Obama Expands His Ethical Fundraising Standards To The DNC

As Mahatma Gandhi said,

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

So while John McCain talks about change (even though he supports almost all of Bush's disastrous policies), and talking about fighting corporate interests (while his campaign is bought, paid for and run by lobbyists), Obama actually is change.

Today he once again showed his commitment to changing how Washington does business by expanding his rule of not accepting any money from federal lobbyists or special interest PACs to the DNC, as one of his first directives after becoming the official leader of the Democratic Party. In a statement today:

I've sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I'm announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won't take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I'm President of the United States.

Bye bye corporate interests, your glory days in Washington are setting fast right along with the Republican Party, because with Obama in charge, the Republican Party is the only corporate-controlled party out there. Have fun trying to tout your ethics now McCain, out there all alone, awash in corporate cash.

Oh, and McCain, when is your filthy rich wife going to release the rest of her tax returns? I think Americans would like to know where your campaign money came from, and who pays for your flights on her corporate jet.

Update: On Wednesday Obama introduced new legislation to make the government even more transparent than he did the first time. McCain tagged his name on as a cosponsor, no doubt to keep up his veneer of ethics. I wonder if this would get in the way of McCain's shady land deals..

Obama, As The New Leader Of The Democratic Party, Calls The Shots

One of the things it was widely known that the Clintons wanted to do as soon as they won the nomination was to kick Howard Dean out of the DNC and load it with their DLC establishment cronies that share their same views of how the Democratic Party should be. For me this would have been one of many big negatives of Hillary winning the nomination. The DLCers have always pursued a narrow-minded, short-sighted, triangulating vision of Democratic strategy, and we can see what that got us: 8 years of Bill Clinton playing the role of Reagan-lite (in terms of corporations, deregulation, budget and gutting social services), we lost 12 Senate seats while Bill was running the show, we lost 47 House seats, we lost 11 governorships, we lost control of 13 state legislatures, we lost well over a thousand state legislative seats, and hundreds of elected officials nationwide switched parties to the Republicans. That was the state of the Democratic Party after the mismanagement of the Clintons and the DLC.

And it is no secret they were very much against Dean when he took control of the DNC. They were against his 50-state strategy, instead preferring the narrow 50%+1 strategy that had failed the Party for many elections. Since then we've seen that Dean really knew what he was doing, and has presided over huge victories for Democrats in every corner of the country. Dean has done a great job, shown great leadership, and left an indelible mark on this country.

Howard Dean, DNC Chair, Rockstar

So Hillary didn't win, the Clintons were unable to take control of the Party and kick out Dean, but the question of Dean's future was still unknown, as the DNC Chair's tenure is usually an open question after a nominee is chosen, because the nominee will usually install a loyalist at the helm. Today Obama gave us a look at what he has in mind for the future of the DNC:

Senator Obama appreciates the hard work that Chairman Dean has done to grow our party at the grassroots level and looks forward to working with him as the chairman of the Democratic Party as we go forward.

That's right, Dean stays. Obama, once again, showed exceptional judgment. He has always embraced the 50-state strategy and he recognizes that Dean has done a terrific job. Now we go on strong, with proven leadership both in the DNC and Obama, and we are going to unleash an electoral tsunami on the Republicans, essentially the exact opposite of what the Clintons and the DLC did in the 90s, and for the second election in a row.

I, for one, can't wait to see who Obama picks for his cabinet, because his judgment is impeccable, and unlike Bush, he surrounds himself with the best qualified people, not loyalists he is rewarding for political favors. I'm confident he will assemble a great team, and the times are gonna be a-changin' when he gets into the White House.



Oh, and I think it is time to bring Samantha Power back.

McCainocrats?

As you may recall, yesterday I provided you with a sampling of some of the vitriol coming from hardcore Hillary supporters are the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee, these included claims that Obama is gay, a murderer, a misogynist, a Nazi, a socialist and many frenzied vows that they will vote for McCain in November. Some even chanted that Fox News is "fair and balanced". Now you tell me, are these Democrats? If I just heard these comments out of context, I would assume they were coming straight out of the mouthes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, even too vile for the scum on Fox News. Yet no, the come from supposed Democrats, supposed Democrats who are now vowing to scorch the earth and vote for a third term of Bush. Meteor Blades over at Daily Kos had some good analysis of who these small and petty specimens really are:

I’m not prescient or plugged-in enough to have any special window on how many of you Clinton supporters who are saying you will vote for John McCain in November will come to your senses by then. Many people I respect think that most of you will. I suspect they’re right. I hope they are. But it’s obvious that more than a handful of you are serious in your vindicativeness and will join Joe Lieberman to support the Senator from Arizona over Obama. That would be the anti-choice, hundred-year-war, two-faced, Republican Senator from Arizona.

Thus is born a new subspecies, McCain Democrats, McCainocrats.

If your shrieking can be believed, you McCainocrats are premeditating ballot support for an exclusive club of racist, union-busting, woman-suppressing, bedroom-peering, rights-scoffing, warmongering, torture-backing, buccaneering, global warming-denying, privatizing, public land-grabbing, Supreme Court stuffing, empire-building, Constitution-shredding raptors. All for self-indulgent revenge. You’re unhappy that your candidate has not won the nomination. I understand that. Mine didn’t win either. But you’re not just unhappy, you're also willing to contribute to the election of someone who stands against most of what your candidate has been promoted as standing for. That, I don’t comprehend at all. Emotionally, intellectually or morally. I get the feeling you would vote for George W. Bush in 2008 if the 22nd Amendment weren’t in the way.

You McCainocrats might recall that you have ancestors.

Here Meteor Blades goes on to explain past species of traitors to the Democratic Party, the "George Wallace Democrats", the "Nixon Democrats" and the oft-mentioned "Reagan Democrats", but these people weren't so much traitors as simply belonging to the wrong party. They were really Republicans, who just hadn't officially switched over to the party of racism and corporate greed, yet. Meteor Blades goes on to explain how these "McCainocrats" aren't threatening to leave for any ideological reasons, which may be excusable, they are threatening to leave out of revenge, showing the true shallowness of their characters:

You McCainocrats don’t run in a direct lineage from all these ancestors. For one thing, they had issues, many of them unlikable, even detestable, but understandable. You, however, clearly have no guiding philosophy beyond surly revenge. John McCain can’t possibly give you what you want if what you really want is what you say Senator Clinton has been in the running for this year. Only on the margins does he contravene the rightwing cabal that over time seized the party and has now left it in disarray. His discernible stances on almost everything of note are, or should be, anathema to any Democrat who is a Democrat. Much of the rest of his views are just contradictory meandering. When he opens his mouth, you never know which side he will speak from.

I’m no fan of third parties because history shows only one making the leap to even the lower rungs of national power. But I can at least understand voters who jump ship to a third party based on principle and symbolism and hope for a breakthrough in a direction amicable to their beliefs. You McCainocrats, on the other hand, are incomprehensible. Is the idea that voting for another four years of rightwing Republican rule would be worth it as long as you could say: "See? We told you Obama couldn’t win." Does the McCainocrat lunacy embrace the idea that four more years of a Republican in the White House would make Clinton a shoo-in for 2012?

If that’s what your telling me, if you’re willing to force the American people to suffer for your chance to say nah-nah-nah ...

He hit the nail on the head. Unlike the Republican-Democrats of the past, most of these people really are Democrats, but they have gotten so out of touch with reality and perspective, so fanatical in their blind support of Hillary, that they are actually willing to betray everything they say they stand for. They say they are doing this because they are pro-women (as if we aren't all pro-women) yet they are vowing to go out of their way to support John McCain, an anti-women, anti-choice candidate, who wants to, and would likely have it in his power to, roll back decades of progress for reproductive rights. A candidate who called his wife a "cunt". All this against a candidate who has been very committed to defending reproductive rights, just as much as Hillary, if not more. It isn't about the issues, it isn't about women or feminism, it is about a disgusting fanatical allegiance to a candidate just because she has a vagina, and maybe because she was married to Bill Clinton. It is the height of insanity. It is disgusting. I'd much rather these hardcore loyalists just officially switch over to the Republican Party, because if they are willing to sabotage the Democrats out of bitterness that their candidate didn't win, they are Republicans as far as I'm concerned, and I'd rather them make it official, because I'm extremely embarrassed to be in the same party as these people.

Oh, and you overestimate your strength, because you are a fanatical few, and you can hold hands with the Republicans and John McCain, and you can try to stab the Democrats in the back out of sheer vindictiveness, but you will not succeed, you will not ruin this election for us, you will not get your "I told you so" moment, because the vast majority of Hillary's supporters are not insane, fanatical and vindictive, and they will support Obama. Indeed many, even many of her biggest supporters, are already embracing Obama. So you can try all you want, but your hate won't go away, because you'll never find the relief you are looking for, and all you do is give Hillary and yourselves, and perhaps women in general a bad name. In the end you are only hurting yourself.

Update: And read this.

Our Long Florida-Michigan Nightmare Is Over

Today the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee finally put an end to the Florida-Michigan fiasco, and in probably the best way possible. Here is a breakdown:

• Both Michigan and Florida get 100% of their delegates seated, thus giving their voters a voice at the Convention, even if the votes represented illegitimate elections in the first place.
• The delegates from Florida and Michigan only receive half a vote at the Convention, which represents the punishment for breaking the rules, yet is gracious considering the original penalty was no vote at all. This was necessary because without a penalty there would be no reason for them, and every other state, to break the rules next time around. People never mentioned this, but Michigan has broken the rules THREE presidential elections in a row (2000, 2004, 2008), they knew what they were doing, and they keep breaking the rules anyway, sanctions were necessary to maintain order in the Democratic Party and to not be a HUGE slap in the face to the 48 states that actually obeyed the rules. Hillary wanted them to not be penalized at all, apparently not caring that such a decision would mean chaos for the next contested primary season.
• Obama received the "Uncommitted" delegates from Michigan, the vast majority of which obviously voted for Obama (and then some for Edwards, who endorsed Obama). This was quite obviously the fairest outcome, since it comes closer to mirroring the actual will of the voters than the alternative solution, which was Hillary's contention that Obama should get ZERO votes from Michigan. Yes, they think that was the fairest outcome. No one in the entire state of Michigan voted for Obama apparently. That is what the Hillary camp would like us to assume.

In the end, Hillary got 19 more delegates out of Florida than Obama, and 10 more out of Michigan, meaning that after their votes are cut in half, she gets 14.5 more delegates than Obama, which changes nothing. I should also mention that this was the exact solution I was supporting as the ideal compromise, for everyone.

What is really important here is that the Florida decision was UNANIMOUS, meaning every single Hillary supporter on the Committee voted in favor of the compromise, signaling how ridiculous her position was, and how the Party is unifying around Obama, despite her scorched earth strategy. The Michigan vote was 19-8, so 8 Hillary supporters hung on to the outrageous demand that Obama get zero votes out of Michigan, apparently thinking it is perfectly acceptable to disenfranchise every Obama (and Edwards) supporter in the state, even though they just spent and entire day calling for the DNC to "count every vote" that helps Hillary. But even that vote shows that the Party is essentially behind Obama now, and that Hillary has no place to go. Although her spokesman Harold Ickes did close with a threat that Hillary "reserves the right" to take her complaints to the Credentials Committee (i.e. scorching the earth).

Hillary's supporters in attendance and protesting outside put on a pretty pathetic and petty show though. They repeatedly booed when Obama supporters on the Committee were making points, while Obama supporters never booed Hillary's supporters on the Committee, as apparently they've been house trained, while Hillary's supporters obviously have not. Outside Hillary's supporters were angry, and vowed to vote for McCain in November (yes, obviously they were great Democrats in the first place). There were also reports of some of her supporters handing out right-wing propaganda about Obama. Here is a sampling:

"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."

"I will actively campaign against him."

"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."

"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."

"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."

It was not all that different from the mood outside, where signs read, "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen," and some pamphlets detailed Obama's supposed dealings in drugs and gay sex.

"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Eve Fairbanks, a reporter with The New Republic, was asked by one protester.

[And this shows who's side they are on:]

"HuffPost sucks! HuffPost sucks!" and later, "Fox News, fair And balanced! Fox News, fair and balanced!"

Yes, Obama is a murder apparently, and a gay one at that. And these despicable people pretend to be Democrats. Even Ann Coulter doesn't say crap that vile and ridiculous. All a pretty sad display, and I'd be embarrassed by their conduct if I was Hillary, or a sane Hillary supporter.

Anyway, I'm glad Florida and Michigan are behind us, Hillary is out of ways to distort the delegate math, and essentially everyone won, aside from Hillary and her supporters who were less concerned with a fair outcome than they were with Hillary's political games.

Update: Apparently Obama actually had the votes to press for an even more favorable option on Michigan, a 50-50 split, but chose not to, in order to be more charitable to Hillary, and to help Party unity.

Bush, McCain, McClellan & The War

The DNC has released a video using Scott McClellan's recent confessions to attack John McCain, using John McCain's own words, check it out:

Hillary's Tangle Of Distortions Over Michigan And Florida

The Jed Report keeps doing what it does best, putting together another great video exposing Hillary's hypocrisy and political games:



The Jed Report breaks it down:

Earlier today in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Hillary Clinton endorsed the Republican Party's decision to cut in half the voting power of the Florida delegation to the RNC.

Why should they have been cut in half? "Because it was a Republican decision" to change the primary date, she said.

The problem? Democrats also supported the decision. In fact, it passed the state senate by a 37-2 margin and it passed the state house by a 118-0 margin. Moreover, the state party leadership steadfastly stuck with the January 29 date even though they knew the DNC would not seat the Florida delegations.

Clinton herself supported the DNC's punishment when she signed a pledge to honor the DNC's rules. The key line in that pledge: "the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will strip states of 100% of their delegates and super delegates to the DNC National Convention if they violate the nomination calendar."

And now, even though Clinton is conceding that the Republican Party was correct to penalize its delegation, she is refusing to agree to a compromise that would apply the same exact penalty to the Democratic delegation. The basis of her refusal is a demonstrably false claim.

And that of course leads us right back where we started: for Hillary Clinton, Florida has nothing to do with principle.

It's just another power play.

And here is a closer look at how the DNC's decision was made, and how Hillary's group fully supported it, and could have changed the decision if they had really cared:

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

And a reporter recently raised this very fact, that Hillary could have influenced the rules if she had actually cared at the time, check out Hillary's response:

Reporter: Some people might say, where were you when we needed you? When the rules and bylaws committee was stripping away our delegates, you were silent, and some of your top advisors, Harold Ickes, Tina Flournoy, were voting for that penalty.

Clinton: Well, I don’t agree with that decision of the Democratic party, and I’ve been pushing for them to rectify that decision, and I hope that they will do so...

She totally avoids the question. She doesn't answer it, which is quite typical of how she responds to reporters when they ask something difficult. Instead, she says that she doesn't agree with "that decision of the Democratic party, ignoring the obvious fact that she was the presumptive nominee at the time and had unparalleled power, and ignoring the fact that many of those involved in the decision, including some of her top advisors, were the ones who voted to strip Florida and Michigan of delegates. So when Hillary is asked a simple question by a reporter, all we get is more disingenuous spin and game playing. She blames it on the Party, even though she 100% supported the rules until she had a reason to want to break them. Then, suddenly, it is a matter of civil rights, an epic struggle for freedom. Right...

Hillary Questions The "Principles" Of The Democratic Party [UPDATED]

Here's some great hillpocrisy for you. Today she took some time out of her busy schedule to trash on the Democratic Party:

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Again, she clearly only cares about Michigan (and by Michigan I mean only the voters who voted for her) and Florida because they were essentially held in information blackout and thus went to her by decent margins. Let's take a look back at what Hillary was advocating a few months ago:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

How's that for principles Hillary? But hey, if you want to know why Florida and Michigan can't be seated as is, maybe you should ask your top spokesman Terry McAuliffe, who made the stakes clear in 2004 (the last time Michigan broke the rules):

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

Oh, you mean there are rules, rules that have a purpose, and they knowingly violates these rules even after they knew of the consequences? Apparently for Hillary rules are meant to be broken, even if breaking them means anarchy in future primaries. On wait, they do know this, they signed a pledge saying as much back in 2007:



Chuck Schumer got one thing right, Hillary changes her position based on what helps her, but Obama has been 100% consistent and 100% in compliance with the DNC rules that everyone agreed to at the beginning. Hillary is the only one here saying one thing and then spinning around and saying the completely opposite for political gain.

But what is really disappointing here is that Hillary would go after the Democratic Party like that, and say that there is something wrong with their principles because they made rules and created consequences for breaking those rules as a way of enforcement. She is basically saying to the people of Florida and Michigan that the Democratic Party is out of touch and doesn't care about them, and I think it is safe to assume she is implying that unless the Democratic Party gives her what she wants and ignores the rules, they will suffer loses in Florida and Michigan in November, which is no doubt what she would like to see since she won't be the nominee.

And of course she went on to repeat her outright lie that she is ahead in the popular vote, which couldn't be further from the truth. Kos did a great job of summing this argument up today:

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

I'd like to expand a little bit on his first point. This is a delegate race, that is what the agreed upon rules state and there is no mechanism in those rules to accommodate a win by any other metric than delegates. Now if they had decided popular vote would decide the nominee from the beginning, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington were counted (and Florida and Michigan counted fairly--NOT Hillary's way), then the primary could have been decided in that manner, but that means that the strategies would have been very different. Her bringing up ridiculous measures of victory like popular vote, for the Republican system ignores the fact that if we had been playing by different rules Obama wouldn't have chosen the same strategy he did, so you can't assume the results would have been the same. If it had been winner-take-all you can be sure Obama would have fought like hell for California and the bigger states. If it had been all about the popular vote you Obama and Hillary would have focused more on running up the turnout in their home states while focusing on the most populous states and ignoring the majority of the US. But popular vote wasn't the goal, and this was never winner-take-all, so Obama went with the best strategy for winning the most delegates, and he won. Now Hillary can whine and go "but what if.." or "but the Republicans.." or "if only.." and she can try to change the rules and play the victim like she was robbed of the nomination, but those were the rules, the rules she agreed to, and the rules that must be followed. This is about fairness, not about what works best for Hillary. She doesn't seem to understand that. I, for one, am sick of hearing her lie and spin about the popular vote, Michigan, Florida, and all her false excuses for losing. Basically I'm tired of watching Hillary act like a child. It is undignified and embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

Update: Hillary highlights her attack/threat against the Democratic Party:

If we fail to [seat the Michigan and Florida delegates], I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well. We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you.

And then she put counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan (oh, except Obama's) on the same level as the struggle against slavery and other historic fights:

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote."

Yes, she is comparing the issue with Florida and Michigan, whose votes wouldn't even change the outcome of the primary, to universal suffrage and the fight against slavery. Oh, but of course she doesn't have a problem with disenfranchising everyone who voted for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, or the people who voted in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Funny, the fight for HER voters in Michigan and Florida is suddenly the latest battle for human progress, but everyone else's voters can go to hell. And apparently she doesn't care that the voters in Florida and Michigan didn't really have a choice, as long as voters were put in boxes, it was "democratic" and should be counted. Many a third world dictator would agree whole heartedly. Oh but wait, there is more:

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

So there you have it, in the same breath she lied and said she was ahead in the popular vote, she compared Obama to Bush stealing the 2000 election, and she committed brazen hillpocrisy by saying "if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished" when HER OWN PLAN doesn't count the votes of half the voters in Michigan and completely ignores the voters of FOUR other states!! The ridiculousness of this is astounding, I mean just amazing that she can talk like this with a straight face. How shameless and small, invoking the memory of the great struggles of American history to serve her own political agenda, while committing the same acts of disenfranchisement that she is being all self-righteous about. Shameless.

Next thing you know she'll be saying Christ died for the votes of Florida voters, and only her voters from Michigan, and so that the people of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington got ignored. "You better seat those delegates or Jesus died for nothing!!" Hell, she acts like she has a divine right to the nomination and the presidency, it is only a matter of time before she invokes the will of providence as a new measure of victory.

Update #2: Oh, and I should also add one more thing. You know those super fair and democratic Republicans who Hillary is saying will get all the angry Democratic voters? They cut the delegates from Michigan and Florida by half for breaking the rules. So I can only assume that Hillary would be ok with her delegates from both states being cut in half as well, since that is how the Republicans do things, which is pretty consistently the measure by which she addresses all problems.

Update #3: Here is a statement by a Florida voter who is tired of Hillary speaking for them. This voter is not being disenfranchised. This voter is not being punished.

Update (5/22): NY Governor and Hillary supporter David Paterson profoundly disagrees with Hillary's Michigan-Florida claims:

Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:

"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."

Hillpocrisy Is Endemic In Hillary's Campaign

Let's talk about Michigan-Florida hypocrisy. We know that top Hillary official Harold Ickes voted as part of the DNC to sanction Michigan for violating the DNC's rules. And now he takes the exact opposition position, now believing that they should be counted (because it helps Hillary now).

We also know Hillary's past position on Michigan and Florida:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

And this was Hillary later:

Hillary Clinton says the results of Michigan's Democratic presidential primary should count, even if Barack Obama's name did not appear on the ballot.

"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot.

Notice the hypocritical change of course when it benefits her.

And now we have top Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe himself, as DNC chairman, in 2004 stressing the importance of following the DNC's rules:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

And Terry now, when Hillary stands to benefit, has a 180 degree change of heart, and suddenly the rules are no longer the rules:

I'm saying they've already voted, let's count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

Now we have long known that Hillary is a shameless hypocrite, to the point I actually had to create a new term to describe the amazing depths of her hypocrisy. But it seems like everyone around her has come down with a bad case of the hillpocrisy as well. Bill is a total hypocrite. All her top supporters seem to be total hypocrites. It seems that hypocrisy is extremely contagious. At this point I'm getting concerned. The next time I hear someone from her inner circle being a complete hypocrite I'm putting in a call to the CDC, because we may have an epidemic on our hands. I think the sooner Hillary drops out and we can put her in quarantine the better for the Party and the country.

A Juxtaposition: Yes We Can Vs Screw 'Em

I find nothing puts this primary contest in perspective like juxtaposing the character of the candidates. We know that Hillary cannot win the nomination, that has been obvious for quite some time now, yet she continues to try to take down our nominee, by all means necessary, either out of spite or desire to run for president again in four years. Either way, she has again and again shown she puts herself and her political ambitions ahead of the Democratic Party, and America (she is willing to subject Americans, and the rest of the world, to 4 or 8 more years of the same for her own cynical aims). This offers us a point of juxtaposition.

First, Obama is planning a "massive" 50-state voter registration campaign to boost membership and participation for the Democratic Party. This is on top of the amazing things he has already accomplished all across the country, energizing and engaging Americans everywhere he goes. This just highlights his understanding of, and commitment to, a 50-state strategy. Even though this strategy, championed by Howard Dean led us to massive victories in the 2006 midterm elections, Hillary is still against Dean and his strategy, instead promoting her "screw 40-states" strategy, which has worked for her so well throughout this election.

Second, Obama has setup a joint fundraising committee with the DNC, which will help raise money for the DNC, which has gotten its ass kicked in fundraising thus far by the RNC. Adding Obama's fundraising power to the DNC's efforts will be of huge help to the Democratic Party. Obama's campaign comment says it all, "This is an effort to be a team player and make sure we have the resources we need." Notice the "we", this race is about the Party and Americans, not his own personal political ambitions. This is nothing new, his entire campaign has focused on building a movement. He has said over and over again than this is bigger than him, that it isn't about him, that is about the people, and they have shown their support of the movement by volunteering time, contributing money and winning him victories in twice as many states as Hillary, and by much greater margins. At the same time Hillary has disparaged and dismissed every voter, state and demographic that hasn't supported her. While he is saying "Yes WE Can", she is saying "Screw 'em!" And while he takes time out of his campaigning to cut advertisements to help fellow Democrats, and helps raise money for the Party and even charitable causes, Hillary has her big money donors threaten to cut off funding to the DNC if they don't do exactly what Hillary wants. The already underfunded DNC actually had to return tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic donors who tried to extort the Party to force Party leaders to support Hillary.

And don't think those who have been paying attention haven't noticed. Today it was revealed that former ambassador to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is leaving Hillary's campaign to join Barack Obama's campaign. Guerra-Mondragon is a "Hillraiser", one of Hillary's top fundraisers who reportedly raised nearly half a million dollars for Hillary. And now he has had his fill of Hillary's tactics and the tone of her campaign, so he is joining Obama's campaign. If a person who was a former Clinton appointee and who raised $500,000 for Hillary has decided enough is enough, that says something about what her campaign stands for.

But of course many of her everyday supporters have little or no idea about how negative her campaign has been, or how she has thrown her own party under the bus and essentially joined the Republicans in trying to take down Obama, using their talking points. Their ignorance is partially their own fault, as they have chosen to either not pay attention or purposefully ignore the evidence, but it is also in large part the fault of the media, because the media greatly influences the opinions of low-information voters, who not surprisingly form her base. And the media has again and again only shown interest in reporting negative stories about Obama, and generally ignoring Hillary's negative tactics and the consequences of those tactics. The Obama campaign's press call they setup to announce their 50-state voter registration drive provides a perfect example. None of the reporters asked questions about the registration drive (which was the whole point of the conference call), instead they focused on non-issues like Rev. Wright and other distractions. If the primary thing we learned in this election was Hillary's true character, the secondary thing we learned was that the media has completely failed in its role as an objective purveyor of factual information and meaningful analysis.

A New Tactic: Attack and Extort

Hillary's big establishment backers are now lashing out at Speaker Pelosi for her position that the superdelegates couldn't overturn the will of the people, and they are threatening to withhold donations to the DNC if she continues. They have a word for this: extortion.

Here is an excerpt from the angry letter her big money backers just sent to Pelosi, emphasis mine:

Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier...

Yes, you read that correctly. They actually had the audacity to say that the voters have a right to be heard, and then attacked Pelosi for saying that the will of the voters should be respected, and that the popularly elected candidate should be the nominee. It is hard to find a better example of shameless doublespeak, short of Orwell's 1984. "The people deserve to have their voices heard! How dare you suggest that the people's voices actually matter!!" That is essentially what they are saying...plain and simple. This is quite in keeping with Hillary's typical doublespeak on the issue, pretending she cares that every voter is counted in Michigan and Florida, saying it is a huge moral issue, while at the same time planning to overturn the will of those very voters by using superdelegates and stealing pledged delegates. How despicable. The only thing perhaps more despicable is the thinly veiled threat included in the letter:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

This isn't the first time her major establishment donors have threatened the DNC over not being pro-Hillary enough, and I'm certain it won't be the last time. It is very disconcerting though that Hillary and her supporters have resorted to extortion and threats in their attempt to steal this election. I wish only wish the media would point out the obvious brazenness of this latest development, as well as the overall theme of underhanded tactics and hypocrisy, but I have little hope of that happening. It would be nice if her supporters, at least those hardcore ones who may just not know any better would hurry up and become aware of these despicable schemes and her despicable power-hungry character so we could end this thing once and for all before it is too late.

Update (3/27): Oliver Willis of Huffington Post has a great response to these rich donors trying to walk all over the Democratic Party for Hillary:

Just Who Do These Rich Clinton Donors Think They Are?

Update (3/27) #2: MoveOn is gathering signatures for the following petition to show that progressives will stand being Pelosi against this extortion from Hillary's rich backers, so if you are angry about this brazen new low the Clintons have gone to, please sign!:

The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters--not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money--and time--to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party.

Hillary's Only Path To The Nomination: Disenfranchise Hundreds Of Thousands Of Voters

I wrote previously about the hypocrisy of Hillary's doublespeak about being so concerned that every voter's voice is heard in Florida and Michigan (just as long as they didn't have much of a choice when they cast their votes), while basing her path to the nomination on hijacking the will of the voters via superdelegates and switching pledged delegates, essentially overturning 10,000+ voters with each delegate gained. Well now she is at it again, saying that pledged delegates are just like superdelegates, and they can switch at anytime (and implicit in this, is that they should switch, and switch to her, since that is the only way she has even the faintest chance of winning):

I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.

After that, she defends her position that that is a fair way to win (notice there is no acknowledgment of what she is saying really means, which again is disenfranchising 10,000+ voters for each superdelegate, and anywhere from 4,000 to 12,000+ voters for each pledged delegate, depending on the state and turnout), because the rules allow it, and she is suddenly a big fan of following the rules:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose...

Please notice that she wasn't a fan of the rules that allowed students in Iowa to vote even though they live in Iowa at least 3/4 of the year, work there, pay taxes there, fund their university system, and are legally allowed and encouraged to vote. She also didn't like the rules that she had previously agreed to that gave workers on the Las Vegas Strip access to caucus sites, as soon as the union endorsed Obama, and her surrogates filed a lawsuit on her behalf to change the rules and shut the caucus sites down. She also hasn't been a fan of the rules in any of the caucus states, because even though they have run that way for a long time, and even though they run by established rules, she consistently claims they don't count, except for Nevada of course, which she won. She also wasn't a big fan of the rules in Texas, which she constantly complained about, and even considered filing a lawsuit to protest the rules and delay announcement of the caucus winner long enough that the media would ignore it and say she won Texas, even though she only narrowly won the primary, and Obama blew her away in the caucus, netting him 3 or so delegates, a clear victory. She has also not been a fan of the DNC rules concerning Michigan and Florida, rules that she agreed to in advance, yet she now wants to change because doing so would benefit her. Now does that sound like "those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose."?

No, that sounds like the ugliest kind of hillpocrisy.

And now Clinton strategist Harold Ickes backs up Hillary's position:

I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear is that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Now obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate, and that's permitted under our rules ever since the 1980 convention.

While technically true, the Clinton campaign misses another opportunity to point out what this actually means to voters. Say, for example you have a pledged delegate from a fairly populous district, and this pledged delegate is given the position of being the caretaker of the people's will, say 12,000 voters, from the ballot box to the DNC. So say this delegate chances his or her mind, and switches support to the other candidate. Instantly 12,000 voters who went to the polls not only didn't vote for their candidate, they voted for the other one. It is worse than just disenfranchisement, it is stealing their vote and giving it to someone else. I for one would be sick to my stomach if I knew my vote cast for Obama got changed after the fact and cast for Hillary, as any voter would in a similar situation, no matter if you support Obama, Hillary, McCain or Ralph Nader. THAT is what all of this smooth talk about "pledged delegates can switch" really means. The cold ugly truth isn't as palatable as the euphemisms and distorted doubletalk coming from the Clinton campaign, yet no one seems to be talking about what winning an election via superdelegate or pledged delegate coup would really mean for democracy. We certainly can't count on the media to connect the dots, but I hope if the blogosphere and the netroots keep the issue alive, and keep pointing out how blatantly Hillary is trying to hijack democracy, maybe people will start to see through her two-faced rhetoric.

Update (3/26): Now this is pretty crazy, today the Clinton campaign has gone even further, basically saying that pledged delegates are expected to use their own judgment to pick whichever candidate they want, meaning the will of the voters should have nothing to do with how the pledged delegates vote:

In an interview with Mark Halperin, Hillary Clinton again put out the idea that pledged delegates do not have to stick with the candidate they were elected to back: "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

They are essentially saying now that the will of the voters is meaningless, or should be meaningless, and that the entire race not only can, but ought to be decided undemocratically! That is crazy!! They are saying there needn't be any relationship whatsoever to what the voters want, and what the pledged delegates do, meaning the whole system in their minds is nothing more than an empty gesture, completely meaningless! This really shows how little they care for democracy and the will of the voter.......yet Hillary continues to cry foul about every voter in Michigan and Florida not having their voices heard.

I'll just give you a second to let the astounding hillpocrisy of that sink in......

Democracy Is Apparently Overrated When You Are Behind

For the last few weeks there has been a plot slowly unfolding in the background of the Democratic primary. This subplot, if you will, is Hillary Clinton’s most flagrant attempt to hijack the Democratic process to date. The scheme I’m referring to is of course the Michigan-Florida delegate controversy, which she is currently in the process of shamelessly exploiting for her own political gain, to the detriment of the Democratic Party and the entire Democratic process.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, let me give you the quick and dirty. Last year Democratic Party leadership in both states decided to defy the rules set down by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and move back their primary dates earlier than February 5th which, according to the rules, was supposed to be the earliest date for states not given special permission to hold their primary sooner. The purpose of the rule was to keep some semblance of order in the primary, so that the whole thing didn’t become a mad race to January 1st. 48 states followed these rules, 2 did not. The Democratic leadership in both states was warned of the consequences in advance: if you break the rules, your state will lose its delegates at the Democratic Convention where the eventual presidential nominee is chosen. Michigan and Florida broke the rules anyway, and so the DNC stripped their delegates of their right to vote at the Convention. All of the presidential candidates promised not to campaign in these states, and it was agreed, by everyone, that Michigan and Florida would not count in the election. So Michigan had its primary, Hillary won Michigan with 55% of the vote, to “Uncommitted”, who got 40% of the vote (Hillary was the only 1st tier candidate to not take their name off of the ballot). In Florida Hillary won with 50% of the vote, to Obama’s 33% and John Edwards’ 14%.

So okay, they held elections that everyone agreed didn’t matter, because they had no delegates, thus no say in the nomination, because they had broken the rules, which were established for a very good reason (to keep the Democratic Party from total chaos), even though they knew the consequence of this would be every Democratic voter in those states being disenfranchised. Seems pretty cut and dry. It was. Even Hillary agreed:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

That is until it was in Hillary’s best interest to change the rules mid-game. After her loss in Iowa, and her big loss in South Carolina, Hillary was in desperate need of a “win”, so she looked for one in the only place possible: outside the rules. She didn’t show any care for the disenfranchised voters of Michigan or Florida until she needed to exploit their plight for her political gain. After the South Carolina defeat she suddenly came down with a bad case of caring. All of the sudden seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida (who had voted for her, because she had the benefit of being the “default” candidate in a race that was basically based on name recognition) became a moral issue, their voices must be heard! (It kind of reminds one of the sudden moral importance of limiting the accessibility of voters in Las Vegas just hours after the dominate union in the area voted to endorse her opponent--but of course that was good disenfranchisement, because it benefited her.)

So basically Hillary was just fine with not giving voters in Michigan and Florida a voice, and fine with imposing a campaigning ban there which essentially served to freeze her lead there by not allowing for competing exposure and information. Then as soon as both these states predictably hand her victories, she suddenly wants to lift the ban, and let the delegates vote for her at the Convention, even though the elections were in no way fair to her opponents. So at this point we are stuck. The voters of Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised, at the sole fault of their state Party leadership. Hillary wants to exploit the situation to her political advantage, to basically give herself free uncontested bonus delegates. Most everyone outside of the Hillary camp sees this as a completely unfair, an utterly transparent and shameless attempt to snatch up delegates because she is on the verge of losing the election because too many voters in states with real elections would rather have Obama as their nominee.

So how to solve this? Hillary of course wants to seat the delegates as they stand now, so she gets the majority of their votes, with basically no effort. This cannot happen for obvious reasons. First, the elections were not fair, so the votes are essentially invalid and should not be allowed to sway the outcome of the election. Second, 48 states and a handful of territories followed the rules, and seating the delegates of the 2 states that broke the rules would be a huge slap in the face of these law abiding states. Also, if the DNC isn’t able to enforce its own rules, the Democratic Party will be in a state of anarchy. The next election will be a disaster as all states will know there are no rules, so anything goes. Needless to say, seating the delegates as they are is not an option, no matter how much Hillary would love to distort the system for her advantage.

Obama, Howard Dean and the DNC understand that this is unfair, and would rather have Michigan and Florida hold new elections in the summer (after the 48 states that actually obeyed the rules), and let both Hillary and Obama campaign their equally. This makes sure order is maintained, Michigan and Florida are penalized by having their primaries moved to the back of the line, yet the voters in the states are given a voice, and that voice will be based on fair campaigning as all candidates will have equal access to the voters. Hillary opposes this option not because it is unfair, but because it doesn’t benefit her. Once again, see how it has nothing to do with fairness or Democracy or the voters, it is all about what will benefit her the most. What a humanitarian.

Today Al Sharpton hit the nail on the head, Hillary isn’t fooling anyone:

"I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic Party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice," Sharpton said in a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

"As former presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic Party to select its nominee for president.”

"That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters," Sharpton wrote. "To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument."

There could be a potential problem with this however, as an article from a couple days ago mentioned, the cost of holding new elections might be prohibitive. So what can we do? We have three options:

1) Bite the bullet and spend the millions to hold new elections in both states and have them seat their delegates last after fair campaigning. This is a win for everyone but Hillary, who would rather Democracy not get in the way of her candidacy.

2) Decide the costs are prohibitive, and leave the delegates stripped of their voting status. This is obviously not a good option for anyone.

3) There is one possibility that makes this all go away at no cost, namely, if Obama racks up such a delegate lead before the Convention that he wins with or without the delegates from Michigan and Florida being seated. This actually isn’t all that impossible. Notice even though she was running virtually unopposed in Michigan, she only won by 15%. In Florida she only won by 17%. So for some quick and inaccurate math, let’s just assume for the purposes here that a compromise is reached, and we assume the 40% “Uncommitted” in Michigan stands in for Obama (and this would be the case if Edwards endorses Obama). So Michigan has 128 delegates, if we assumed delegates were assigned proportionally (which of course isn’t that simple), Hillary would gain about 19 delegates. In Florida using the same math with its 185 delegates and 17% margin, giving her about 32 more delegates. So if we went ahead and seated the unfairly won delegates, Hillary would pick up 51 delegates.

Current Obama is ahead by about 136 pledged delegates, last night alone he gained 50 delegates. So if you put it in context, even if you include Hillary’s tainted delegates, she is still way behind. Granted none of this includes superdelegates, but I’m not concerned with those because if superdelegates overturn the popular vote, there are going to be big problems inside the party. So our best hope for resolving this issue is to have Obama rack up enough of a point lead that the whole controversy is moot, and Hillary can’t even win by cheating the system.

Let’s hope..

Update (2/15): Hillary supporter Bob Kerrey, well known for speaking his mind regardless of political considerations has added his two cents:

You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period.

No new vote and no new caucuses, either. Just stick to the rules that they agreed to.

Talk about no-nonsense. Anyway, kudos to a Hillary supporter for placing principles over Hillary's political ambitions.