An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Voters Without Borders

Democrats’ Sickly Approach to Health Care »

Twisting the Truth: Hillary, the Popular Vote, and Clintonian Ethics

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Apr 24th, 2008 | Comments

Good for ABC News. Here’s Jake Tapper calling out the Clinton campaign for twisting the truth:

In [yesterday]’s edition of “The Note,” ABC News’ Rick Klein wrote that “By one (rightly disputed) metric — the popular vote, including Florida and Michigan — Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama. But without the rogue states, Obama is still up by 500,000 — and if you can find another objective measurement by which she’s in the lead, let us know.”

Including the popular votes from Florida and Michigan — which were not sanctioned Democratic National Committee primaries, where the candidates did not compete, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois was not even on the ballot in Michigan — is a sketchy notion, and Rick was conveying that with the proper air of skepticism.

Somehow, the Clinton campaign took his report and twisted it into this: “ABC News reported this morning that ‘Clinton has pulled ahead of Obama’ in the popular vote.”

That is a false reflection of what ABC News reported.

Yet, it’s the Clinton campaign spin-of-the-moment — and, of course, Hillary supporters like Taylor Marsh (whom I still like despite our differences) have picked up on it.

Look, Clinton and her campaign have been twisting the truth and moving the goalposts throughout the campaign. It’s what I like to call “Clintonian ethics” — basically, when you’re losing, change the rules so that you’re not losing anymore.

Hillary is losing the popular vote and delegate count (with and without the superdelegates). Since Super Tuesday, Obama has trounced her in terms of superdelegate pick-ups. Hillary won Ohio and Pennsylvania, of course, but Obama has won many more states than she has. So what’s the spin? Hillary has won more “big” states. Or, the states Hillary has won collectively have more electoral college votes. Or, caucuses aren’t as important as primaries. Or, well, whatever. In this case, it’s that she’s won more of the popular vote… if you include Florida and Michigan.

But why should Florida and Michigan be included? The decision to strip them of their delegates was the DNC’s, not Obama’s — and Hillary went along with it until she was losing and needed those delegates. (She wouldn’t be complaining if she were in the lead now.) Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Nor was Edwards. Oh, Hillary was, but for what purpose? To “win” an uncontested primary? They were all on the ballot in Florida, but they all agreed not to campaign there. Yet Hillary went there to declare “victory” after the “vote”. How convenient. Clintonian ethics, you see, is situational ethics — the situation being, when it helps the Clintons, or whatever helps the Clintons in any given situation.

And now it’s this convenient popular vote argument that is being pushed — with the truth being twisted, as required.

I take nothing away from Hillary’s wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, New York and California, and elsewhere. She is a very strong candidate. I may not like her much anymore, and I may deeply dislike her campaign and surrogates, but what is truly despicable about all this is how she is trying to win. First, by throwing the “kitchen sink” at Obama, by smearing him, including by praising McCain as presidential. Second, by turning herself into a populist (god, guns, and booze) and warmongering (”obliterate” Iran) Republican to win over right-leaning voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Third, by trying to change the rules over and over again — so much so that her shifting of the goalposts compares to Bush’s shifting of the goalposts of “victory” in Iraq.

And what now? She may have won Pennsylvania, but the remaining votes may play out to a draw. Indeed, despite her victory yesterday, Obama’s lead, though narrowed, is even more insurmountable.

Simply put, barring a dramatic collapse, Obama should win the nomination.

So expect more from the cesspool of Clintonian ethics.

**********

Jon Stewart had a brilliant bit last night (Apr. 23) showing how Hillary’s spin has changed over the course of the campaign. If you missed it, go find it.

  • RememberNovember
    There is a spurious lack of fact-checking going on in the media. I for one think the MSM need to go through re-certification, much like IT techs, doctors,other health care and professionals have to. Awards for political boot-licking don't count. They are the one industry that has an entropic slack factor.
  • mw
    Lets talk about facts. 15,095,663 real live registered Democratic and Independent American voters took time out of their day, walked into a voting booth or caucus and cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in elections that were certified by their respective states. That cannot be argued, It cannot be disputed. It is reality. It is a fact.

    Which of those Americans do you want to disenfranchise again, Michael?
  • Pyronite
    I'm glad to see that we're taking our democratic cues from the great nation of Haiti. Maybe next time we'll have TWO people on the ballot, and one can even go on tv!
  • elrod
    DWS,
    Talk to the state parties for breaking DNC rules. Just because you host an election doesn't mean it counts. The DNC has to certify it. I could hold an election in my backyard, declare Obama the victor, and demand that the Tennessee delegation be given to Obama because the state vote was illegitimate. Who would adjudicate such a dispute? The DNC.
  • mw
    @pyronite
    Yeah. I see your point. When Obama voluntarily asked for his name to be removed from the Michigan ballot, it was clearly the kind of amateurish mistake and poor judgment that one might expect from somebody who does not have a lot of executive experience. But it was early in the campaign, I don't think we should hold that against him. I have a much bigger problem when , more recently the Obama campaign had an opportunity to correct that mistake, join with Hillary Clinton and work for a re-vote, but chose instead to obstruct and prevented the re-vote from happening. So, given the obstruction of the Obama campaign, there is no choice left but to do the right thing, and count all the votes. That is what good Democrats do.

    @elrod
    The rules were that the MI and FL votes will not count toward selection of pledged delegates. Those rules have been followed by both Clinton and Obama, and as a result Obama has a lead in pledged delegates. Stipulated. But since Obama has failed to win the nomination with pledged delegates, the same rules say that superdelegates will decide. There are no rules about how candidates can present arguments to the superdelegates. Any Democrat would have to say that it is certainly legitimate for a candidate to make an argument by counting all the people who voted for that candidate. For me that is a pretty good argument. And Obama supporters are free to make the argument that Obama should be nominated because the voters of Michigan and Florida should be disenfranchised. Go for it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC