Friday, March 07, 2008

Clinton Cribs from the Bush Florida Stolen Election in 2000

The following is a complete article from Mark Karlin -Editor and Publisher - I felt it worthy of sharing. . .


March 6, 2008

If you wanted to compare the playbook of the Clinton campaign since New Hampshire, you'd find the right precedent in the Bush v. Gore race, only Clinton would be channeling Bush, not Gore.

Let's look at the facts -- as our columnist P.M. Carpenter -- has pointed out today. By almost all media projections, Obama will finish the run of primaries ahead in the popular primary vote, ahead in pledged delegates, and ahead in the number of states won. In a democracy, we call this winning the election. And to boot, Obama has won by consistently bigger margins than Clinton, and has led McCain in most polls. (Obama will probably even end up beating Clinton in delegates awarded in the Texas primary, where she barely won the contest in the popular vote -- and allegedly with the help of dittoheads who Limbaugh told to vote for her because she would unify the Republican Party against her and be the weaker Dem candidate in the fall.)

But Clinton rules have a different set of standards, just like Bush did. They bring the heavy artillery representing the entrenched moneyed interests of the Republicrat status quo in D.C. to redefine democracy. It's no longer who wins the election; it's who bullies their way into mugging the process through threatened lawsuits, flip-flopping like a dying fish about DNC rules that the Clinton campaign originally agreed to, bullying superdelegates, and denying that the will of the people counts for anything.

So, the Clinton campaign today (and if Obama had lost 12 straight primaries, you can be sure the Clinton campaign would have "worked the refs" hard enough to have made him withdraw long ago) is doing what Bush did in 2000, shaking down democracy.

As P.M. Carpenter notes, not only is this against our Constitutional foundations and everything we progressives have fought for since the election was stolen from Al Gore in 2000, her specious arguments are grounded in, well, "fantasy." She claims she won the big states, which certainly hurts the feelings of the residents of states like Virginia where Obama won by wide margins and showed that he might be able to pull a new electoral vote rich state into the Democratic column come November.

As Carpenter points out -- even if you forgive the Clinton campaign for trying to overturn the will of the people, which is like absolving Bush of stealing the 2000 contest -- her "big state" theory doesn't hold water. Obama will win the big states she won (with Texas being a stretch for either of them in November, and Ohio being up for grabs for either of them). All Clinton did was win the loyal economically needy vote of the base Democrats who are going to vote Democratic no matter what. Clinton has shown virtually no reach outside of a fixed and defined core of traditional Dem voters (who are loyal to Hillary, even though she has done virtually nothing for them, despite all her packaged rhetoric of "results." The reality is Clinton has no economic record to speak of or foreign policy record other than supporting Bush's War and cluster bombs. She is a series of evolving "slogans.") Obama has shown that he can draw in independents and Republicans, which will be vital in a race against McCain, and may pull in one or two red states, which he has pretty much swept as compared to Clinton. All Clinton has done is win in almost all Blue States, while showing that the ceiling of her support is very low in a general election.

Meanwhile, not content to rob the majority vote, Clinton is elevating John McCain as a more worthy candidate to protect America than Obama. That is not just larceny, it is a betrayal of the most reprehensible sort. In essence, Clinton has, like a child who can't have his/her rattle, indicated that if she doesn't heist the nomination, she will ensure that Obama loses so that she can run again in 2012.

Now, all the women out there for whom Hillary is a symbol (and Clinton has said that women project onto her what they want to see in her), she is only a symbol. She is not a progressive. She is a DLC "triangulator" who has actually "solved" very few problems, sold out poor women and their children in the "welfare reform" act of 1996, passed very little significant legislation, has virtually no foreign policy experience, and values playing the "I'm tougher than the boys are" card, when she's not playing the gender card.

If you want a progressive candidate for president, look to someone like my Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, who opposed the Iraq War and knew what was coming when Clinton chose political expediency. (Schakowsky is also a progressive on almost every major issue where it counts, whereas Clinton is a politically calculating centrist who changes positions to meet the needs of her campaign). As P.M. Carpenter notes, there are potential progressive female political candidates who also are strong Feminists in practice -- not just word -- but Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

Electing a symbol may make many women feel better, just as electing George W. Bush made many people of good faith believe that they were really electing a man of God, but what they got was a man of war. There are a large number of women in politics who are not just symbols, but actually have a record of feminism, progressivism, results, and, most importantly, a respect for the will of the people and a desire to beat the Republicans, not just promote their own political interests. Hillary Clinton, we repeat, is not one of them.

BuzzFlash came of age during the emotionally exhausting and demoralizing robbery of democracy in 2000.

Hillary Clinton is planning to perform a similar heist of the nomination of the Democratic Party or destroy the chances for Barack Obama to win in the fall in the process.

It will be like 2000 all over again -- and democracy will suffer once again, but this time at the hands of a putative Democrat who is playing us like a fiddle.


Charlotte A. Weybright said...


"Electing a symbol may make many women feel better..."

I know we are on opposite sides of the fence in this one, but, come on, Obama is just as much as symbol as Hillary.

To call Hillary a symbol for "women" who wished they could do this and not attach the same philosophy to Obama is totally misleading.

The double-standard in this election is that it seems most of the public is accepting the fact that African-Americans are voting for Obama, and it is seen as logical and rational.

Yet women voting for Hillary draws criticism in the form of "that's the only reason you're voting for her." Just more examples of the difference in commentary and treatment of Hillary and women as compared to Obama and African-Americans.

I have had a number of Obama supporters tell me that if Hillary wins, they will vote for McCain. Yet, if Obama wins, I bet the same people will expect her supporters to rally round the candidate.

John Good said...

Charlotte - You're picking out the wrong piece of Karlin's article here. I couldn't care less about her gender, nor should anyone, although some obviously will. The POINT here is the Rovian tactics that she's employing. I expect such efforts from republicans, but not from OUR party. Much like here husband, Clinton is not a true progressive Democrat. She's squarely in the republican-lite category, although she seems to be drifting farther to the right with her dirty politicking.

Robert Rouse said...

Charlotte, I have noticed that many of Hillary's supporters appear to be very angry and I have yet to figure out why. It's almost as if they feel they have a right to dish it out, but they also don't want to take it. As for Obama supporters, the only ones I have spoken to have said they will bite the bullet and pull the lever for Hillary if she is elected - they are pro-party. It is many of the Pro-Hillary blogs where I am reading, not that they will vote for McCain, but that they will not vote at all.

An example of what John is talking about: When Susan Power called Hillary a "Monster". she resigned and Obama apologized for the remark. When a Clinton staffer referred to Obama as another Karl Rove or Ken Starr, not only did they keep their jobs, Clinton laughed and said she would not apologize because it was true! The Clinton campaign has used some of the dirtiest politics I have EVER witnessed. She has run one of the most negative campaigns I have ever seen and yet her supporters don't seem to even see it. I wonder why that is. When Bush or the Republicans played the fear card to win elections, EVERY Democrat out there decried using terrorism and fear to win elections. Now, with Clinton using many of the same tactics and playing the fear card, many of those same Democrats feel as if it is perfectly okay to play the fear card. If Clinton gets the nomination, it will NOT be because she got the most delegates, it will be because the so-called Super-Delegates will have elected to overturn the will of the people and SELECT the nominee. I will still vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, but I won't like it and it WILL NOT be good for the party.

Charlotte A. Weybright said...


If you publish an article, then I should be free to comment on a portion of the article. No where in the post did it say anything about which part of the article was the correct part.


We will not see eye to eye on this. The fact is that I have talked to some Obama supporters at work, and they have flat out said they will vote for McCain before they vote for Hillary.

I sometimes think that Obama supporters have placed him and his followers on such a pedastel that they find it hard to believe any negative emotion that might be attached to his side of the campaign. If Clinton does win, it is likely that some Obama supporters will either stay home or vote for McCain.

Seems to me that shows anger in the Obama camp if they are at this early day already making those statements.

Whether they actually follow through, no one will ever know.

We are all seeing this election through different perspectives.

What you see as negative campaigning, Clinton supporters see as information that needs to be brought to the public's attention. It is amazing anymore that anything that doesn't meet certain tests by a candidate's supporters - whether Clinton or Obama - is instantly labeled negative.

And, I have seen articles where Obama's people have accused Clinton of Rovian tactics. So that's okay, but Clinton's people can't accuse Obama of Starr tactics?

Neither Obama or Clinton is a progressive, so efforts by either party to paint themselves as one is ridiculous.

John Good said...

Charlotte - You ARE free to comment on any part of it. I was merely pointing out that, as the title indicates, the article is about her tactics.

Charlotte A. Weybright said...


Believe it or not, I did read the entire article.

At this point, both sides are going to sling mud, and Democrats will end up in a slug fest over who should get the nomination.

Neither side is perfect, and that is what I am most tired of hearing. I read some articles about Obama's election when he ran against someone named "Hull" and apparently Obama's tactics weren't all aboveboard.

These are both politicians, and, I am sorry, but I don't buy into any politician's claims of always being above politically negative tactics.

If Obama wins, I will be supporting him, both at the ballot box and in grass-roots work, but his supporters are kidding themselves if they think McCain and company won't come after him with much worse than Clinton has.