Clinton playing by her own set of rules

[democracy1st]

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the popular vote, and this is her path to victory.

She will ultimately win the Democratic nomination by convincing the superdelegates that her popular vote lead makes it legitimate for them to support her. It gives them the cover they need to deny Obama a nomination that he otherwise would have won.

What’s wrong with this picture?

First, Clinton does not lead Obama in the popular vote. It is a fantasy.

Second, the people she most needs to convince that this fantasy is true are the people least likely to believe it.

Let’s first deal with Clinton’s fantasy lead in the popular vote.

“I’m very proud that as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else,” Clinton said the day after her victory in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.


But has she really? No. Not really. Not unless you throw out the existing rules of the Democratic Party and invent a new set of Hillary Rules.

Under Hillary Rules, Clinton counts the popular vote in Michigan, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot. The Democratic Party does not recognize those votes.

Under Hillary Rules, Clinton also counts the popular vote in Florida, where candidates were forbidden to campaign. The Democratic Party does not recognize the results of the Florida primary, either.

Under Hillary Rules, Clinton throws out the “votes by the people who have voted” in the states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, because those were caucus states, where popular vote tallies were not officially kept and where, by the way, Obama won three out of the four contests.

Under Hillary Rules, Clinton gets to choose the contests that help her, throw out the contests that do not and declare herself the winner.

Steve Kornacki of The New York Observer did an excellent, detailed story last week on Clinton and the popular vote, going through a number of different scenarios and projections for the contests that remain.

His conclusion: “The point is that under the most basic and probably the fairest criteria — simply counting every state and U.S. possession where there was a legitimate primary or a caucus where popular votes were tallied — Obama will finish the primary season hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of Clinton.”


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.html

[SeattleGirl]

1. While the different systems of voting in different states can drive me

crazy, what's worse is the Hilary Rules.

I get particularly angry when she or her surrogates try to imply that Obama is responsible for them, or that she's somehow surprised (i.e. ignorant) of the rules AS THEY STOOD BEFORE THE VOTING IN FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN TOOK PLACE.

You may not like the rules, and that's fine. But it's not fine to try to change them in the middle of the game.

[democracy1st]

4. right out of the GOP playbook

[FrenchieCat]

2. Oooh. Good one!

She full steam ahead "Operation psyche".

she thinks that if she believes it she can achieve it. Someone needs to throw some cold water on her.

[Yossariant]

3. The RULES discount the delegates -- not the voters.

Saying we don't count the delegates is one thing.

Sayiong we don't count the voters is quite another thing.

Shizophrenia: Count the votes! Don't count the votes!

[Blarch]

5. What a hack.