very weak argument, because it turns entirely upon the 2/3rds of Clinton supporters telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home.  Can we agree this 2/3rds fraction is ridiculous?  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-25 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Yes.  As I've noted on myDD before, all we need to convince are the Clinton supporters who might not like Obama very much but who will have open minds to the idea that he would make a much better president than McCain.  

You know, Clinton's concession speech in which she implores her supporters to support Barack will probably put the white house well out of reach for the republicans.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Obama didn't have to do anything to convince me to vote for him were he the nominee. But then he used RFK to assassinate Clinton's character. I am no longer prepared to vote for him, regardless of what Clinton says. I won't vote for a Republican, but right now I can't give Barack Obama my vote.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton


The media is playing you... they are the ones who ran with the RFK thing.

Sigh... this whole thing is making me sick

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Yeah Barack made Hillary bring up RFK's assassination through some sort of vulcan mind meld---thats the ticket.

by realistdem 2008-05-26 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Polls only get you so far :)

I find the actual primary results to be more convincing than pretending I understand how people I've never met in states I've never visited will react to a campaign that hasn't happened yet.

If I knew all that I'd be a highly paid media consultant somewhere, or maybe off making money in the prediction markets :) Instead, I'm a sucker who thought Kerry would beat Bush.

by vinc 2008-05-25 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

That argument is about as powerful and convincing as David Icke's suggestion that Hillary Clinton is actually reptilian.

Seriously, Clinton and Obama are very close on policy positions, the big differences are that Obama's black and Clinton's female and that he ran a better campaign. Where's the evidence that makes him unelectable? Because it isn't in the polling.

by Englishlefty 2008-05-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton


Clinton had every advantage yes. But if Obama had started with nothing he would've lost.

But like clinton, Obama had a large home state, lot of institutional support, the second highest name recognition, the democratic party's top talent amongst his campaign team, unparaled fundraising numbers and fantastic press untill he was the frontrunner/won the nomination.

Obama and Clinton were always the two heavy weights, This was never Goliath against david, this was Goliath against Goliath. If you want to talk about candidates that started with almost nothing try Richardson, Dodd and my choice Biden.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I don't think Obama had the second highest name recognition at the beginning of this process.  That probably would have gone to John Edwards and then perhaps to Joe Biden.

by StrangeAnomaly 2008-05-26 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

If you go back to the polling from then Obama and Edwards are indeed about equal in name recognition in late 2007, Both edge out Biden by a large margin.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I still find it hard to believe this:  Mark Penn didn't understand proportional delegate allocation.  

That, in a nutshell, was the problem with the Clinton campaign

by Bargeron 2008-05-25 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

After this election, if anyone hires Mark Penn to do ANYTHING, they should have their head examined.

by fugazi 2008-05-25 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I'm sure he's already hired for Hill's 2012 run.

by catilinus 2008-05-26 12:26AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Actually the DNC should hire Mark Penn and give him a nice corner office.

A locked one, with the blinds down, without telefoon or internet.

The amount of races that we'll win because he's incapable to meddle with them would be worth it.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I'd say it's even simpler.

Not the fact that Mark Penn didn't understand proportional delegate allocation was the problem with the Clinton campaign.

Mark Penn himself was wat was the problem with the Clinton campaign.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:52AM | 0 recs
Caucus Bunk

In ran the numbers of these caucuses--IA, NV, CO, ID, KS, ME, ND, NB, WA, MN--and found out something which surprised me.  If the vote in these states had split 50/50, Obama's total of pledged delegates would go down by 63.  Clinton's total would go up by the same amount.  Obama would still have a lead of approx. 40 delegates.  And we're talking about states which Obama was going to win.

The caucus argument is bunk.  This was going to be a close race under any set of rules.  What if FL and MI had voted in fair elections?  Net swing: the most Clinton could have gotten was between 50-70 delegates (w/ the latter number assumes she won both states by margins of 20%).

Even the PV, in this "fair" race, would be totally up in the air.  If the caucuses had been primaries, turnout in these states would have been much higher, and while Obama would have netted fewer delegates he would have run up larger margins of raw votes.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-25 08:35PM | 0 recs
That deserves to be a diary.

Diary your numbers and calculations in full, please!

by Elsinora 2008-05-25 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucus Bunk

Agreed - if this is true you should definitely write it up!

by animated 2008-05-25 10:42PM | 0 recs
Hillary had everything going her way...

well not exactly.  There was this little thing you neglected to mention--the Clinton hating press. I remember watching Mr. Carlson's show last July on The Obama Network and he said that he didn't agree with O on almost anything but he liked him because he's the only one who could stop Hillary.  You see Hillary MUST BE STOPPED like she's some sort of fungus or something. Then of course Barack's 5 o'clock campaign manager, Mr. Chris (I voted for Bush and Dole) Matthews sat there in the studio and MOCKED Hillary's habit of clapping when her crowds are clapping.  I've seen Obama do the same thing but he doesn't merit a swipe.  My friend Philip asked me a while ago if Hillary would be president. I said of course not, because the media hates her.  Now I don't know Joan Walsh personally but she came to the same conclusion when she recently told Howard Kurtz that the "press hates Hillary" and also Dana Milbank said the "press had the long knives out for her in Iowa and couldn't wait til she lost."  I'm acused of whining and being a paranoid for saying this but as in the case of paranoia I'll stop being paranoid, when you stop folowing me.

by handsomegent 2008-05-25 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

No question the right-wingers hate Hillary. And while they're cool on McCain, she would have motivated the GOP to gotv against her. That's why many people have supported Obama. He's more electable because he doesn't have her negatives.

by fugazi 2008-05-25 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

The argument that the hostile media caused Clinton to lose would be far more persuasive if it was followed by some specific about which voters supposedly turned against her.  White women?  Clinton won that group.  White men over 45?  She got that one, too.  Seniors?  Check.  White men w/o college?  Yep.  And here's the thing--when this race is over it might turn out that Clinton won a majority of white male voters as a whole (and if this doesn't happen the margin will be very close and will come down to one thing--the fact that Obama scored atypically high in the CA race, +20, ahem, the state which has two female senators).

It's really easy to make the case that Obama lost voters because he's black.  You should check out the exit polls.  Wish pollsters had had the guts to ask the question straight out, because I suspect some of these voters (we're talking about approx. 20% of the Dem electorate) would have given straight answers.

Why did Obama win?  Because he cobbled together the coalition which usually backs the upstart--young people, disgruntled progressives, upwardly-mobile types, latte drinkers, Dem-leaning indies--none of these groups have a particularly strong reputation for sexism, and within these categories there weren't huge margins of difference in the gender split--and added to this tally the African-American vote.  

Understand that many people seem to have this impression that there was a huge white male backlash vote against Clinton (and if white males had gone for Obama by, say, 70%, I'd agree that would be very troubling).  Didn't happen.

Here's what did happen: Clinton basically won the white vote (and scored huge majorities among women, esp. those over 45, and, well, voters over 45 in general, esp. seniors), but Obama made up the difference, and then some, with the African-American vote.  That's the whole story in a nutshell.

And who thinks African-American voted against Clinton because she's a woman?  Nobody.  If Obama weren't in the race, she probably would have gotten 90% of their votes.  And can we agree it's not really the same offense for someone to vote FOR a candidate on the basis of age, gender, race, etc., as it is for someone to vote AGAINST a candidate for this reason? (because if it is, neither Clinton nor Obama deserve the nomination, seeing as their base was made up mostly of these voters).

So while I agree that Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, and the rest, are troubling, each in their own way, what's missing is some real connection between what they said and voter behavior at the ballot box.  It should be possible at this point to say which voters cast ballots for Obama because Clinton was female,  Give it your best shot.  I've been looking and can't find them.  

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-25 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

Goddam.  You nailed it.  Well said.

by fogiv 2008-05-25 10:36PM | 0 recs
This is only partially accurate...

Let me start with one simple question: What if Hillary and Barack were both white men? (I may do a diary on this if I have an hour or two later.)

The obvious answer: They'd fight it out all the way to the Convention, and the media wouldn't be saying a damn thing about it!

Instead, what we have is the instant gratification, MTV generation demanding, along with the media's support, that we settle this thing now.

That is the falsehood being perpetrated by those refusing to speak truth now, too.

This is the closest Democratic Primary in generations.

The Convention process--certainly just as massively flawed as the Primary process and our Electoral College process--was established precisely to handle situations just like this!

The folks talking about the rules conveniently bypass this one basic reality inherent in our Party nomination protocol.

The rules say (paraphrasing reality): 'The nominee's chosen at the convention.' PERIOD!

The ranting about Obama having the nomination locked-up, while certainly maintaining a somewhat objective position with regard to the latest canvassing of SuperDelegates--folks inherently enabled to vote as they please and also enabled to swith their votes just like the pledged delegates--is just plain false.

Nothing's "locked-up" until the Convention.

Get over it. And, I truly hope Hillary takes this thing all the way to Denver. Then we can see who's protesting about what, too.

The staunch pro-AA and pro-feminist supporters of the respective candidates--the folks at the forefront of purporting that it's racism or sexism which is at fault for the position this Party's in now depending upon which candidate they support--should, in my humble opinion, just STFU, and let a system that was designed to deal with problems just like this work itself out.

And, I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to do so, the system will do just that.

As for everyone clamoring for settling this thing now, to them I say, go read your Party history.

And, spare me the rhetoric if you're going to respond to this by telling me that the Democrats will be at a major disadvantage if they wait until August to settle this thing. After all, aren't you the same folks that stand by the rules now?

So, practice what you preach. Given an even playing field, where the rules rule, Obama should capture the nomination--formally--in Denver. Until then he'll be the likely nominee. And, that will cause all involved to realize that, at the end of the day, that IS okay.

And, we will win in November, too!

So, folks with too much time on your hands (most notably: the media), if we're going to live and die by the rules, THE RULES support everything I'm saying herein, as well.

Get over it. I will. And, as a Hillary supporter, I'll be there contributing and fighting my ass off for Obama after the covention, too.

Anything less than this is sheer railroading of one candidacy or the other. And, it belies the extremely tight nature of the vote to date, above all else, too.  

by bobswern 2008-05-26 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: This is only partially accurate...

I agree with a lot of what you say, Bob, but I also realized something a little further up the post.  I don't think that many people have any problem with Hillary staying in the race (there are precedents for close second place finishers staying in).  As you noted, she's well within the rules to stay in as long as she pleases (though eventually she'll have to lose the big "D" next to her name if she really drags it out).

The problem is, she's staying in and completely bashing the process as being unfair.  What she could say is that Obama ran a great campaign but that she's still more electable.  The way she's doing it (or maybe I'm conflating her actions with those of her supporters, and if so, I apologize) seems as though she's arguing that any result that ends up with Obama being the nominee is somehow flawed, which is very harmful to the party's chances.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: This is only partially accurate...

If they were both white men, Hillary would have dropped out after Obama won Wisconsin.  

by reggie23 2008-05-26 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This is only partially accurate...

Can you point to a single historical example of a white man anywhere near as competitive as Hillary Clinton in terms of delegates or votes dropping out halfway through the primary?

It's almost always white men, you ought to be able to point to at least one primary for evidence supporting your speculation.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

I agree the media was unfair to Clinton; that neither pundits nor reporters tend to like her is both clear and fairly well documented.  I'm not sure I'd agree the press is still being unfair, as I think the Huckabee treatment is appropriate at this point, but it's a debatable point at the very least.

But where I disagree is the idea that the press has been particularly pro-Obama.  Those reporters and pundits who dislike Clinton tend to like Obama, true, but they don't matter nearly as much as their bosses, their bosses' bosses, their bosses' bosses' bosses, and so on all the way up to the boardrooms of corporations like News Corp, General Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, Disney.  The dozen or so companies that control the news, the magazines, the television, and most of the music and movies all have the same agenda and they all have the same candidate--John McCain.  For this aim, they've done all they can to sensationalize the Democratic primary, keep the spotlight on the petty and inane rather than the substantial, and generally encourage infighting.

And unfortunately, they've been quite successful.  I mean, everybody hates Bush.  McCain hitched his horse to Bush's unpopular war, and is indistinguishable from Bush on the economy.  Even the Republican base dislikes him, not on the issues (except for immigration, the only issue with the power to motivate the right at the moment,  which they think McCain is wrong on), but for his personality, of all things.  And yet, here we are, arguing over electability, fretting over electoral maps, worrying that McCain might beat our front-runner.  There are even (some) polls confirming this pessimism!

One way or another, we need to get our act together.

by leftneck 2008-05-25 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

When all else fails, blame the press.

by venician 2008-05-25 10:00PM | 0 recs
Booo! It's the press!

You know, a lot of the press hated Bill too, but Bill managed to succeed anyway.  To the extent that the press is anti-Hillary (I'll take your point merely for the sake of argument), Hillary's failure to manage the negativity is not a good sign.  

Recall that for weeks the press was harping on Wright 24/7, and yet Obama turned that around and went to the people.  

Blaming the press is just an excuse.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

The press is obnoxious, but it is also malleable.  It's the job of campaigns to manipulate the press.  This is done by framing a narrative of the campaign and by the rapid response operation.  The Bill Clinton and George W. Bush campaigns were very good at this.  The Hillary Clinton campaign has actually done pretty well working the press the last couple months, but the race had been decided in February.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-26 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

You ready to have some kind of discourse, hg?  I guess the whole assassination madness provided enough cover for your really offense troll diary.  If anyone's curious, I'm sure it's still floating around here somewhere if he is.

by minnesotaryan 2008-05-26 06:49AM | 0 recs
I think some of you people are FAR too...

dismissive of the role of the press in this campaign.  One of the bigegst bruhahahs before Iowas was the Hillary planted a question at a Q and A.  That was treated as if it really were a big deal to portray her as a totally dishonest fraud. Whether she knew it or not planting questions in Q and A sessions among politicians is fairly common.  Why wasn't there a row when an Obama staffer was caught sitting in the audience and asking Obama a question in Independence Iowa. Ah, then there's the NUMBER One media time to shine--the debates.  Don't sit there with a straight face and tell me that Russert in particular wasn't out to play "gotcha" with HRC during that Oct 30th masterpiece.  Did you see him in action when he previously moderated the Clinton/Lazio debate in 2000? He's like a snarling beast seeking his prey, even SNL thought he was an asshole.

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

I was living in Germany in the fall.  I watched CNN occasionally.  In November, before the CNN Republican debate, the trailer literally said, "The Democratic nomination is pretty much sewn up, but the Republican one is wide open.  Watch the debate!"

The press thought Clinton would win.  In all honesty, I'm pretty sure that the RWCM wanted her to win, because she'd be easier to beat in November... but the fact remains, she was "inevitable" until Iowa.

by Chicago Lulu 2008-05-26 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary had everything going her way...

Did you see the Fox News Republican debate from Florida where there was an entire segment of questioning specifically devoted to Hillary Clinton?  It afforded them the chance to make every snide remark they could think of.  Was Obama mentioned and did he become a target, no?  Besides with HRC having such an enormous lead in the polls I grant you it seemed as if she had locked it up. But all it took was that Oct 30th debate to break the dam and then the piling on began.

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

For all the Clinton dead-enders... how dare you say John McCain will whip Obama. Do you seriously think it was that easy to overcome all the odds to beat the Clintons? The more often you say Obama will lose in the general, the more you denegrate the Clintons' political abilities.

by stevema14420 2008-05-25 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Remember last fall, when everyone thought Obama was lagging and he was consistently down 20 points in the national polls? Then he stepped up at exactly the right moment and gave that speech at the Jefferson Jackson dinner. He paced his campaign perfectly and knew exactly what he was doing.

by animated 2008-05-25 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

The other day a friend of mine said that when he told people in November and December that he was for Obama, people looked at him with pity, because they were convinced that Obama would get knocked out early.  What Obama's done is truly incredible.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-25 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I saw that speech and thought that it was a little overrated.  Of course people from Illinois were bussed in to provide background noise.  I heard Andrew Sullivan on TV gushing about it later.  I thought he was going to squirt right there he was so thrilled about the speech.

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 01:34PM | 0 recs
Even Rigged The NASA Probe

by NorthDallasForty 2008-05-25 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Even Rigged The NASA Probe

...if only Obama hadn't stolen the Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator!  Anyone see where I left my ACME Disintegration Pistol?

by fogiv 2008-05-25 10:39PM | 0 recs
You are all putting too much emphasis on tactics

and strategy and the shape of the gameboard.

The fact is, Hillary and her people DESIGNED and CONTROLLED THE MAKING of this gameboard.

But they didn't lose because Obama cheated or  was brilliant or because Hillary was dumb or wasted money or Mark Penn was a jerk.

There really were issues in this election, and that seems to have been glossed over by the potatoheads that run our media discourse who don't see any difference between them.

Hillary knew the difference.  Recall what she said at that fundraiser that was caught on tape.  It's not a big gaffe.  It's just TRUE and HONEST.

"[T]he activist base of the Democratic Party... [T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Just absorb that for a minute.  This isn't a scandal or something to be outraged about.  It's just basically correct.  The activist base (meaning, I suppose, the anti-war activists, the Dirty Fucking Fippies, the Cindy Sheehans, the Dixie Chicks, and most of the blogosphere) disagrees with her foreign policy, "... and they know I don't agree with them."  

So it's all there, out in the open for just one brief moment. No need to spin it in either direction.  Those of us that disagreed with her showed up at the caucuses and voted against her.  

I might disagree with the characterization that we "intimidated people who actually show up to support me."  I didn't vote in a caucus, so I can't speak to that directly.  But true or not, that too reflects the tremendous passion that helped bring her down.  It wasn't sexist.  It wasn't corporatist.  It was frustration with the Democratic Party and its establishment figures that had let us down repeatedly since the 2002 AUMF.  

Edwards tried to tap into that frustration and fervor, as well, but Obama did it best.  Obama used the simple single word "Change," and those people that were fed up heard it however they wanted to hear it.  Meanwhile, Hillary was refusing to apologize for the AUMF, voted for Kyl-Lieberman just weeks before Iowa.

She lost one of the single most dangerous demographic groups she could lose in liberal caucus states during an unpopular war.  Pissed off liberals.  Everything else stemmed from that.  

The Clintons' strategic disaster, therefore, sprung from their policy disaster.  And there's no way to excuse your way out of that.

by Dumbo 2008-05-25 09:33PM | 0 recs
Dumbo's right

She'd be planning her acceptance speech right now if she had the political courage to stand up to Bush on AUMF.  Instead, she modulated her Senate career to position herself for the 2008 run.  Having cut her teeth in the eighties and nineties when Republicans controlled the debate and "soft on defense" and "liberal' were scary words, she naturally rolled over on Iraq. She couldn't foresee that the political landscape was going to change drastically once Iraq turned out to be the disaster predicted by the war's opponents. Now, she's paying for her folly, and in my view, deservedly so.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-25 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Dumbo's right

I'm not even sure she rolled over. Based on everything I've seen in this campaign, I'd say Hillary, while progressive on many domestic issues, is closer to Lieberman on foreign policy than she is to Obama or Edwards.

by animated 2008-05-25 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: You are all putting too much emphasis on tacti

Spot on my friend, spot on.

Would mojo if I could.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 10:50PM | 0 recs
100% Correct

There's been alot of points that I agree with, but none more then this one.  For any Clinton supporter that has any actual interest in how this was lost (that includes you Alegre), they should look no further then this comment.

by herenow 2008-05-26 07:15AM | 0 recs
Admittedly... she ran a far inferior campaign,

and lost accordingly. She squandered many of her advantages at the outset. And you know what they say about hindsight...

by sricki 2008-05-25 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Thanks for the animated diary. It was another tall glass of cool water in my desert of denial. It's always a shocker to remember who was winning the election until the votes started.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I actually wonder how much of the system was rigged against Clinton.  I know some of it was decidedly in her favor, like big money, name recognition, and party connections.  But I wonder if her baggage wasn't a problem too - with voters and with the media.  I mean, she had unusually high negatives, and has for years.

I also wonder if she hasn't made enemies within the party, who are as quick to oppose her as many were to endorse her.  If it's true that she rewards loyalty and punishes perceived disloyalty, I bet a lot of people have a problem with that and how coercive it feels.  We hear about the triangulation strategy, which feels kind of mercenary and lacking principle.  That might not sit so well, either.  And the same with any other character flaws people have seen in her over the years.

I've spent much of the nomination assuming she had it all but locked up from the beginning.  But now I wonder if there wasn't a backlash waiting to happen all along.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-25 10:21PM | 0 recs
"high negatives" and "baggage"

are not signs of rigging, and they are not part of the "system."  They are among the things we take into consideration when we vote.

by kellogg 2008-05-26 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

What an excellent diary.  The fact that Hillary had a huge superdelegate lead before a single vote had been cast can't be repeated enough.

In the single metric that required actual voters to show up and cast their vote -- pledged delegates -- Barack Obama has been ahead from the first caucus in Iowa and has expanded his lead on almost every voting day.

To hear the Clinton campaign now talk about 'the will of the people' as it relates to the mythical 'popular vote' after amassing such a large superdelegate lead before any vote had been cast lays plain their brazen hypocrisy.  And to hear talk of letting all the voters have their say when Clinton herself is on record as having said that the contest would be over on Super Tuesday is just so sad.

by chinapaulo 2008-05-25 10:23PM | 0 recs
She also started with a cash advantage

I believe it was $10 million from her senate account.

So on day one;

$10 Mil cash from senate campaign
100 SD's
100 percent name recognition
Popular ex-President on the stump

and She still lost.

by parahammer 2008-05-26 02:06AM | 0 recs
it is why i don't see unity - no union with cult

by engels 2008-05-26 02:39AM | 0 recs
Re: it is why i don't see unity - no union with cu

I find it odd that some on this site persist in calling Obama supporters cult members... If willful disregard of facts and parroting pretzel logic talking points is any indication of cult-like behavior, I would say some of the Clinton supporters are much more headed in that direction....

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-26 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: it is why i don't see unity - no union with cu

i went to Obama's gathering a few times: it is typical religious or cult assemblies, with no tolerance toward different school of thoughts. it is also obvious on dkos - basically gigantic virtual megachurch with 0 tolerance. All churches and cults have to be totally separated and removed from public life, because they all based on lies and false hopes

by engels 2008-05-26 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: it is why i don't see unity - no union with cu

If this were true...

...it is also obvious on dkos - basically gigantic virtual megachurch with 0 tolerance. All churches and cults have to be totally separated and removed from public life, because they all based on lies and false hopes

...it would be easy to prove.

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 05:08AM | 0 recs
Funny, you sound...

just like my VERY conservative father-in-law... Dad, is that you?

by igottheblues 2008-05-26 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

No the system was rigged for Obama.

West Virginia and Kentucky were disenfranchised by being so late in the process.

Had these states voted on February 5th, Hillary would have won.

HIllary should be the nominee.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-05-26 03:05AM | 0 recs

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton


Don't use words you don't understand.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-26 03:19AM | 0 recs

that the two comments you made within the last 15 minutes were the first two you made on this site, I'm curious...

How much are they paying you to McBlog?

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Considering...

This was directed at HillsMyGirl, obviously. :P

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Considering...

I got it and noticed the same darn thing... :)

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-26 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

The "rules" were set in place for the Democratic primary long before anyone knew who Barack Obama was! Saying the primary was rigged for Obama is Ludicrous.

by feliks 2008-05-26 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Uprated because, whatever the poster's motivations, I'm not convinced that it's an attempt at trolling.

Incredibly stupid, yes, but maybe not trolling.

by nathanp 2008-05-26 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

...or not. It turns out I'm no longer able to rate. Oh well.

by nathanp 2008-05-26 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

by TCQuad 2008-05-26 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Of course the game was rigged for her; she had a damn machine for fundraising and gaining support among powerful local and state level organizations, and 20 years worth of big time favors to call in

She also had more money, and a huge lead in the polls as of Dec 31, 2007

Now she's whinging like a sore loser, which is what most Americans can see clearly that she -- and her diehard supporters -- really are

by fightbull 2008-05-26 06:15AM | 0 recs
Fantastic diary....

Can not rec this enough.  Clinton supporters keep pushing their heads deeper in the sand to ignore little nuggets of truth like this, irony at its finest.

by Seeking Cincinnatus 2008-05-26 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Rules and Rigging

I continue to be amazed by Clinton supporters aghast about rules, which have been reviled as unfair and undemocratics.  Its nonsense, of course, since the rules were known to all years in advance.  It makes it all the worse to compalin when the formner DNC chair is part of your campaign team.

What really screwed Clinton ---- Super Tuesday.  

Obama and Clinton split Super Tues.  From the Iopwa caucuses to Super Tuesday, vitually every Democratic candidate dropped out of the race and by the end of Super Tuesdaq, edwards dropped out making the nomination battle a two person race.

The story line for the media was that neither candidate would reach the 2025 delegate margin with pledged delegates.  Obama won 11 contests in a row after that, the majority of which Clinton did not compete in aggressively.  To some degree, her strategy made sense, some of the contests were caucuses that her campaign had never really developed a startegy for winning, others were insanely red state (eg Idaho), and others were states with an overwhelming African American population (eg MS).  

By the time Ohio and Texas came up in March, the media storyline became Clinton was struggling financially, was in desparate need of a win, and finally that due to losing 11 contests in a row in February, Clinton was in second place.

The storyline would have been very different if there weren't 22 frontloaded primaries.  

First, the media would have focused more on the back and forth nature of the race.

Second, Clinton's fundraising fiasco probably would have been fixed more efficaciously and more quietly (It was a week long story).  

Third, I think Clinton could have retained her Superdelegates and drawn more to her side.  

Fourth, Clinton is a fighter, a bruising brawling type.  The bitterness between these two camps would have been much less public because despite her instinct to fight, Clinton would ahve been in a more comfortable "I am doing well, I am in the lead, and I may need Obama as a VP choice and as an ally" situation.

Super Tuesday is the ultimate tool of elitism and an anti-democratic process.  The concept of a gruelling lengthy primary campaign is to avoid a nominee that was popular for a week.  

If you think Obama is a bad candidate for the GE, Super Tuesday gave him legs.  

If you feel Clinton was undermined by the process, consider this.  At HRC headquarters, there was probably alot of calenadrs of this to do for Iowa, NH, SC, and NV.  And we all know how hard HRC worked on Super Tuesday.  Its obvious though that the campaign figured it would be a done deal after that or she could close the deal in early March.  that's why the ball was droppped on fundraising.  that's why Clinton seemed to go into each contest in February at the last second as if to say "I figured he'd win this but give me credit for trying".  Beyond that, nobody had the job to make February competive and worse still, nobody was brought in to stop the bleeding


by kmwray 2008-05-26 06:36AM | 0 recs
Deconwatch has a front page post
With Graphics:


by DemsRising 2008-05-26 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Very good diary.  How conveniently the reality of not that long ago has been forgotten.

by noquacks 2008-05-26 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

I was just looking at the site about the HBO movie about the 2000 election recount. It was so depressing, but it helped me to realzie something very important. I was a hard core Gore supporter and it causes me great pain to be reminded that I witnessed a bloodless coup d'etat against a man that I feel would have been the greatest president since JFK.

I still have days where I scarely believe that ths happened. I have other days when I try to imagine what the world would be like had Al Gore been allowed to serve the term(s) he was elected to serve.

Lastly, I was so disappointed that he chose not to run in 2008. Now we are stuck with Obama and McCain, neither of whom do anything for me (yes, Obama is better than McCain). What I have realized is that presidential politics is a parlor game that no longer means anything to me. Gore got ripped off and the world will never be the same. Sorry folks, I just can't move on. Good luck to your favorite candidate, but I just realize that I no longer care.

by northstars 2008-05-26 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

There is a lot of denial going on at myDD. HRC was cheated, BO can't win...blah, blah, blah.

Grow up and get with the program. JSM is going down in Novenmber---ya'll may as well do something productive with your time and efforts....like say, i don't know maybe beating the repubs in to the dirt. I say we got 'em down, nows the time to relly let them have it!

by helo 2008-05-26 07:20AM | 0 recs
One more graphic
because I was interested in the weekly total garnered by each candidate and
their respective cummulative totals:


by DemsRising 2008-05-26 07:28AM | 0 recs
The black vote helped Obama

I'm an Obama supporter - and have been, since before he announced - but it should be noted what happens when a democratic nomination candidate gets such dismal support among black voters.

How Hillary Clinton botched the black vote

one little-discussed factor (with direct or indirect relation to all of the above) appears to have had fatal consequences for Clinton's campaign: She failed to mount a strong enough challenge to Obama's claim on the African-American vote.

had she improved her performance to just 20 percent, she would have significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely, her national popular-vote deficit (even without the disputed Florida and Michigan returns). And because the formula for assigning delegates favors the candidate who wins delegate-rich urban areas, Clinton could have limited the lopsided delegate-per-vote ratio Obama enjoyed in states ranging from Alabama to Maryland to Wisconsin.


despite their nearly identical home-state levels of white support, Obama netted more pledged delegates from Illinois (55) than Clinton did from New York (46), even though New York had far more delegates at stake.


Clinton squeezed out the same number of net delegates from her 17-point win in New York and 9-point win in Pennsylvania as Obama did in his 31-point win in Illinois -- even though New York and Pennsylvania combined (232 and 141 pledged delegates, respectively, for a total of 373) awarded nearly two and half times the delegates that Illinois did (153).

Nor can the results in those three states be dismissed as a case of Obama's manipulating the caucus system to squeeze out delegates from low-turnout contests, because Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania were all primary states -- and closed, registered-Democrats-only primary states at that. The combined returns from the three states, in fact, produced 118,603 more popular votes for Obama than for Clinton.


The black vote was to Obama what small-state white voters in the Electoral College were to George W. Bush in 2000 -- namely, a concentrated bloc of voters whose power magnified their preferred candidate's electoral support beyond their absolute numerical value. For African-Americans, this should come as a pleasant irony, given the controversies about the counting of their votes in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio four years later.

by Bucky 2008-05-26 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The black vote helped Obama

I agree that she did, though her advisers recognized before Obama entered the race that African Americans would give him a huge advantage in the Democratic primary and would force her to scramble to expand her base. I don't think they expected, and what I don't know how she could have counteracted, that Obama would use race to divide the party. Once he did that after New Hampshire it was almost impossible for her to mount a strong enough challenge for African Americans.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 08:07AM | 0 recs
Obama would use race to divide the party

It is rather pointless for us to argue about who used race to divide. But is it at all posible to get you to admit that Hillary Clinton has had a tin ear when it comes to pandering to the black vote?

Cocaine dealer?

The Jessie Jackson comments in SC?

Hispanics won't vote for blacks?

Obama is "not qualified to lead"?

"It took a president to get it done" (not MLK)

casual use of the word Assassination.

"hard working, white americans"

It sure doesn't seem to me like she wants any black votes.

As for examples on Obama, there isn't anything other than the appalling crap that JJ JR said, and that stupid (on Obama's part) memo just before SC.

That's it. It's plain and simple - Hillary could have pandered to the AA vote, and gotten 1 out of five, instead of the 1 out of 9 that she has earned. And that, would have made up the difference of how much she is down right now.

by Bucky 2008-05-26 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama would use race to divide the party

Obama was happy to jump into the mud and use whatever statements he could find to assassinate Hillary Clinton's character. The only way to deal with someone who is willing to go that low is to get down there with them, and for whatever reason Hillary Clinton held back. There are plenty of stupid statements from Obama surrogates she could have used for pure character attacks, but she only called foul on comments that were completely out of bounds (calling her a monster) or used comments from Obama himself that demonstrated a large disconnect from the lives of many voters (clinging to religion).

A more politically adept candidate may have been able to better parry Obama's attacks that you highlight, but I think a more adept candidate would have recognized where Obama was headed and responded in kind.

by souvarine 2008-05-26 08:46AM | 0 recs
whatever n/t

by Bucky 2008-05-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama would use race to divide the party

"Obama was happy to jump into the mud and use whatever statements he could find to assassinate Hillary Clinton's character. ,,, Hillary Clinton held back."

Can you provide any examples at all of Obama 'assassinating' Hillary'ss character, or her being restrained? I can only find examples of the reverse, where Clinton has tried every attack that she can think of, and he's responded by trying to elevate the debate and focus on policies instead of 'gotcha' attacks.

"A more politically adept candidate may have been able to better parry Obama's attacks."

Yes, the combination of having unpopular policies (running against the core of the party, pro-war, etc.) and a misguided campaign strategy ('it will all be over on Super Tuesday", "caucus states don't count", etc.) has allowed Clinton to lose the nomination contest where she was 'inevitable'. That's not usually what you look for in a leader.

by laird 2008-05-26 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama would use race to divide the party

She's white.  Besides, it did take a president to get it done.  She didn't demean MLK at all.  Supposedly Teddy K was so infuriated with her. oh really, least we forget his beloved brother Bobby had Martin Luther King WIRETAPPED for supposed Communist ties.

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama would use race to divide the party

How is "Not qualified to lead" an anti black comment?

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-27 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The black vote helped Obama

I just don't see this.

Why would the candidate from the minority racial group seek to divide the party on racial lines?

by Englishlefty 2008-05-27 08:04AM | 0 recs
Hillary should have walked away with this thing

No Democratic presidential candidate has ever run a campaign with such huge advantages on many fronts- huge cash advantage, establishment support, a powerful political name, a tireless campaign partner, connections, you name it.

Enough with the excuses.

by richochet 2008-05-26 07:53AM | 0 recs
The system wasn't exactly rigged for Obama..

but the caucus system in Iowa was a joke which ended up in his favor.  Even his wife said it was over if he ddin't win Iowa.  A lot of "establishment" Democrats HATE the Clintons by the way and Obama came along as a repository for that hatred.  Anyway I'm still staying home in November.

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 09:04AM | 0 recs
yeah, thanks...go troll for McCain

by kindthoughts 2008-05-26 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: yeah, thanks...go troll for McCain

Troll, Smoll

by handsomegent 2008-05-26 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

God it is so funny how people allow perception to dominate their thought process. If Clinton was such an insider, if this primary was so rigged in her favor Obama wouldn't have stood a chance; he would've been cut off at the pass not lifted up & supported.

As somebody who was never overly optimistic in the level of intelligence displayed by most people, this race has STILL managed to astonish me at how simple minded people can be. I am completely disgusted at the poor attitudes & level of ignorance I have witnessed displayed.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

He shouldn't have stood a chance.

Clinton was just that dismal a candidate.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-26 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Yeah that must be it.  There can't possibly have been ANYTHING else apparent.  I mean she has NEVER been a part of an election that has won a primary or a G/E before - it is much more credible that she doesn't know how to maneuver through one again @@. Please - talk about arrogance. Hillary Clinton is a wonderful candidate who has been completely treated like a piece of garbage by the DLC.  Obviously she is NOT the political insider that people would like to think or whatever perceived campaign issues she has (@@) would have been minimized to ensure she was propped as the nominee.  Instead Obama has been propped up for quite some time & the man's campaign has not exactly been graceful (and Lord knows we have yet to even experience someone attempting to smear him which will happen in the G/E).  I am sick of this attitude - it is seriously disgusting me.  The only thing that makes me concerned enough to consider voting for Obama is the Supreme Court issue. However his campaign has taken a voter who was ardently anti-GOP & highly politically active (I switched my registration from Independent to Democrat for the first time EVER!) to being beyond disenfranchised,  insulted, worried and disgusted. But as I've heard time and again noone cares about that; after all there can't be any valid concern here, it must just be an entitlement complex.  What a load of garbage!

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

   She has not been treated like a piece of garbage by any in the Democratic Party. She simply is not supported by most of them. She used to be, and took that for granted. That's no one's fault but hers.

  Obama was dismissed as a lightweight until he soundly defeated Hillary in IA. It wasn't even close.

  You were not disenfranchised. your candidate simply didn't win. If you feel that's disenfranchisement, well then you are as ignorant as you claim Obama supporters are.

by southernman 2008-05-26 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

She is either a political insider or NOT.  If she was such an insider the party wouldn't be propping Obama up in the way they have been.  Hillary Clinton has given much to this country & the party & to be cast aside like this is nothing less then disgusting.  To not even see how ridiculously awful she has been treated is truly ignorant.  

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 08:22PM | 0 recs

Candidates not JUST Clinton.  Obama was the ONLY MAJOR candidate I DID NOT WANT TO BE NOMINATED. TO REPEAT he was THE only major candidate whose nomination I was seriously opposed too. SO STOP SAYING THAT MY CANDIDATE WAS NOT NOMINATED!!! I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH OTHER OPTIONS - THIS IS THE ONLY ONE I WAS MOST CONCERNED ABOUT!!! Unfortunately, my concerns are NOT being eased by his campaign; instead I have become nothing short of disgusted & dismayed by the conduct of the party that I was so willing to enthusiastically support as will as his campaign which somehow seems to erroneously believe that the party's propping of him is b/c of his credibility @@.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

"She is either a political insider or NOT."

Let's see. She spent 8 years in the Whitehouse as first lady. Her husband was a two term President and he is to Democrats what Reagan was (and still is) to Republicans. Bill Clinton is one of the greatest minds on the planet and his connections inside the party are enormous. Hillary Clinton started with a 100 point superdelegate lead before a vote was even cast. She was the decided favorite from the beginning.

"Hillary Clinton has given much to this country & the party & to be cast aside like this is nothing less then disgusting."

Yeah, it's disgusting the way we cast her aside by voting for someone else. The nomination was her birthright, after all.  

"To not even see how ridiculously awful she has been treated is truly ignorant."

I do not trust her integrity, nor her moral courage. I have always been a HUGE supporter of Bill Clinton and the job he did as President. But that in no way, shape or form excludes HRC from criticism and close scrutiny.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

If she was such a political insider Obama would NOT be the nominee. Period. End of Story. Hell he didn't even meet resistance from the party, so give me a break.

It is disgusting how her accomplishments and all that she has given to the country be barely acknowledged and only met with cries of "Get out of the way - I want the inexperienced guy! How dare you continue to pursue a nomination you have spent 30+years earning!"  And then to question her moral integrity in the face of this unknown individual who at best we hope can do a good job, because we have nothing to base his capability on...yes that is disgusting.

And I love how you support Bill Clinton but not Hillary - can't imagine the implications there. Somehow I doubt there is a major divide between the two of them morally and, given her activity in Government for all of these years, in ability either.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-27 02:03PM | 0 recs
Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"

If she was such a political insider Obama would NOT be the nominee. Period. End of Story.

Yes, because democracy is doomed and the people are incapable of voting for anybody except for who happens to be the biggest Washington insider.

So let me get this straight. It's your position that the two-term Presidential family Clintons are NOT political insiders?

It is disgusting how her accomplishments and all that she has given to the country be barely acknowledged and only met with cries of "Get out of the way - I want the inexperienced guy! How dare you continue to pursue a nomination you have spent 30+years earning!"

Please provide me with this 30+ year time line of all she has done for this country.

And I love how you support Bill Clinton but not Hillary - can't imagine the implications there.

Yes, the idea that I recognize they are two different people is shocking.

Somehow I doubt there is a major divide between the two of them morally and, given her activity in Government for all of these years, in ability either.

You don't want to go down the morality road. Clinton did a very good job governing but his integrity was obviously questionable.

Now let's look at the ACTUAL Candidate.

Here is one of her wonderful contributions

"This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make.  Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

She lied three times about her, her daughter and even Sinbad receiving sniper fire. She lied about opposing NAFTA. On Obama's "bitter" gaffe Clinton claimed to be a gun toting young girl with papa behind the shed... when she had previously claimed to have NEVER had a gun in the home. She claimed to have spoken out against the war before Obama, a lie.

Ever since Rush Limbaugh has campaigned for Republican spoiler votes the Clintons have been courting the GOP. This includes Bill Clinton appearing on the Limbaugh show itself, and by the way, Limbaugh is the same guy who referred to their daughter as "the Whitehouse dog".  

Clinton was all for "disenfranchising" MI and FL... that is... until she was LOSING

And while you might argue that it's fair to seat MI when Clinton was the only name on the ballot, her outcry is POLITICALLY motivated. Because not only did we hear crickets when she was the perceived frontrunner, she SIGNED ON TO the idea of "punishing" FL and MI (see above video).

If she wants to do a Mike Huckabee and stay in 'till the end, so be it. But the kitchen sink strategy, and acts of desperation are not good for the party and they're not good for the country.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-27 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"

If you don't even have a basic knowledge of history to understand the experience Hillary Clinton has, then there is no point in attempting to converse with you. I am sick of attempting to school people on this; it disgusts me how slighted she has been. The fact that you even have the AUDACITY to ask what experience she has demonstrates how disgustingly she has been treated.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-27 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"

It's hilarious because the only experience you give Obama credit for is in the US Senate, when he HIMSELF has a long history of public service that is match by very few.

And yet Bill Clinton get's elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978 and suddenly the clock starts ticking with his wife's experience?

Yes, as an American I have the AUDACITY to scrutinize the candidates and compare them. The kids haven't been playing nice with poor, poor Hillary Clinton.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-27 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"

Hillary Clinton's experience cannot merely be summed up to being the wife of a politician & the fact that you make that argument shows a serious cognitive gap on your end.  Obama & Clinton's experience is not at the same level whatsoever. Given all that she has given to this country & the party, the manner which she has been treated is once again repugnant.  The fact that you are oblivious to this makes me wonder how much separates the mentality of the typical GOP voter with the typical Obama supporter.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-28 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"


the fact that you make that argument shows a serious cognitive gap on your end.


this makes me wonder how much separates the mentality of the typical GOP voter with the typical Obama supporter.

In this post alone that makes two ad hominem attacks with and still ZERO specifics.

Also, she is running for President of the United States of America. She should face very strict scrutiny. It is not her birthright. And in the words of Hillary Clinton herself I quote: "I say if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! (crowd cheers) And I feel very comfortable in the kitchen"

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-28 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh: "The Whitehouse Dog"

I think Hillary Clinton knows EXACTLY what it is like to face extreme scrutiny, considering she has been examined in probably one of the most unparalleled fashions ever over the past DECADES!

Seriously, I'm not making attacks; rather you keep making statements that demonstrate a substantive lack of knowledge about the candidates.  Unfortunately it is not all that uncommon. I have attempted in the past to educate people in a bit more detail & after awhile when they have to admit to Clinton's skilled background the debate disintegrates to 1) saying "Well I like that Obama isn't a politician," @@ 2) linking to right wing attack sites that attempt to discredit her in response to specific points OR 3)some sort of misogynistic discourse ala one poster who just started typing bitch over and over again with glee..@@ Seriously I am so NOT doing this again, b/c as I have found these types of initial statements always lead to one of the 3 types of responses, which only sicken me more.

by jrsygrl 2008-06-01 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Reality has a well-known Obama bias.

by chicagovigilante 2008-05-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Well I guess if you say it enough times it makes it true.  Works for the GOP everytime.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Actually it has nothing to do with what I say or what anyone else says. It has everything to do with the metrics that we use to select our nominee. So the mathematical reality is that Senator Obama has a virtual lock on the nomination.

by chicagovigilante 2008-05-26 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

Yes the supposed political insider has the SDs tripping over themselves to prop up the opposing candidate. That is the Obama reality.

by jrsygrl 2008-05-26 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: If Anything, The System Was Rigged For Clinton

No "if anything" about it.  The primary was custom made for Hillary.  

And she still lost.  And some people think this person should be the president?  

by tibbs 2008-05-26 01:43PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads