Clintons Like Nothing Else
Posted on 04/17/2008 12:42:05 AM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
Last Thursday, about a year too late, I read the "2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention." Not a fun read, I must add, which may be the reason Sen. Hillary Clinton, or her people, and most of the press, did not read or understand its 25 dense pages.
Sen. Obama, or his people, obviously studied the thing, and that is the reason he will probably be his party's nominee for president of the United States. The document, adopted by the Democratic National Committee on Aug. 19, 2006, is filled with the kind of fairness rhetoric the party has been spouting for at least 40 years. Samples: "State Democratic Parties shall ensure that district lines used in the delegate selection process are not gerrymandered to discriminate against African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans or women." "Each state affirmative action program shall include outreach provisions to encourage the participation and representation of persons of low and moderate income, and a specific plan to help defray expenses of those delegates otherwise unable to participate in the national convention." That's nice. More important is the fine print: "Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at the congressional district level or smaller ... "Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants." In other words, using terms of political art, the Democrats have rejected "winner-take-all" elections in favor of "proportional representation." The best example of that is what happened in Texas: Clinton won 50.9 percent of the overall vote to 47.4 percent for Obama. But because of the way the votes were divided by counties, Obama won 99 delegates to 94 for Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Obama’s group read the rules and followed them.
Hillary’s group didn’t read them, because they don’t plan to follow them.
Not necessarily so. It was, what I think, Hillary’s egregious arrogance that her nomination was merely a formality,that she had it all locked up,as she had been saying to the press for some time, and as the pre-ordained nominee didn’t think she had to bother with any of the fine print.
"State Democratic Parties shall ensure that district lines used in the delegate selection process are not gerrymandered to discriminate against African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans or women."
"Each state affirmative action program shall include outreach provisions to encourage the participation and representation of persons of low and moderate income, and a specific plan to help defray expenses of those delegates otherwise unable to participate in the national convention." "
Which is why the primary election calendar was scrupulously crafted to ensure the nominee was selected early.
The veteran Democrat hack candidates were programmed to garner airtime and drop out one by one, throwing their support to Klinton, as Pillary garnered momentum.
That's why Florida and Michigan were penalized for moving up their primaries. They threw monkey wrench in the Democrats' well choreographed nominating dance.
Hussein Obama was not part of the old boy network. Heck he was two years into DC.
He was supposed to be the token Democrat to shore up negro votes and make a presence in Republican states, then gratefully bow out.
All the gobbley de goop about minority representation was on paper only. No one counted black or female noses at any of the primaries or caucuses.
Did anyone in a 50/50, black/white precinct make sure there were half whites when 90% of Obama delegates were selected?
The nominating process was supposed to be over in March just like the Republicans.
yitbos
I think Hillary’s concern, or approval of the methodology was based on it’s extreme difficulty for someone to be overtaken when they get ahead.
She thought she would be the one ahead early; but it was a tie early and Obama creamed her when she was unprepared in the weeks just after Super Tuesday and He built a solid lead.
Now, as they say “the chickens have come home to roost.”
Yes. This certainly calls into question the "Operation Chaos" strategy of trying to put Clinton in position to be able to "steal" the nomination. The key to Obama's success has been a campaign which, in the light of general election realities, is itself actually more like a theft of the nomination.If states still had winner-take-all primaries, Clinton, who won more votes in California, New York and Texas, would have easily won the nomination. But again, she had not read the rules and Obama had.The Clinton campaign is actually stronger than the Obama campaign in a red-state v. blue-state general election. Of course, it could be argued that it is a weakness for her to be strongest where the Democrats have to assume they will win anyway, and weakest where they have less of a chance. They might actually be stronger with a candidate who is stronger in the red states and therefore stand a better chance in the purple ones.Of course that calculus would apply best to a Democratic southern governor. I am extremely dubious of the ability of Obama to run a strong general election campaign because I just don't think enough moderate/independent types will be willing, in the privacy of the voting booth, to pull the lever for a black supremacist out of Chicago. Especially one who is descended, not from slaves of the American South, but from African muslims who might have sold some of the ancestors of conventional "African Americans." Voting for him would in such case be an odd form of "reparation" for that! (which simply illustrates the racist essence of the "reparation" movement and even of "affirmative action").
I suppose that the issue of relative strength in red/blue states is a gerrymandering issue: if you gerrymander a state you are allowing your opponent a few very safe seats while giving yourself a lot of less-safe seats. But if you overreach, and try to win too many seats by too narrow a margin, you could have a disaster and be nearly wiped out if your opponent runs more strongly than usual some day. So with the Obama campaign: he pulls strongest where his party is weakest, and therefore is less unlikely to win big - but he is also weakest where his party is strong and therefore is less unlikely to be completely blown away. And in Obama's case that seems to me to be the most likely result - the more so since McCain is sort of the same way - weaker in red states than GWB was, and stronger in Blue ones.
The conclusion is that a Obama-McCain contest is unlikely to result in a close electoral-vote contest. Somebody is gonna get wiped out.
Jeez...
You guys all must be too young to remember conventions that weren’t coronations.
There is more then one way to get around that rule book. One of them is a contesting the credentials and that is what I imagine Hillary will do.
I assume it's not a Constitutional issue to have penalized Florida and Michigan this way, effectively voiding the will of the people, because it would have otherwise been in the news. Nevertheless, I would like to know why.
But isn't there another kicker in that some states (Maryland is one) have adopted the rule that no matter what the State outcome, the delagates go to whoever wins the national popular vote?
Primaries or candidate selection are not in the constitution. I'm old enough to remember when only a few States even had primaries. It was all decided at the convention by unelected delegates.
Thank you for time and consideration to sharing your scholarly erudition.
> Not necessarily so. It was, what I think, Hillary’s egregious arrogance that her nomination was merely a formality
I think you nailed it. Whatever happens, I’m glad that Her Thighness won’t be ruling over us.
Ah yes. The best laid plans of ‘rats and men...!
“Did anyone in a 50/50, black/white precinct make sure there were half whites when 90% of Obama delegates were selected?”
You’re assuming that the delegates are selected by a democratic process and that is simply not the case. Usually, it is only the allocation of delegates that are selected by popular vote. Then the lawyers get involved and select the actual delegates following a rigorous quota system.
If you doubt that, then I suggest you use google and do some research. The national and most state rules are available on line and your research will confirm that the democrats do have a quota system for the delegate selection.
Those rules are not “gobbley de goop”. There was an article in the WSJ a number of years ago written by the lawyer that headed the Clinton delegate selection process in NY that described the process in detail.
Her plan now must be to damage Barry so he loses and she can run in 4 years.
I think she’ll be too damaged herself run again.
“I am extremely dubious of the ability of Obama to run a strong general election campaign because I just don’t think enough moderate/independent types will be willing, in the privacy of the voting booth, to pull the lever for a black supremacist out of Chicago.”
The most powerful man in local democrat politics I know has told me that he will vote for McCain if Obama is elected since “I just can’t vote for that man”. This guy is an old time ward healer type famous for his get out the vote efforts. It is this type of man who the democrat party must rely upon if they are to have a chance in the purple states.
Hillary will go down to her political death on this thing. After all the crap she's put up with from Bill. She thinks she's entitled, and as most selfish prick dems they will lie, cheat, steal, and whatever else, especially in Clinton's case to get what she wants.
We're most likely going to be looking at total and utter chaos at the dem convention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.