Meanwhile, over in his corner of the campaign trail, Bill Clinton does what he can to poison the well further, saying — now that chances of a re-do have come and gone, of course — that the Obama campaign was “desperate to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.” Sigh…at this point, you have to wonder about the man’s mental health. Well, since the former president insists on continually behaving like an asshat, with no regard whatsoever for the Democratic party or his historical legacy, it bears repeating once more:
And, if we really want to talk about disenfranchising voters, perhaps it’s time to revisit the Clinton team’s casino caucus lawsuit in Nevada, and Bill Clinton’s open shilling for it back in January.
Honestly, it’s like they’re trying to beat us into submission through sheer, brazen, and unyielding idiocy. Mr. President, you will not be returning to the White House — deal with it.
Update: Today’s poll about disgruntled Clinton and Obama supporters is getting a lot of run. Now, one one hand, this illustrates the problem with the Clintons’ “audacity of hopelessness.” Their continued spewing of often-ridiculous vitriol, even despite the fact that everyone from David Brooks to Obama Girl now knows its over, is only breeding more angry and aggrieved dead-enders among the Clinton ranks. (Then again, have the Clintons ever put the good of the party before themselves? Nope.)
Still, to keep things in perspective, let’s look at the presumed defection rate in 2000: “In March of that year, the Pew Center for the People & the Press released a report titled ‘Bush Pays Price for Primary Victory.’ Following Bush’s victory in the 2000 primaries and McCain’s exit from the race, the Pew survey found that 51% of those who backed McCain during the primary campaign would vote for Gore in the general election. Only 44% of his supporters said that they would be casting their votes for Bush.” That purported 2000 defection rate is considerably higher than those causing consternation today. But, obviously that number didn’t hold up, or Gore would have been elected overwhelmingly in 2000.
The point being, this poll doesn’t tell us anything about the situation in November, only that tempers are running high here in March.
I know it’s the $64,000 question, but: are you planning to vote for HRC if she somehow wrangles the nomination? I care more about the Supreme Court and the Labor Board than anything else, so I am inclined to say I would pull the lever for her; but on the other hand it sickens my stomach to think of Bill and Hill patting each other on the back in the White House for the superior wisdom of pissing all over the face of the American people.
Then again, considering that half the country already hated her, and now at least a quarter of Democrats do too, I guess there’s not much of a chance that she’ll ever be President of these United States.
Well, the easy answer is: I don’t believe Clinton can wrangle the nomination. Should she even try to do so at the convention, despite losing in delegates, the popular vote, and the number of contests, I’d expect something along the lines of Al Giordano’s “Plan Jericho” to occur — i.e., Chicago ’68 all over again, but worse. Fortunately, the party is well aware of this sort of doomsday scenario, and aren’t going to risk a lasting schism and change the rules on Clinton’s behalf. It’s be party suicide for no apparent upside.
So, she can’t win. In fact, it may be over as early as May 6. The only question now is how much damage can she cause Obama before she’s forced to bow out.
Taking your question as a hypothetical, though, I’d have to make that decision in November, but my inclination is to act the grown-up, hold my nose, and vote for Sen. Clinton. I’d do this mainly as a show of good faith, because I’m hoping and expecting Clinton supporters will do the same for Sen. Obama.
The reason I qualify my statement above is this: Since the only way for her to wrangle said nomination means blood on the floor in Denver, for the reasons mentioned above, that would have to play a factor in my vote as well. The only other option I see is leaving the presidential vote blank. I can’t imagine myself voting for McCain, even if he may be the better candidate, lobbying and campaign finance reform-wise, in a Clinton-McCain race.
So, short answer: It won’t happen. But, if it did, I’m punting for now, but would more than likely still vote Clinton.
That seems like a pretty wise answer. If she gets the nomination by sweeping the remaining contests — which would show how that Wright has wounded Obama far more deeply than we now understand — then I guess I will have to do the “grown-up” thing too. I don’t put anything past the Clinton Sleaze Factory, but another way of looking at it is this: if it takes a bloody and fractious 68-style convention to give her the nomination, then it probably won’t matter whether we vote for her or not, since the November election would be a foregone conclusion.
True, and, again, the party knows it. Sen. Obama is our nominee. It’s just a matter of when it becomes official.
I will be voting in NY, so I would have the luxury of not voting for Clinton. I wouldn’t vote for McCain or Nader, but I might vote for the “Rent is too damn high party” guy.