Hillary’s Shifting “Winning” Rhetoric
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Democrats, Hillary, Super Delegates!!!, VideoWhy should we trust somebody who has shifted her opinion so many times on what contests matters and what don’t?
Jon Stewart dives in…
That just gave me chills. Because it’s like watching George Bush explain the rationale for war. Seriously.
And the Clinton’s latest argument, that if the Democratic process were more like the Republicans then she would already be the nominee? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!?!?!
This shifting rationale for why she should be nominee has to be some of the most intellectually dishonest nonsense I’ve seen out of this campaign, and trust me, I’ve seen more than I can handle. And frankly, after 8 years of exactly that from Bush and company, I’ve had enough. No more. Please.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 24th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Democrats, Hillary, Super Delegates!!!, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I’ve had enough. No more. Please - jg
Sorry Justin, but 15,095,663 of your fellow Democrats disagree with you (so far). More than agree with you. Thats the problem with Democracy.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
What is dishonest is: 1) Proclaiming a love for the popular vote, but not wanting to count Florida AND Michigan, because of a professed adherence to party rules, and claiming that the super-delegates, a creature of party rules, should have something less than a decisive vote in a very close match. There is Dishonesty abound, but you get marks for righteous indignation — and two parts whining and a dash of pissing and moaning…perfect.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Its funny, Obama wasn’t crying about the system when he was behind until late February. He wasn’t trying to change the system. There were no if’s, or buts… He just let the people decide, and shock, he now leads.
This is more abut the way Hillary comes across as a whiny brat. She starts off talking about how the voters should decide and thats fine and dandy until she’s behind. Every few days its another excuse, another reason about how the system is flawed. It comes across as extremely childish. But she knew the rules of the game when she started playing, and they don’t change in the middle of the game because you don’t like them.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Obama supporters are like the kid in the last quarter of the game that what to complain about how unfair the refs are and not focus on winning the frigg’in game. He looks like a puppy dog with the way he lets HC put on the defensive anymore. He need grow a pair as well as his supporters.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Doc, your entire argument is completely backwards. Hillary is pretty clearly the one complaining about “the refs”: “delegates shouldn’t count”, “FL & MI should count”, “only big states should count”, “states with caucuses shouldn’t count”, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Obama is the guy that is winning the game. His side has said pretty clearly that they want to let the game play out by the rules established. There’s been no moving of the goal posts from that camp at all.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
LOL, this coming from a Hillary supporter. Classic.
Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is pot. Ironically, you’re both black. Imagine that!
April 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
This is me pleading for her to stop it. At the very least, if she’s going to continue on, stop giving one specious argument after another for what’s supposed to matter and what’s not supposed to matter. I mean, are you telling me that the “if we ran this like Republicans” argument actually passes the smell test with you?
I’ve said time and time again that the Democratic party lets the superdelegates “overturn” the pledged delegate count at their own peril. You will have a revolt within the party. I’m not saying that the superdelegates CAN’T do this, I’m just saying that if they do it, the party will implode.
Furthermore, Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. And didn’t Hillary agree before the primaries that neither of those contests would count? Oh yes, that’s right, she did. So for her to now claim those vote totals as evidence she’s in the lead is enormously dishonest and contradicts what she said previously.
But hey, I’m getting close to the point where I want her to win so I can just sit it all out and watch McCain crush her. It’ll teach the Dems yet another lesson about allowing an intellectually dishonest, highly partisan candidate secure their nomination by any means necessary.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Absolutely, you have. You have also time and time again gone on about the primacy of “the will of the people” - which is obviously most clearly represented by the popular vote. So I am just wonder which one it is — although I think I know — which ever nominates Barrack Obama. Pledge delegates or popular vote — and if its pledge delegates then you abondon the primacy of the popular vote meme and it’s illogical to demand the impotency of the super-delegates.
If it’s not dishonest, then it just doesn’t make any sense. The impression that is being projected from the Obama camp though is just good ole’ fashing political whining from a guy that is suppose to be so outside the beltway.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Would everybody just calm down - this thing is over. The media wants to keep it alive because it’s good for the advertising revenue. Hillary wants to keep it alive because she can’t admit she blew what should have been a sure thing. She’s unorganized and incompetent - she won PA because you can’t slice that demographic away. She got 70% of the white vote, 68% of the older 50 vote, 73 % of the Catholic vote, 66% of the people making less than 50K a year - does it occurr to anybody that this all the same demographic. Catholics (80% of PA) over 50 (2nd highest population in the US), less than 50k - these are the over 50 Catholic women who went back to work after the kids grew up.
Hillary would have had to be dead not to have won that state - and even then she would have stood a good chance. It’s over already, she’s through, she’s done, she can’t win, mathematically it is nearly impossible. So lay off the stats, the trash talk, the “fighter” crap. She’s a loser - has proven to be a loser - and is finished. The Democratic party is changing - 52% is the Obama demographic and 48% is the old Clinton demographic - it’s close but is not in her favor. Her demographic is shrinking and dieing (or otherwise not procreating) - his is growing, starting businesses, finishing college, and having children. What do you think the SD’s are going to do. The onlyt alternative is Hillary pulls menopause demographic and starts a 3rd party…….otherwise she’s done.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
In the Dem primary system, the will of the people is determined on a state by state basis. That’s why there’s a delegate system. If it were just a popular vote, then people would have voted for that, fought to change it within their party, etc.
So no, I don’t demand the impotency of the super-delegates. They’re free to overturn what the voters have “said”, but I also understand the reality of what that would seem like to a massive amount of Dems. You obviously don’t. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make Hillary’s shifting rhetoric any less intellectually dishonest.
They both knew the rules before all of this started. Given that, one doesn’t go into a contest, begin losing, complain that the rules aren’t fair and then try to spin the media that the way “victory” should be determined needs to shift. That’s nonsense…and it’s also exactly what Bush has done in Iraq.
If you want to characterize this as whining, by all means. But I know better. This is outrage at a beltway insider trying to game the system because it isn’t delivering the outcome she wants.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Meaning the popular vote would trump the delegate votes, right? If HRC gets more popular votes and BHO gets more delegates — good luck with recoiling of the “popular vote” one man one vote stuff. It will be totally hollow.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
No, meaning the superdelegates could overturn the delegate count if they see fit. I’m pretty sure I made that point pretty clearly
Let’s also not forget that in the not too distant past somebody won the presidency without winning the popular vote. That’s how our system works sometimes.
Personally, I would prefer we go to a popular vote system and I’ve said as much on this site, but you don’t try to change those rules when you start losing. It’s dishonest, and Hillary knows it.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:32 am
If everyone knows this, then why do so many Dems still say that FL should have been permitted to change the rules on vote counting in 2000, and that SCOTUS disallowing that was a subversion of the will of the people?
April 25th, 2008 at 9:07 am
There is nothing democratic about the democratic party.