…is not just a catchy song by the All American Rejects but it is also where Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign may fall as of 10pm [eastern time] tonight after the Montana and South Dakota primaries.
Finally. I must concede that I am a proud supporter of Senator Barack Obama; I actually called him as a presidential candidate in 2004 after he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention [watch here or read here]. However, political preferences and viewpoints aside, I’m glad it will soon be over.
I am not a fan of Senator Hillary Clinton. She may have paved the way for many women in such-and-so fields and areas, she may [or may not] have had an instrumental role in whatever policy of her husband’s administration, and she may be a wonderful person. However, once her Bosnia slip-up happened I did lose a bit of respect for Senator Clinton. When did “misspoke” become the new word for “lied”? We all know she told that little story several times and we all watched the media fiasco that ensued. Exaggerating and even lying about your “foreign experience” is not a good sign, especially when a large part of what our president does is foreign policy and relations. Now many people may object that Senator Obama is no more experienced than Mrs. Clinton, even less so, in fact. This may be true, but at least he hasn’t lied about it. Now we can all move past her misspeaking – we all do it from time to time, just not while running for president – but then there’s this issue of how to define “winning” the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
Last year – sometime before September 6th – all but 2 of the democratic presidential candidates agreed not to campaign in any state other than those approved by the DNC that held its primary before February 5th, 2008. The states that held their primaries before February 5th would be stripped of their delegates as penalty for breaking the rules. Florida and Michigan decided to call the DNC’s bluff and held their primaries before the approved date. Well, this is all good and fine until Senator Clinton decides she needs [and very much wants] the extra delegates. Barack Obama was not well known early on outside his state of Illinois and Senator Clinton easily won the Florida primary; the case has been made that had he campaigned in Florida he would have had a better showing and Clinton would not have been handed a win via name recognition. This poses a problem. Is it fair that Clinton be declared winner in a state that may not have seen a fair fight, in a state that blatantly broke its party’s rules, and be awarded all their delegates despite the consequences that were well known before hand? In Michigan, Senator Obama – maybe being naive, maybe just not as calculating as Clinton – took his name off of the primary ballot. The were breaking the rules and he was operating under the assumption that the party’s rules would be enforced; that is, that Michigan’s delegates would not be awarded. How do you expect people to vote when they show up to the ballot box and see one name they recognize, and then “uncommitted” as a choice? Well, as one might expect, Clinton won the primary. But, let’s not forget that “uncommitted” received 40% of the vote. How do you award delegates from a state that broke its party’s rules, where it cannot be ascertained how many votes went to each candidate? We can never really know how many “uncommitted” votes went to Obama or Edwards or any of the other candidates for that matter. On May 31 the DNC Rules Committee met and a deal was reached that gave some delegates here and there to both candidates.
The problem was not necessarily with the FL/MI primaries – but with how Senator Clinton was using them to her advantage. I suppose technically she followed the rules; and the rules didn’t say she couldn’t argue for seating their delegations in the event that she had a strong showing. But it was a little off-putting for her to argue so vehemently that their full delegations be seated. It amounted to, “it’s not my fault you didn’t campaign there and you lost. They voted for me and I want their delegates.” Yet, when the delegate count was no longer an expedient measure of victory, Clinton started arguing the popular vote angle. She’s actually argued every angle in the book – white, working class, women, old, young, popular vote, delegate, location – and yet none have been sufficient. I guess I just don’t understand why it has to be so convoluted and difficult. I don’t understand why she couldn’t concede that yes, the party uses delegates as their measure of victory. And I just don’t like that she sent the message that it’s okay to break your national party’s election rules.
The long road is almost over. Obama is just 9 delegates away from that “magic number” that will clinch the nomination…barring some other redefinition of “winning” or the party’s rules. The convention isn’t so far away; I suppose we’ll find out then. Until then, he’ll be the “presumptive” nominee.
Hopefully it ends tonight. And since she’s an extremely adept politician, I imagine Senator Clinton will be able to kiss and make up, to gracefully support her opponent in November, and to fight for the victory of her party. I may not be a fan of hers, and I may have lost a bit of respect for her after her blunders – as I’m sure people lost a bit of respect for Obama after his – but I do not underestimate her desire to see her party win in November.
So Senator Clinton, let us say it ends tonight; your party and your country will thank you.
