Josh Marshall-Talking Points Memo:Toxic (HRC's Florida/Michigan gambit-breathtaking in its cynicism)

[Pirate Smile]

Toxic

For the last week it's seemed that Sens. Clinton and Obama were adhering to their tacit truce, continuing the primary campaign but avoiding the harsh exchanges that make later party unity a dimmer and dimmer prospect. Clinton particularly had deescalated her rhetoric. Then we have a speech like Sen. Clinton's yesterday in Florida in which she compared the controversy over seating the Florida and Michigan delegates to the Florida recount debacle and many of the great voting and civil rights battles of the 20th century. She is of course also claiming that whatever the delegate count, she leads in the popular vote and that that is what really counts. Never mind of course that even if you count Michigan and Florida she's still not ahead in the popular vote without resorting to tendentious methods of counting.

I've always assumed, as I think most people have, that once the nomination is settled the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated. And I can see if Sen. Clinton wants to embrace this issue to claim a moral victory even while coming short of her goal of the nomination. As things currently stand, seating them would still leave Sen. Clinton behind in delegates.

But Sen. Clinton is doing much more than this. She is embarking on a gambit that is uncertain in its result and simply breathtaking in its cynicism.

I know many TPM Readers believe there is a deep moral and political issue at stake in the need to seat these delegations. I don't see it the same way. But I'm not here to say they're wrong and I'm right. It's a subjective question and I respect that many people think this. What I'm quite confident about is that Sen. Clinton and her top advisors don't see it that way.

Why do I think that? For a number of reasons. One of her most senior advisors, Harold Ickes, was on the DNC committee that voted to sanction Florida and Michigan by not including their delegates. Her campaign completely signed off on sanctions after that. And there are actually numerous quotes from the Senator herself saying those primaries didn't and wouldn't count. Michigan and Florida were sanctioned because they ignored the rules the DNC had set down for running this year's nomination process.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Sen. Clinton didn't think this was a problem at all -- until it became a vehicle to provide a rationale for her continued campaign.

Now, that's politics. One day you're on one side of an issue, the next you're on the other, all depending on the tactical necessities of the moment. But that's not what Clinton is doing. She's elevating it to a level of principle -- first principles -- on par with the great voting rights struggles of history. There's no longer any question that she's going to win the nomination. The whole point of the popular vote gambit was to make an argument to super-delegates. And that's fine since that's what super-delegates are there for -- to make the decision by whatever measure they choose. But they've made their decision. The super delegates are breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. They simply don't buy the arguments she's making.

As Greg Sargent makes clear here. There are very good reasons to think Sen. Clinton won't take this to the convention, even as today she suggested she might. But that's sort of beside the point.

What she's doing is not securing her the nomination. Rather, she's gunning up a lot of her supporters to believe that the nomination was stolen from her -- a belief many won't soon abandon. And that on the basis of rationales and arguments there's every reason to think she doesn't even believe in.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/196378.php

[CreekDog]

1. 1 year ago he was defending her vigorously, but she lost him

just like she lost so many of us --because of her campaign tactics.

[kennetha]

2. What's breathtaking in its cynicism

is for Obama's supporters to think that it's alright for Democrats to disenfranchise voters merely in order to protect Obama's narrative of the campaign.

Josh Marshal and Jonathan Chait are making fools of themselves on this one. And making their man look like a calculating unprincipled fool as well.

Of course, these votes should be honored. Of course!

And it is CERTAINLY a matter of principle.

[GarbagemanLB]

5. She said, about Michigan, that "it is clear the election they are having won't count for anything."

SHE SAID THAT.

[GarbagemanLB]

17. NO RESPONSE FROM HILLARY SUPPORTERS? The hypocrisy is astounding.

[ErinBerin84]

6. my principles

include not screwing over the people who stayed home because they knew that their votes wouldn't count. My principles include not screwing over people who were undecided and did not get to benefit from Clinton and Obama campaigning in Florida. And my principles also include not throwing the "wonderful tradition of caucuses" (in Hillary Clinton's words) under the bus and disregarding their votes, in order to push some bullshit popular vote narrative. Hillary Clinton herself said that Al Gore didn't lose the election in Florida because people were "disenfranchised", he lost because he was seen as "out of touch" with people. I would be all for Hillary the suffragette if she had been a little more vocal about Florida and Michigan when she was assuring us that it would "all be over by February 5th".

[cliffordu]

7. Now, Tell me the part where she gets away with "disenfranchising"

the voters until she needs them for some fucking stunt??

[MidwestTransplant]

8. THIS IS RAW BS POLITICS> You think if Hillary were winning she would feel the way. Do you honestly

????
NO WAY. We should seat them in some capacity but when Obama WASN'T EVEN ON THE FUCKING BALLOT IN MICHIGAN, how can you argue they should be seated in any proportion near what Hillary got. Re. Florida, he didn't campaign there. They will be seated in some capacity. They shouldn't be seated in such a way that throws the election to Hillary (even though under the VERY VERY VERY best case scenario it's impossible for her to win even with FL and MI.....unless you double count them.)

Personally I believe she is either:
1. Trying to get on the ticket (my voters won't vote for you without me). She is trying to stir them up and make them feel like she was cheated.
2. Make herself the inevitable candidate again for next time (trying to sabatoge Obama in the first place).

They are disgusting. And I was a big Clinton supporter until Feb. or so. This cynicism is why I abandoned her and why she will now lose.

[kennetha]

14. Obama wasn't on the ballot

ONLY because HE TOOK HIMSELF OFF the ballot.

Why should the voters be disenfranchised because of HIS OWN DECISION. Now his decision is coming back to haunt him.

A man entirely devoid of principles is what he is revealing himself to be.

New Politics my arse!

[MidwestTransplant]

18. You are impossible to talk to. THEY ALL TOOK THEMSELVES OFF as per the rules

Except Hillary and Kuch (who probably didn't have the organization to even do that).

[kennetha]

22. You are either a liar, deluded, or ignorant.

He wasn't REQUIRED to take his name of the ballot. It was a self-serving political ploy. Period! Now it's coming back to bite him in the butt. And he can't stand it.

[Qutzupalotl]

25. She said, "it is clear the election they are having won't count for anything."

And now it's come back to bite HER in the butt and she can't stand it!

[TahitiNut]

26. You seem to be all three.

You prance and posture as though it's about the candidates when it's actually about the VOTERS. If you had the slightest clue, you'd condemn vote suppression and what amounts to voter caging. The VOTERS were not offered a fair election. In Michigan, the legislation providing for the primary was so flawed that it was struck down as unconstitutional. Exit polls, taken in Michigan, portray the disconnect in stark relief ... and that's STILL without any chance for the voters to confront the candidates in a campaign.

The only reason Queen Hillary didn't take her name off the ballot in Michigan is because she knew she could get away with leaving it on the ballot DESPITE her 'pledge' to not "participate." She knew damned well that none of the Four State parties would penalize her for leaving her name on the ballot because she was the 900lb gorilla in the primary at the time. None of the "secondary" candidates could take that risk and be assure access to the Four States. That was the clear and undeniable THREAT from the Four States - "participate" in Michigan and be DENIED participation in the Four States!

The appalling mental dysfunction that comes from brain-dead 'support' for a flawed and deceitful candidate is remarkable!

[MidwestTransplant]

27. Well said

[MidwestTransplant]

28. Here's another gem for you

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/bill-clinton--1.html

[TahitiNut]

29. "But the Democratic party ... decided to destroy the Michigan campaign."

Exactly.

Humpty Dumpty fell. Hillary fed on the omelette and now pretends to rally her horses and men. She can go fuck herself!

[Shakespeare]

30. Why can't Hillary just honor the pledge she signed? Hmmm?

I'm so sick of hearing Hillary fans try to spin her scoffing the rules. :puke:

[NashVegas]

11. Is Marshall Pretending to Be Even Remotely Neutral

Or claim intellectual honesty.

[smiley_glad_hands]

12. Whats breathtaking is how Hill and her supporters flip flop on the rules. eom

[gcomeau]

23. Yes! How dare they not count people's votes!

Just because they didn't follow the clearly defined election rules which they were 100% perfectly well aware of, that's no excuse! A vote is a vote! If I text message a member of my local election board with "I vote Obama! WOOoooOOOO!" then that's MY vote and it should count because THIS is a DEMOCRACY!!!! Not counting it would be DISENFRANCHISEMENT!

[madfloridian]

3. Takes a lot for him to criticize the Clintons.

.

[NashVegas]

9. You Are Being Sarcastic, Yes?

[WilliamPitt]

20. No, she's quite correct

Marshall, by his own recent admission, is an ardent supporter of the Clintons and came into politics defending them. For him to level this degree of criticism at them must be pretty painful for him...making his words all ther more important.

[NashVegas]

33. How He Came Isn't Necessary Where He's Going

The only other Democratic candidate TPM has ever been as consistently negative about was Howard Dean. Now, Josh himself didn't write most of these examples, but it's his rag. He owns it, he's the editor in chief, he decides what direction that department is going to take.

It's not difficult to find hundreds of pages of stories slanted against Clinton on TPM; the TPM narrative has been Clinton bad / Obama good all along.

(3/4/08): You have to give Clinton credit. She's gone a month of crushing defeats. She's been outspent. The narrative has all been against her. (Not because, like a lot of people think because the press is biased, but because losing breeds negativity.) And Obama charged hard against her in Ohio and Texas, probably coming close to even in Ohio, at some point last week.

Hillary Campaign Confirms She's Appearing On O'Reilly Tomorrow Night

Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson confirms to me that she's going on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night.

This has the potential to infuriate the netroots more than Obama's interview with Chris Wallace, because O'Reilly is obviously an unrepentant Dem-sliming, Dem-despising hard-right ideologue, while Wallace at least tries to keep up the pretense that he's working for a legit news organization.

It will be interesting to see how Hillary justifies this -- whether she signals some sort of intention to "take on" O'Reilly, as the Obama adviser promised he'd do to Wallace, or whether she actually does challenge Fox in some way. If not, expect a major outpouring of criticism.


Hillary Reportedly Will Hold No Public Events Tomorrow
By Greg Sargent - May 6, 2008, 11:54PM

On MSNBC, Tim Russert just reported that Hillary was scheduled to appear on the morning shows tomorrow.

...

That's a pretty big deal. Any appearance might force her to publicly defend staying in the race, obviously.

Hillary Clinton's Wrong-Headed Play on Olympic Games
By Steve Clemons - April 7, 2008, 5:37PM

Hillary Clinton is making a wrong-headed play in her call to President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games....

Hillary Defends Obama From McCain's Hamas Attack
By Greg Sargent - May 14, 2008, 3:45PM

CNN just sent me an advance chunk of transcript of an interview that Wolf Blitzer did with Hillary that will be airing today on The Situation Room.

In it, Hillary, who hit Obama for his association with Jeremiah Wright, defends Obama from McCain's bogus Hamas-endorsed-Obama attack...

...

A sign that Hillary is taking a less harsh approach as the end of the campaign grows nigh?

In the interview, Hillary also concedes that her "white Americans" comment was a dumb mistake. We'll bring you video when it's available.

We're Not Talking About Just Anyone!
05.07.08 -- 11:59PM
By Josh Marshall

Noted without comment, because what can you say ...

From USAToday's new interview with Sen. Clinton ...

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

And here's an interesting Rachel Maddow quote, from McCamy's latest:

MADDOW: Pat, I will tell you that on the influential press on the left Web site, talkingpointsmemo today, do you want to know who they‘re blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they‘re blaming for this late showing for Hillary Clinton? They‘re blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing particularly Chris not only for his own views but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.

[Timefortruth]

19. It sure was, until

very recently he had a real blind spot were she is concerned. Now Hillary Newspeak will claim Josh was always an Obama cultist.

[qazplm]

4. she wants obama to fail

its the only way she has a shot at this point in 2012. The I told you so redux.

[Iceburg]

10. The FL/MI disenfranchisement is FAR WORSE than Florida recount debacle

because it means that the millions of votes in 2 large states will not be counted can be pinned DIRECTLY on the DNC & Obama.
The Repubs at least had the "cover" of the SC.

Get a grip on reality -- millions of voters of being disenfranchised because the date of a primary was changed.

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina changed there dates too.

[smiley_glad_hands]

15. There is no disenfranchisment.

Learn how to follow the rules. For you to even frame it that way suggests a hidden agenda.

[MidwestTransplant]

16. BECAUSE THE DATE CHANGED PRIOR TO ANOTHER SPECIFC DATE.

The other states are not analagous. I don't know if you didn't know that or you are just trying to be a propagandist. They will be counted in some capacity....don't worry about it.

[Timefortruth]

21. Then why did Hillary support it at the

outset?

[dchill]

24. And what about those who didn't vote...

because they knew the rules, and that their votes wouldn't "count for anything?"

Who is really disenfranchised? What about the 48 states that followed the rules? Do you advocate overturning their verdict?

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina were given permission in the rules to have their votes on the dates they used. But you know that, and you know your position is all Clinton hyperbole and manufiction.

You are not an actor in a drama, you're a bit player in a farce. This isn't "RECOUNT."

[slinkerwink]

13. Good on Josh for telling like it is

[Sundoggy]

31. Josh is the Walter Cronkite of the left n/t

[Major Hogwash]

32. Right on the money!!! Josh is dead on with this article.

But look at all the Hillbots saying he is wrong.

LoL