|
|
|
Clinton’s Three-Pronged Strategy to Steal the Nomination
by Randy Shaw‚
Mar. 10‚ 2008
Hillary Clinton is pursuing a three-pronged strategy to win the Democratic presidential nomination despite finishing second in the elected delegate count. Her goals are to change the rules by adding new contests, reinterpret the rules by spinning the primacy of popular vote wins in “big states,” and to turn Barack Obama into the George McGovern of his time. Clinton supporters are citing Martin Luther King Jr. to back their demand for new primaries in Florida and Michigan, claiming the civil rights leader opposed supporting “unjust laws.” Clinton’s camp is also framing Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary as decisive, a strategy to make popular vote victories in “big states,” rather than the actual delegate count, the chief entitlement for the nomination. But Clinton’s chief strategy is to portray Barack Obama as so weak on national security issues that his election would jeopardize the nation’s safety. To this end she has aligned herself with fellow Iraq war supporter John McCain, and against both Obama and the Democratic Party majority that strongly opposed the invasion and wants troops out now.
But for all of the fretting by Obama supporters that Clinton will steal the 2008 nomination like Bush stole the White House in 2000, there is a key difference: Clinton, unlike the Republican-controlled Supreme Court that annointed Bush, can be stopped.
Strategy No. 1: Change the Rules
If Barack Obama had Hillary Clinton’s current delegate count, the Democratic Party would not be seriously considering holding new elections in Florida and Michigan. But the Clinton camp not only seeks to change the delegate selection rules in the middle of the game, but argues that the moral principles of Martin Luther King, Jr. mandate such an outcome.
Think I’m kidding? On March 7, I heard Florida Congressmember and Clinton backer Debbie Wasserman-Schultz say on the Stephanie Miller show (available mornings in the Bay Area on AM 960) that just as King spoke out against following “unjust laws,” so must Floridians reject the Democratic National Committee’s delegate selection rules for Florida.
That’s right. At least one prominent Clinton supporter sees a parallel between King’s opposition to the systematic violation of African-Americans’ legal and constitutional rights, and Howard Dean’s decision to penalize Florida for moving up its primary in violation of DNC rules. I look forward to the sit-ins at lunch counters by Wasserman and her allies.
And understand that the Clinton camp is not content to simply change the rules---Hillary is insisting on rewriting them to her advantage, saying she would only accept a primary, not a caucus.
Strategy No. 2: Reinterpret the Rules
Because Clinton cannot make up her delegate deficit even if Michigan and Florida hold new contests, changing the rules is not sufficient. Rather, Clinton’s main goal---which the media has bought hook, line and sinker since March 4 is to reinterpret the delegate selection process.
While both camps began the election season seeking to win the most delegates, Clinton realizes that it has become a mathematical and political impossibility for her to beat Obama by sticking to these rules. She now wants voters to believe that the candidate entitled to the nomination is the person who has won popular vote victories in large states, even when---as in Texas---there were no delegates awarded for such a “victory.”
Clinton’s “big state” analysis has been her greatest public relations success. And a measure of this success is how rarely the traditional media offers the obvious counterpoint to this “big state” claim: Obama did not waste resources in such big states as New York and California because his camp knew that the delegate selection rules would not reward such an investment.
Recall that in both these “big states,” a candidate had to get over 60% of the vote in a district to get an extra delegate. It made little economic or strategic sense to invest heavily in such contests, but Clinton is now trying to transform this squandering of resources into a sign of her entitlement to the nomination.
If winning the popular vote in “big states” really is a greater sign of a candidate’s strength, then the DNC’s delegate selection rules should have rewarded this. But it did not. Had Obama foolishly squandered resources on such contests, and then tried to claim the nomination despite winning fewer delegates, the media would be denouncing him as a “bad sport” who refused to play by the rules.
Clinton’s “big state” analysis assumes that such victories would make her a stronger opponent of John McCain. But most polls show otherwise, and states like New York and California will go to any Democratic candidate. Likewise, Ohio has become a blue state since the 2006 elections.
If the media wants to ignore the rules and focus on criteria other than who has won the most delegates, the most logical emphasis would be on the candidate that has won such “swing” states as Virginia, Colorado and Missouri. But Obama won two of three of these handily, so that criteria for the nomination has been ignored.
Strategy No. 3: Obama is the new McGovern
To convince superdelegates to overturn the popular will, Clinton must invoke fear. And this fear is not about a terrorist attack, but rather about an Obama fall election campaign where McCain puts him and all Democrats on the defensive on national security issues.
Clinton worked on McGovern’s 1972 campaign, and knows firsthand how Nixon and the media took a decorated World War II hero and made him into a coward who could not be counted upon to protect America.
Now she’s trying to do the same thing to Obama, even if this means repeatedly aligning herself with John McCain against her fellow Democrat. That’s why Hillary said that only she and McCain passed the “threshold” to be commanders in chief, whereas Obama had not.
Those who keep arguing that Obama and Clinton share the same political views really need to look at Hillary’s strong identification with McCain, who joined her in backing the Iraq War and is content to have our troops to remain there for one hundred years. Clinton is not simply trying to discredit Obama---rather, she is trying to discredit and undermine the majority of Democrats who opposed the war from the outset and want an immediate troop withdrawal.
In other words, Clinton is following Nixon’s strategy of 1972 by waging a vicious campaign against the nation’s anti-war movement. She not only wants the nomination, but if elected, the Joe Lieberman-wing of the Democratic Party would be in charge of national security in a Hillary Clinton Administration.
Ensuring the Popular Will
Since Clinton’s strategies are so transparent, ensuring that the candidate who wins the most delegates gets the nomination is easier than appears. Three quick and obvious steps:
First, activists must stop assuming the fatalistic posture that “The Establishment” always wins. The superdelegates are comprised of politicians and/or the politically ambitious that put their personal interests first; they and are not going to accept defeat in November to help the Clintons.
Second, stay up on the facts and spread the word via email, personal contacts, letters to newspapers etc. For example, while it took three days for the traditional media to admit Obama won the most delegates in Texas, online activism helped force this story out. If enough people keep talking and writing about the media’s ignoring of the delegate count, eventually the corporate media is compelled to respond.
Third, do not be swayed or discouraged by the media’s false and unfair framing of this race. The Clinton camp wants all focus to be on Pennsylvania from March 12-April 22 because they are heavily favored to win the popular vote there; activists must use that period to generate pressure that the popular will is ultimately respected.
The United States Supreme Court did not have to face the voters after Bush v. Gore; in contrast, many of the superdelegates do.
EMAIL THIS STORY
PRINT FRIENDLY
Copyright © 2005-2008
Beyond
Chron.org. All rights reserved.
RSS News Feed
|
|
May 13, 2008
