MyDD :: Q & A: When did HRC start caring about "the process"?

Q & A: When did HRC start caring about "the process"?

by Hudson, Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST

The owner of this site writes, in the current lead MyDD article:

[...] Clinton, I'm betting, has more interest in using her capital to reform the nomination process.

I support the idea that the Democrats ought to simplify the party's nominating process. But I have some questions (and answers) prompted by Jerome's observation:

1. QUESTION: Why did we never hear a peep from Bill or Hillary Clinton in the 1992 and 1996 elections about how the nomination process was flawed?

► ANSWER: Because the process worked in their favor in those election cycles.

[ More Q & A after the jump... ]

2. QUESTION: Why didn't these "experienced" leaders, who had been through two Presidential elections, use their political "capital" to address the process in 2000 or 2004, after the end of WJC's second term?

► ANSWER: Because after Bill left office and Hillary focused on the New York Senate race, the procedural needs of the party had no bearing on their immediate plans and goals.

3. QUESTION: If HRC feels that the Democratic process is somehow unfair or inequitable, why didn't she raise any objections to the process at the outset of this run in 2007-2008?

► ANSWER: Because she wrongly assumed that the process would favor her, as the then-frontrunner and "inevitable" nominee.

► 4. QUESTION: If the Clinton camp is going to assail the process now as somehow illegitimate, how are its partisans going to explain why Hillary's top lieutenants, Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes , were longstanding defenders of the process as it stood... until Hillary started losing within that process?

ANSWER: They won't try to explain it, because they can't. Their change of mind is purely driven by their allegiance to HRC, not by principle.

Let's not forget:

* Hillary was the one lining up scores and scores of superdelegates long before a single vote was cast.

* Hillary was the one who based her entire campaign on the idea of knocking out her lesser-known opponents early -- on Super Tuesday.

* If the two disingenuous strategies had worked for Clinton, she would have "disenfranchised" (to use the new favorite word of her supporters) dozens of states and millions of voters by ending the contest early.

* Hillary was the one who was knocking the popular vote -- saying only delegates mattered -- until she had only a highly debatable and illusory claim to popular support left to justify her continued campaigning.

* And finally, Hillary was the one who said that she didn't need to take her name off the Michigan ballot, since those votes would not count -- until she needed Michigan desperately.

Bottom line: Hillary and her supporters only object to the rules now because it turned out she had not mastered electoral politics even 10% as well as her "inexperienced" opponent, Barack Obama -- a master organizer from the Alinsky school.

There are some sound reasons to call for changes of the Democratic nomination process. But Hillary Clinton and her partisans have the least political capital of anyone to make that case.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, rules, nominating process, superdelegates (all tags)

Permalink :: 48 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips/flames/rec (2.00 / 4)

And please -- don't flame just because you support Clinton and don't tip just because you support Obama. Tip, rec or flame if you think the diary raises important points.

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM EST

Re: Tips/flames/rec (2.00 / 1)

I do not blame either candidate for trying to maximize their prospects according to the rules. On the other hand, I do find it particularly objectionable that the Clinton campaign and many of its supporters have adopted the rhetoric of moral outrage and purity. That too is part of 'the game,' but one I dislike. I have criticized Obama, my candidate of preference, for missing a huge opportunity to demonstrate political courage, reinforce his brand of 'new politics', and score political points when he could have taken the lead in addressing MI and FL in early March. I did so then and recently in other posts. But HRC's supporters raise salient points with regard to flaws in the process. The fact that it serves their candidate's cause to do so does not obscure the clearly problematic systems and structures that have come to light in the past months. I hope that after the dust settles the party can begin to overhaul its mechanisms for selecting a nominee. I think Obama's campaign succeeded according to the rules and worked them to its advantage. But they require redress once we get to the other side.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's look at this another way (none / 0)

The Clinton's are only pulling pages out of their opponent's playbook. The Obama campaign made a big deal out of the popular vote - and don't like it one bit that she's got them beat at their own game.
Obama's team played some good cards early on - arm-twisting and gaming the caucuses - and getting a head start on the delegate count that has been very hard to overcome - points Obama on that one.
The Clinton crowd did not have to deal with the FL, MI, NH, IA situations during the earlier primary campaigns - so you're on shaky ground there.

What seems to be forgotten in all this campaign strategy spin is the facts of the matter which are: 1) the game changed considerably for Clinton in the two months leading up to the primaries;
2) it took until mid-February for the Clinton's and their advisors to reassess the lay of the land, their opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and put an alternative game plan in place. I don't see that as weakness at all. Any military leader or sports coach worth their salt become so precisely because of their ability to adjust to changing conditions. Guess what -- running the United States of America will require every ounce of this sort of leadership ability.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's look at this another way (2.00 / 1)

They, uh, delayed remarkably any change in strategy because Senator Clinton won in New Hampshire.

The lethargy the Clinton campaign showed in identifying and addressing the Obama insurgency is one of the reasons I do not have much faith in Senator Clinton in a hypothetical general election.

She ignored reality and plodded through it, burning money and wasting opportunities.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's look at this another way (2.00 / 1)

I agree with this. If one campaign showed more facility for both conceiving and executing a strategy based on understanding the conditions AND for adapting the strategy as things unfolded, the edge is definitely to Obama. His late March and early April was a bit of a drop-off. But May shows signs of re-invigoration. Nonetheless, there are two things to address here: 1. who executed better and 2. how the process can be improved for future contests.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Plus, Clinton is NOT winning the popular vote. (2.00 / 1)

No one outside of the Clinton bubble agrees with the hilariously convoluted Hillarymath necessary to claim that she is winning the popular vote.

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right ON! (2.00 / 2)

not only was Terry Mac a long time defender, he was the chairman for four loooooooooooooooooong years.

No only that, as president, Clinton selected the party chair for 8 years.

together, Clinton controlled the party machinery for 12 consecutive years.

They can complain, after the fact. Not now, not after passing on all opportunities for reform during under their tenure.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM EST

Re: Q & A: (none / 0)

Agreed lets move foward with kicking her and her supporters out of the party much as kos and his crowd suggest. We dont need any hillary democrats in the new BO democratic party.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST

kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

anything like that. Get off your high horse.

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

Really there wasnt a front page thread saying HRC is no longer a democrat. You must have missed that or we are seeing select memory??

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (1.50 / 2)

maybe if she stop using republican tactics as a desperate attempt in winning the nomination Obama supporters would have a inch of respect for her.

I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson

by obamaovermccain on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (1.50 / 2)

I remember him saying that she and some of her more lunatic supporters were not acting like Democrats...and he's right. Cherrypicking results is not Democratic. Attacking a fellow Democrat while praising the likely GOP nominee is not Democratic. Whining that he praises Republicans when you yourself have made similar comments is not Democratic.

Selective memory no. Disgust, yes!!

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

And i remember him post the darkened clip the day after super tuesday and suggesting HRC was behind this. And he posted this thread three times.

Not to mention many of thread suggesting HRC and her campaign was racist. Talk about disgust.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (1.50 / 2)

Hillary opened herself to those attacks. She recently made comments about hardworking, white voters.

Bill dismissed the AA vote in South Carolina as ineffectual (not racist, but certainly insulting).

Bob Johnson tried to paint Obama as a druggie. So did Mr. Shaheen in NH.

Geraldine Ferraro decided that Obama was only successful b/c he was black.

Had hillary condemned and cut these people off immediately (as Obama did when his staffer called Hillary a monster), she wouldn't have gotten painted with that brush.

For some reason, she thought that was ok, but was furious with the monster comment. There are many reasons people find Hillary hypocritical. What I've just written just highlights them.

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (none / 0)

No i totally agree. It is all HRC fault and she makes BO supporters do things like liar about race. By the way and comment on the BO campaign memo asking his supporters to play up race and suggest the Clinton's are racially insensitive or did HRC force BO campaign to send out this memo as well.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:54:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

It wasn't a suggestion. Those comments were racially insensitive. And Hillary's non-reaction to them was insensitive. Not Obama's fault. That's Hillary's fault.

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (none / 0)

Or someone might say they were said to inject race into the discussion and push AA away from HRC. But i understand to you everything is Hillary's fault.

And i didnt find them racially insensitve but in fact true. But i understand we now have a new defination of race that interestly allows some BO supporters to call the clinton's and her supporters racist. But not to worry all these dems will all be voting democratic after being called racally insensitive.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (1.50 / 2)

True? Obama is a druggie in your eyes? Wow! At least I know you are beyond convincing.

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (none / 0)

Funny i dont remember saying that Obama is a druggie. Maybe since that is a serious accusation you could provide a some proof.

But you are right i will never be convinced that HRC or Bill Clinton are racist.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

You said you believed the statements were true.

That was the statement, that Obama was a drug user.

Pathetic!

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (none / 0)

That is bs and you know it. Please.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kos has never said (2.00 / 1)

Billy Shaheen, one of her then top supporters, opined as to whether or not Senator Obama might have sold drugs when he was using them.

He left the campaign over the intense backlash that generated.

Funny, cuz nobody ever asked Bill Clinton, Dubya, Al Gore, or anybody else we've known to have done drugs if they'd also dealt them.

Funny that the first candidate to be asked that just happened to be black...

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can you provide a link? (none / 0)

thnks in advance

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you provide a link? (1.00 / 1)

Sure but i would rather cut my wrist then go to that hate page so you are on your own.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so it didn't happen (none / 0)

I knew it.

more hearsay and propaganda.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so it didn't happen (none / 0)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/ 104658/562

And here is the money qoute from kos.

At some point the concept of "Republicans will do X" has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more.

Here let me help you. You just have to write i was wrong. Looking foward to that. But my guess is that will be a long wait while you parse and what not. But there is not parsing what Markos said is there. "I don't really consider her a Dem any more".

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so it didn't happen (none / 0)

Yo Al,

No come back. i am not surprised.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Q &amp; A: (2.00 / 1)

Clinton supporters are more than welcome.

The people that shouldn't be welcome are those sore losers who disingenuously complain about a process only when and only because they've lost through it.

by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Q &amp; A: (2.00 / 1)

You're being ridiculous. Nobody wants to kick people out, we just want these thoroughly dishonest talking points to stop. They are not convincing anybody, they are just an embarrassment.

by interestedbystander on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Q &amp;amp; A: (none / 0)

Really like HRC is a liar? Does that seem like a talking point. Just checking.

david

by giusd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Q &amp;amp;amp; A: (none / 0)

Relevance?

by interestedbystander on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

straw man (2.00 / 1)

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Q &amp; A: (2.00 / 1)

As Democrats, wouldn't it make more sense for HRC and her supporters to join us? Compete for the nomination if you must but do so in a way that is consistent with the overriding need for US to beat McCain in November.
**
When so many good, smart Democrats raise concerns about HRC's conduct ... it's a sign that she might be off-track. Even if she isn't doing anything intrinsically wrong, she's not doing a good enough job of maintaining a functional relationship with the half of the party that disagrees.

It's just basic leadership.

by chicago jeff on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clintonites (2.00 / 1)

can't be bothered with facts or reality. B/c then Clinton doesn't win. And if Clinton doesn't win, then Obama is a sexist, a cheater, a cult leader, etc...

Clinton has NO rationale for having the nomination handed to her. She's NOT winning the popular vote (her cherrypicked totals disallow several states and include unsanctioned contests), she's not winning the delegate count (either pledged or SUPER), she's not winning the # of states (they are tied at 18 primaries, while the caucuses Obama dominates) and she's not leading in $$ raised, organizers hired, or any campaign demographic that would make us think twice about nominating the candidate who IS WINNING all these categories...and that's Barack Obama.

There is nothing sexist about any of this, there is nothing racist about any of this. More Democratic voters wanted Obama. The Clintonites call us elitist and arrogant, then lecture us on why they think the nomination should be handed to the loser of the primaries. If we followed that logic, we might as well give it to Edwards...as he polls better than Hillary nationally.

by southernman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST

only some (2.00 / 2)

Are like that. Saying "Clintonites can't be bothered with facts or reality" is silly. Many are reasonable. Passions are high now but more folks will become reasonable after June 3.

by JJE on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:32:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hope you're right... (2.00 / 3)

When I've done phonebanking for Obama (a lot of it during the middle stages of the campaign), pretty much everyone was civil to me on the phone -- except Clinton supporters.

The supporters of Edwards, Richardson, et al. -- even the Huckabee and McCain supporters -- were almost without exception polite and even interesting to engage in a dialogue with about the direction of our campaign.

But 50% of the time when I reached a Clinton supporter, the vicious and bilious attacks started the moment I mentioned Obama. Some were reasonable -- many were nasty.

NOTE: I began as an Edwards supporter, only formalizing my switch to Obama after Iowa. I did some database work for the local Obama campaign in my district because Edwards didn't bother to line up delegates in Upstate New York.

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hope you're right... (none / 0)

You know multiple diaries have said this. Not to put too much weight on this since its mostly anecdotal I'm still very curious - Was this across multiple states/regions or mostly in one state/region?

by v2r1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:14:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hope you're right... (none / 0)

I can no longer remember all the states I called, but they were literally all over the map ... Virginia, New York, Texas, Ohio, Wisconsin, more...

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hope you're right... (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the reply. I suppose it will depend on how Hillary steps down - A convention fight would escalate the nastiness.

by v2r1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:09:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nice post - kudos (2.00 / 3)

what bothers me is when a pro and someone in a position in authority, intentional or unintentional adds fuel to the fire, by saying the system was rigged against the former first family and somehow in favor of a senator with a funny sounding name.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Super Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

That is such a strong point. It's common knowledge the Clinton camp it would be "all over" after super Tuesday, many including Sen. Clinton are on record saying as much.

Now today post super Tuesday, the "let everyone participate" has become the mantra, why?

Because it serves their short term political needs.

How people cannot see the hypocrisy of this position is beyond me.

Not to say I'm surprised, many of the same people would count MI as Clinton 320k Obama 0.

"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody

by nextgen on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:28:11 PM EST

Rule #1 of Politics: Learn the Rules (none / 0)

Sadly, the entire myth that Clinton is a highly competent manager and canny strategist -- one who would run a tight White House ship and be able to pass legislation on key issues like health care -- is exploded by her complete failure to suss out the electoral terrain and develop a strategy which accounted for scenarios other than her one best-case outcome (win early, win big).

How she could ride shotgun on all of Bill's campaigns, and get herself elected to the Senate in New York, without ever understanding Rule #1 of politics is beyond me. I say this as someone who volunteered time to get out the vote for her when she ran for Senate.

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST

Re: Rule #1 of Politics: Learn the Rules (2.00 / 3)

Thank you for this post and I agree. Clinton ran a campaign that was in many ways similar to Rudy Giuliani. Both overestimated the power of their own celebrity. As for process, no one was in a better position to change it before it started than Clinton.

by grasshopper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NOTE: Cross-posted at Kos (2.00 / 2)

I've now put up essentially the same diary at Kos as well:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/18/ 162036/508/743/517929

by Hudson on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:33:44 PM EST

Great diary and a must-read. The complaints... (2.00 / 1)

...of Hillary supporters about "the process" are completely and exclusively SOUR GRAPES.

by DCCyclone on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:37:25 PM EST

Nice Spin everyone (1.00 / 1)

A lot of drivel and self-righteous justification for a very thin argument.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:31:17 PM EST

Re: Nice Spin everyone (2.00 / 2)