Sunday, April 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton is a Monster.... Again... She's a delegate poaching, anti-democratic liar, too... Why people don't like Clinton...

Hillary fans get pissed off about all the people who spend their days, like yours truly, hating on The Monster. Why, oh why are we so unfair to Hillary? Why can't we give credit where it is due? Why must we always attack her?

Here's why: She can't go more than 3 days without doing something that shocks the conscience while turning the stomach. The Monster strikes frequently.

Latest example? Pledged delegates.

Officially, no delegate is really "pledged" to a candidate in any contractual sense. Delegates are generally chosen, in large measure, on their loyalty to a candidate. They are, however, free to act on their conscience.

Thus, if you were a pledged delegate for Hillary Clinton, you would be free to change your allegiance in Denver after the drugs wore off and you realized she was an evil beast. Likewise, you could switch from Obama to Hillary, if you were so inclined.

Fine. It's always been that way. It never really happens that way, though. When the convention prom starts, delegates almost universally line up to dance with the folks who "brung 'em there". Very few exceptions.

There's also a longstanding etiquette thing at play. Candidates just don't go delegate poaching. It's considered bad form. Not only is it a rude and obnoxious display of poor sportsmanship (which isn't particularly Presidential behavior). It's also pretty undemocratic when you think about it.

You see, people (regular folks like you and John Brown) caucus or vote. Our preferences are distilled in the form of delegates who are responsible for expressing them at the convention. If our little chunk of the USA is in love with Candidate A, our delegates really should be backing Candidate A, too. If the delegate says, "fuck ya'll" and aligns with Candidate B. Well, hmmm... That would be like... It would be like... Oh, yeah, it would be like our votes didn't count.

In a non-technical sense, rogue delegates would disenfranchise regular Joe voters. They wouldn't represent the will of the people and they would make a complete mockery out of the primary and caucus processes. All of those elections, all of those votes, all of those nights spent listening to Wolf Blitzer talk about early returns from rural counties in random states, all of the yard signs, all of the robo-calls and everything else would would be meaningless.

Delegate poaching is anti-democratic. Yes, it's true that the delegates aren't required to back the people's candidate. That fact is both a safety hatch in the event of something really weird happening and a byproduct of an old and somewhat outmoded system. It is not an excuse to intentionally sabotage democracy.

But The Monster sees it differently. Now.

Once upon a time, she agreed with logic and reason. She even went on record regarding the notion of delegate poaching. She was clear in her stance. Hillary Clinton was adamant. Hillary Clinton wasn't going after pledged delegates and she wasn't going to do it in the future. If anything, The Monster was worried that Barack Obama might make a play in the forbidden zone. Read Hillary Clinton's own words about delegate thievery:

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

That was a reasonable thing to say. It makes sense. You don't go stealing the other candidate's delegates. Hoo-ray for Hillary! Glad she said something reasonable.

The statement was also completely consistent with her arguments about Florida and Michigan. Florida and Michigan, you'll remember, violated DNC rules and held early primaries. Hillary won them, but everyone knew they didn't count (including her). In Michigan, hers was the only name on the ballot.

Hillary, however, wants to make sure the fine Americans in Florida and Michigan do count. She wants every vote to count. She doesn't want to see people disenfranchised. It's an election, not a coronation and it's downright awful to think that people's voices might not be heard. That's what Hillary says. And it's wholly consistent with taking a stance against delegate poaching.

It's also consistent with her prolonged campaign in the face of impossible odds. She says she continues to run because people should have choices. They should be given an opportunity to vote. They should be able to make a difference and to express their will. That sounds very democratic and it's very consistent with her previously-expressed stance on pledged delegates.

The Monster now has a different plan. She was just in North Dakota, you know. Why? They did their caucus a few months ago. What would lead Hillmonster to the Flickertail State?

Well, she was there making a pitch for delegates. Barack Obama's delegates. Pledged delegates.

Hillary Clinton was out poaching.

Take a second to re-read Hillary's previous stance on stealing delegates. The one I quoted earlier. You know, where she said she wasn't doing that and wasn't going to do it. Guess what?

She's a fucking liar.

Again. While ducking fire from snipers, Hillary Clinton said the following, per ABC News:

Clinton made it clear to North Dakota Democrats last night that she believes there is no such thing as a pledged delegate and highlighted that stubborn streak in her appeal for delegates to switch from Obama to her when the Democratic national party holds its nominating convention this August.

"I am here tonight because I am seeking your support," Clinton said, adding that she never gives up.

"I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down. I never will and neither will America if we get ready to win this election in November," she said.

My initial response? A hearty "fuck you". My second? "You're a liar". My third? "And a hypocrite".

Hillary Clinton wants every vote to count in Florida and Michigan. She wants every vote to mean something in every remaining state. She recoils at the idea of disenfranchisement. My ass. She's a liar.

Because right now, as you read this, The Monster is plotting to disenfranchise YOU. And ME. And the people of North Dakota and everywhere else where votes were made and delegates chosen. She wants delegates, whose sole purpose is to represent the will of their districts, to stab voters in their backs. She wants them to switch to Hillary.

She doesn't want them to do that because it's democratic. Or fair. Or decent. She wants to do it because she can and because she wants to win. By whatever means necessary. She's Rocky Balboa, but with loaded gloves. She's the UND hockey team, but with a paid off ref. She's a fighter, but her strategy is all head butts and groin kicks. The Monster is a liar and she doesn't give one-third of a rat's ass if anything she does to get to Pennsylvania Avenue is right, honest, decent or democratic.

And that, Hillary fans, is why people hate Hillary Clinton.

It isn't her gender. It isn't media bias. It isn't her husband. It isn't ________. The reason so many people dislike Hillary Clinton so much is that she really is a Monster.

Please, oh please, Hillary Clinton supporters, defend this bullshit. I need an explanation.

How do you go from "I won't do that" to "I'm doing that". How do you intentionally try to render millions of votes meaningless while simultaneously bitching and moaning about others being disenfranchised because they didn't play by party rules? How can you argue that every vote must count while trying your damnedest to render the votes you didn't like meaningless?

Her campaign is diseased. She won't win. The Monsters never win. They just cause mayhem and spill blood indiscriminately until they lose. So it is with Hillary Clinton, monster.


Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:


  1. Hi again. Now that I have become a reader (because I do think you express your opinion well), I feel welcome to reply to this post. It hit a nerve with me.

    See, I agree with you that "Delegate poaching is anti-democratic." I have been upset for 6 weeks about this - did you know that Obama's campaign has been calling some of Hillary's delegates and trying to tell them to switch?

    I know, because a few people I trust that were selected as delegates in TX and OH and SC have told me. (hard to find the sane ones as so many on both sides are just too upset from the unfairness of the rules of this race to be trustworthy)But these people I know well, and they are loyal Democrats.

    So - I know that each election, a few delegates switch, and I know the rules allow this..sigh.

    I wonder if Hillary said this openly as a strategy - to get it out there because mentioning that BO has been doing this hasn't gotten any reaction from the press - other than to suggest she is whining.

    The setup of primary/caucus, proportional delegates, two-step voting, superdelegates, and the FL/MI situation is the root of much of my anger. Perhaps yours as well.

    Imagine if we had winner take all or a simpler system. We would likely have a candidate by now and we'd be working together to beat the Republicans.

    Both candidates are career politicians, lawyers and scary smart. Both are using every legal loophole to their advantage. A race this closely contested was never anticipated and sure does expose a lot of "unfairness".

    I also would remind you that Barack has changed his statement about how MI/FL should be handled many times, and how superdelegates should vote. I have reacted as you have to many of his changed positions. I feel he is disenfranchising voters.

    I remind myself that I would expect a race for such a powerful position to be contested from every angle. We are hiring a politician, after all! (grin) I sympathize and empathize with your emotion. I share it as well, from a slightly different angle.

  2. fair enough. and although i disagree a little bit with your characterizations, i basically agree with you.

    be on the lookout for my upcoming "i can be critical of obama, too" post.

    john brown
    drinks 50 gallon drums of vinegar for breakfast

  3. Gotta say I'm pretty skeptical of I. chris' claims.

    For instance:
    "I wonder if Hillary said this openly as a strategy - to get it out there because mentioning that BO has been doing this hasn't gotten any reaction from the press - other than to suggest she is whining."

    Where has HRC claimed that Obama or his campaign or surrogates is doing this? First, you're going to have to show us some evidence that she has ever claimed he is poaching to get me to believe that. And you better believe that she would say it if it were true. Second, how ridiculous would that strategy be? "I'm going to do something wildly undemocratic so that I can highlight the fact that my opponent is also doing it." Here's an analogy: "I'm going to sell crack so that the cops catch my neighbor selling crack when they come to arrest me."

    Another weirdness in that comment:
    "I know, because a few people I trust that were selected as delegates in TX and OH and SC have told me. (hard to find the sane ones as so many on both sides are just too upset from the unfairness of the rules of this race to be trustworthy)"

    Who is upset with the rules, all of the sudden, now that she's losing? The Monster. This weird tone of 'aren't you all just sick about the unfairness of it all' is just a dishonest way of saying "bu ... bu ... but it's her turn and she was supposed to win on Super Tuesday and we didn't actually plan on campaigning because it's her turn so ... so ... so ... Obama is a cheater!" Dude, it ain't hard to find honest people who aren't crying in their pillows at night over this whole thing. Just come to an Obama event and lose the entitlement complex.

  4. (reply to Loneoak said...Gotta say I'm pretty skeptical of I. chris' claims.))
    What's the point of engaging in a discussion with you if you are calling my candidate names and insinuating that I am "dishonest". I am not in elementary school.

    I can disagree with different views respectfully. You can google the video and do your own research if you really care to learn about what is happening in this election. Relying on a few blogs or the mainstream media is not giving you a complete picture.

    Delegate poaching attempts have been made by Obama's campaign for over a month. Ask them. I doubt you would believe any HRC delegates, so ask the Obama campaign what their policy is.

    FYI - Delegate poaching is within the DNC rules. Read them. Of course - the candidates don't call it poaching. They are "making their case".

  5. I. Chris-

    There is plenty of reason to suspect the truthfulness of your claim. First of all, you do not provide any links to anyone publicly claiming that Obama is engaging in poaching. Poaching isn't defined as 'speaking to pledged delegates', but as 'trying to convince them to vote for him even though they are pledged to HRC.' I don't doubt that Obama's campaign speaks to delegates, so fine, your friends could be correct that they heard from the campaign. But it is standard behavior out here on the interwebs to provide evidence, which you did not do. You know, like a single link to anywhere, anyone, claiming that BO'08 is attempting to poach pledged delegates. (If they are it is not only disgusting, it would be a stupid strategy for someone in the lead and with a 'taking the high ground' candidacy. I don't doubt that BO'08 can engage is slimy tactics, but I do doubt they would be stupid about it). It is not incumbent on readers of your comments to do the research as you are the one making the claim. I watch and read about as much news as anyone and I've never seen that claimed anywhere but in your post. If you don't want a flame war about the content of a post, you don't leave it up to speculation. We don't know each other, so we don't have any reason to trust what the other is saying sans evidence.

    Look, there are an awful lot of HRC trolls out there who jump on any comment thread. Some of them call BO a manchurian muzlim with a crazy pastor. Some of them talk about 'the fighter' who can 'win', contrary to all evidence. Some of them whine about it being her turn. (Yes, there are Obama trolls, too.) Because of the lack of evidence in your post, I have no reason to believe that you are not a whiner and are actually being honest. Give me that evidence, and I will STFU and acknowledge that your claims are correct.

  6. FWIW, I do recall some time ago a campaign member on Hillary's team made a weak claim that Obama was trying to poach delegates, but if I remember correctly it was in response to another claim of Hillary's own poaching. It was a minor he said/she said moment that never went anywhere because there was no evidence of either side actually doing it.

    Now we have solid evidence that one side is in fact doing it. And it's part of a pattern. In fact, it's policy - the "Kitchen Sink" policy, as Clinton's own campaign has labelled it.

    Maybe that'll all change with Penn stepping back a bit. We'll see. But it has certainly helped create the "Monster" image among so many that John Brown illustrates here.

  7. John Brown- I like your blog was brought to my attention by one of my favorite bloggers and someone that I respect, so be aware that you're being read out here....
    I'm wondering something; what good will it do the country or the democratic party, such as it is, to use your outlook and strength as a blogger to pick apart Obama and Hillary?
    We will end up with one or the other of them as a candidate and we will, no matter what, end up pulling that lever or filling that bubble. They both have great weaknesses, but no greater than the fact that this primary is taking the spotlight off of our urgent need to get the word out on McCain.
    At the same time, you say that you don't know much about McCain, who poses a huge threat to your country.
    I would love to see you do some research into McCain and post about him...the truth about him. Check out Cliff Schecter's new book, the Real McCain as a starting point, though you don't really need it. Google will do...just dig a little.

    You have a really nice blog (though I would lose the cheescake chick...and Im not a prude...its just icky,)
    and you have a good talent. What bloggers do is so very important to the country right now....I think that the Taylor Marsh stuff is great...whatever; we do need to police "our own," if you could call her that (though I may have to go and shower if I think about it too much...)...but try real hard not to get in the Hillary vs. Obama thing. It leads nowhere and many of those people who are spending their time on that little fight are saying that they may vote for McCain...who is Bush lite...or worse...ignorant and inserting those Iran's evil talking points at every turn...Lieberman's best friend, changes positions depending on the upcoming election, and abusive to his wife and his colleagues.
    The only thing that one could say about him that is a little positive is that the press loves him. why? he plys them with BBQ and all that...but there is no excuse.
    This man has melanoma and PTSD. He wont release his medical records and he wants to continue the war into Iran in order to "win" known to have an anger problem and flies off the handle in public all the time.
    If you care for your kid (and mine *is* better than your's though watch out for the teen yrs! they are indescribably rough) please do a piece on McCain for us all, and lets see what you think.
    Keep up the good work!

  8. Melina-

    Thanks for reading. I'm keeping the cheesecake. I have my reasons. They are prurient, but they are mine.

    Thanks also for the kind words re: Prepare Yourselves. I do appreciate them.

    With respect to the Obama vs. Monster thing... I understand your position and I can't say that you're necessarily wrong.

    However, my distaste for Hillary is very strong. Not necessarily because of her perspective on issues, either. My distaste is premised on the means by which she advances her issues. She shows a willingness to throw intellectual honesty and integrity completely out the window in pursuit of her objectives. She represents the worst aspects of our politics.

    I'm sick of the pursuit of power at all costs. I'm tired of cheap-shotting, floating known BS to get one-day media strikes on opponents and a host of other Monster techniques.

    I won't pull the lever (actually, we have touch screens here) for Monster unless John McCain cuts my brake lines under cover of darkness in an effort to kill me.

    That doesn't mean I dig Johnny Mac. I don't. I think he's a little more right on a few issues than Barry, but overall he's a standard-issue dummy. He's probably only marginally better than Hillary in asshattery department, but the gap is big enough that I'd default in his direction.

    Trust me, though, once Barry gets over the hump and puts the Monster away, there will be ample opportunity to point out McCain's many weaknesses.

    Thanks again for reading,

    John Brown
    Van Helsing Understudy