Democrats are not Good at Following Rules
Mar 7, 2008 Political
Democrats in Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primary elections earlier than allowed by the DNC. Both states were informed well in advance of the election that they would not be able to seat delegates if they went ahead with the early voting and the states agreed. Now the Democratic race is tight and the prospect of a brokered convention looms large and is giving the Democratic Party heartburn. Of course, after the voting took place many Democrats cried that people were disenfranchised. If this is the case then they were disenfranchised by their party which is amazing since Democrats claim only Republicans do that to voters.
Howard Dean has tried to be tough on this issue and stated that they would not change the rules that everyone agreed to. Hillary is whining about the delegates (she won the token elections) and Obama’s folks are not happy with the idea of seating delegates in contests he did not compete in. However, the DNC is faced with the possibility of bloodshed at its convention and it wants to do anything to avoid that so the party is looking at alternatives including having another election. Major issues include how much will it cost and who will pay for it? Regardless, the indications are that there will be no “do over” if a number of conditions are not met.
Then again, it looks like the DNC might be forced into about anything. Fox News reported on television today that Florida was considering not including the Democratic candidate on the November ballot if its delegates are not seated. The Democrats know that they need to win Florida in order to win the White House and they do not want an open ballot that gives all the electoral votes to Republican John McCain.
It would appear that not only does Florida not know how to follow rules but now it is showing that it knows how to play dirty in order to get its way. If they had not brought this on themselves I would agree with the tactic but they decided that they wanted to have an impact on the primary and held their election early despite knowing what it would cost. I think they should abide by those rules. If the Democrats decide to have another election then the party should pay for it. Forcing the tax payers to foot the bill is unfair and a waste of money.
Having said that, I like this play by Florida because now it tightens the screws on Howard Dean and the DNC. They will have to seriously consider what Florida wants because that state is in a position to blackmail the party. If the delegates are not seated then Florida will not put the Democrat on the ballot. If Michigan decides to take the same path then the Democrats will not win the presidency.
Regardless of what happens, the infighting and posturing are great to watch and, I for one, pray that this thing keeps going right up until Denver so that they can destroy their party from within much the same way that party is doing to this country.
Clinton Campaign is Off Balance
Feb 14, 2008 Political
The pundits are puzzled and the Clinton campaign is shocked that they are now the underdog in the Democratic primary race. Double digit (huge margin) losses, lagging in the delegate count and short on cash is not the way the campaign planned on spending the latter part of February but that is the situation that faces the once unstoppable Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, Hillary believed the hype and did not plan past the Super Tuesday primaries.
Hillary Clinton entered the race for the presidency over a year ago just after young upstart Barack Obama. Instantly, she was the front runner and she was believed to be the inevitable winner. Hillary had it all; name recognition, a vast wealthy donor base, early Super Delegate support, and the power of a former president in her camp. Certainly she would win the nomination early and then get prepared to take on the Republican machine.
That thinking might very well cost her the nomination because by buying into the inevitability, Clinton failed to plan past Super Tuesday. She counted on early wins to build her momentum going into the February primaries and figured on delivering a knock-out blow by capturing the nomination. Her opponent had other ideas and set up offices in early states as well as those whose primaries were after Super Tuesday. His victory in Iowa shocked the Clinton camp and with the prospect of a double digit loss in New Hampshire looming large, things did not look good. She righted the ship in NH but was unable to build on that victory as one tactical misstep after another beset he campaign.
Instead of planning ahead the Clintons stuck to the idea that they would win it all on the big day. When things started to go poorly, they decided to go on the attack. Her campaign played the gender card while her husband’s rhetoric got out of hand and led to accusations of racial overtones. This is trademark Clinton but this time they did not have the MSM in their pockets and they were stunned by the response. All was not looking well for the campaign and it became obvious that the nomination would not be decided on Super Tuesday. The problem by that time was money. While she was spending like a drunken sailer on shore leave in the early states, her opponent was seeking small donations from all over the country. Clintons big name supporters had donated the maximum amount and she did not have as strong a mechanism in place to bring in smaller donations, as did her opponent. Perhaps she was being overly cautious after the Norman Hsu incident
Clinton ended up lending her own money to the campaign, a disclosure made after the Super Tuesday primaries. If it had been made any earlier, she would have been toast. Since there was little time to campaign in states that followed and since she had failed to plan for active campaigning after the big day, she was overwhelmed by Mr. Obama who planned very early on. He has won eight states since Super Tuesday while she has looked ahead to Texas and Ohio as a firewall to prevent further losses. She is taking in more money now but it might be too little, too late.
Hillary Clinton bought into the hype that she would have a cakewalk to the nomination and now she is very close to watching the nominee from the sideline. She criticized the Bush administration for failing to have a long range plan in Iraq, and yet she demonstrated the same failure in her campaign. The question now becomes, do we want a person who spends carelessly and gets minimal results running this country? Do we want a president who fails to plan for the future? This has been a big criticism of George Bush with regard to the war so will Democrats apply that standard to Hillary and move toward Barack Obama?
I do not agree with Mr. Obama’s positions on anything and I believe his claim not to support the war is irrelevant because he was not in the Senate at the time so there is no way to tell how he would have voted (especially since the vote was viewed as needed to get weapon’s inspectors back in Iraq). And while he offers a message of hope and change his speeches are long on lilt and short on substance. He talks a good game without telling anyone what he will do or how he will do it.
Regardless, people like to listen to him and the one thing he has going is that he was forward looking enough to plan well past Super Tuesday. He never bought into the hype that Hillary was the inevitable victor and he planned to fight to the end. In the short term, that strategy has paid off and in the long run it might be the single biggest factor, should he become the nominee.
Should he become President, I don’t think he will be a good one but at least he has shown that he has better planning skills than someone who claims to have 35 years of experience.
Perhaps she should have spent more time planning for the primary and less time being fitted for the crown.
Related Story:
New York Times
WSJ
Time
Loading ...
Loading...
