This only galvanizes my belief that Sen. Clinton wants to destroy Obama so he can't win. She knows she can't win it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9994.htmlClinton playing by her own set of rules
By ROGER SIMON | 4/30/08 6:29 PM EST
"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.”
(cut)
"As I have previously pointed out, 56 percent of all superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee itself, and the DNC represents the largest bloc of delegates who have not yet committed to a candidate.
"Am I saying that the DNC, the ultimate insiders, could decide who the Democratic nominee is? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
"Why is this a problem for Clinton?
"Because more than anybody, DNC members know that the popular vote doesn’t count, even though Clinton says it does.
"The DNC made the current rules. If it had wanted a national primary, a day on which all Democrats across the land would vote and choose the nominee (a legitimate idea), it would have created such a system.
"But the DNC created a different system, one in which pledged delegates — selected from legitimate primaries and caucuses — and superdelegates get to select the nominee."
There is more at the link. "Hillary Rules" are not the rules of this election. And I am outraged that the MSM even gives credence to Clinton's arguments. But at the end of the day, Obama gets the nomination. And Clinton wants him to lose the GE.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
