One last fling at Senator Clinton, just a couple more of her delusional claims that I feel the need to address, and then I will dump her on the slag heap of history.
She is claiming that she is winning now after losing for so long because she has finally “found her true voice” as the populist, beer- and shot-drinking champion of the “hard working” blue collar class. Apparently people who make more than $50K per year do not work hard for it. Hmmm. She better not say that in person to my wife.
Why should we believe that this is her true persona, anyway? It’s about the fourth or fifth one she’s tried. The “inevitable” one didn’t work very well, the “ready on day one” one didn’t work, the “obliterate Iran” one didn’t work… The truth is that there is no “real Hillary.” Hillary Clinton will become whoever she needs to be to get votes.
I have no real problem with her staying in the race, and I don’t even really object to her using some rather delusional arguments as to why people should vote for her. I do object to her using arguments that weaken the Democratic Party and which delegitimize the eventual winner, such as her claim the she is leading in the popular vote.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, that claim can only be supported by including Florida and Michigan and by eliminating all of the caucus results. The states of Florida and Michigan are invalid not just because the Democratic Party declared them to be, but because an unknown number of voters stayed home for those elections knowing that those elections would not count. They simply cannot be considered representative elections.
Not only do you have to include Florida and Michigan and eliminate all of the caucus states to support Clinton’s claim, you also have to assume that not one single person in Michigan voted for Obama; that more than a quarter of a million people who voted “uncommitted” were actually voting for some imaginary person with that name or were expressing with their votes that they did not care who won.
Hillary Clinton is insisting that the eventual nominee will either be a person who had fewer popular votes, or a person who had fewer elected delegates, one or the other. She is insisting that the Democrats field a nominee who can be claimed to be not a legitimate winner of the nomination process. In the same breath she is claiming to be “fully committed” to supporting the cause of the election of a Democrat to the White House in November.
That’s her delusion; not that she can win; that she is supporting her party.
I don't realy believe she ever was a "populist".. She is more of an elitist like she accused BO of being. And most people who make high incomes come to that by hard work and effort and drive. Yes, blue collar workers work hard, sure. But that does not mean no one else does.
ReplyDeleteOh and you forgot the " I've been an agent of change for 35 years". Which is a BS argument at best. Of course, she's tried so many, it's easy to lose track of her many personalities. It seems that she's becoming more and more a caracature of herself.. if such is possible.
I think that is at least one reason that her campaign is failing, that people are really seening through the smoke & mirrors (hey, didn't she says that once about BO) and seeing the delusion. Of course, she doesn't. But she's a Clinton, and learned from the best, Bill.
Yes, she will become what she needs to be in order to win votes. She's even recycling her campaign rhetoric, saying "{insert state here} leads the nation, blah blah"
Sheesh... gimmee a break. Does anyone really listen to her anymore? But what works in the primary does not translate to the general election.
I can see her point about staying in the race until all the primaries are over. Then yes, she can say she stayed until the end. (of course, as long as she has an active campaign, she can get political donations, which she needs, especially if she wants to reimburse herself, but that's another topic).
But hey, after the primaries, that's the end, it's over, stop already. There is no other argument. Most delegates = the winner, that's the rule. If you don't like that, change the rules, but after the fact, not during. In the primaries, delegates count, popular vote does not. She's losing there anyway.
Her argument that the SD can have independent judgement is fine... but you can't say that and simply expect them to vote for you because of that. That means they can go for the opposition as well. Oh, you seem to be losing there, too.
That she's the "better candidate" is a personal opinion, and it's the voter's that counts, not hers, sorry. And BO seems to be doing fine there, too.
FL & MI broke the rules.. ergo the punishment. If BO gets the number of delegates necessary, the DNC does not have to do anything with FL & MI . What HRC says is of no consequence. What FL & MI voters say is actually of no issue, it's the state party that did it, that's the one they should go after.
Since FL had both candidates on the ballot, there is a bare possibility it could work, but there is still the issue of the "missing voter". Is there any way of measuring that after the fact? I doubt it. And if you count FL, it sets a precedent to count MI. And it should NOT be counted, it is even more tainted than FL was. MI cannot be legitimately counted, not all candidates were on the ballot, and "uncommitted" does not mean BO.
What should be done if they are to count at all is a complete re-vote. This won't happen, and probably shouldn't happen because:
(1) They had their chance and blew it.
(2) Not enough time to do it right.
(3) The rules probably forbid it.
(4) The candidates probably wouldn't agree on a format, venue, financing, etc.
(5) All the candidates agreed to not count them.
(6) The most important, the dynamic of the campaign has changed.. what people think now is different than what was 6 months ago. It would no be the same mentality or mind set as before. This affects all candidates.
(7) any others?
HRC is losing in all the metrics possible. None of her arguments make sense (and certainly not for a primary). Her other arguments are self serving, illogical, rule-breaking and divisive. Of course, what else can we expect from a Clinton?
I forgot about the delusion part.. yeah, I really would like to see how she manages to still try and convince people she's a viable candidate /better than BO and unite the party. Sorry, how do you spell oxymoron?
ReplyDeleteIf she does manage to pull that one off (uniting), than that goes to prove her illegitimacyas a candidate. Maybe that's it.