I’ve been on the fence over whether I prefer Hillary or Obama, and have been generally leaning in the "I don’t care, they’re more or less the same to me" direction. That’s part of the reason I continue to be so strongly pro-Edwards. But this makes me think that there are some good reasons to be anti-Hillary.
In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the
various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the
Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they
insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn’t
be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their
primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the
states themselves).With no one campaigning, Clinton, of course, won Michigan — she was
the only Democrat to be on the ballot, as I understand it, which is
testament to the other campaign’s beliefs that the contest wouldn’t
count — and will likely win Florida. And because the race for
delegates is likely to be close, she wants those wins to matter. So
she’s fighting the DNC’s decision, and asking her delegates — those
she’s already won, and those she will win — to overturn it at the
convention. She’s doing so right before Florida, to intensify her good
press in the state, where Obama is also on the ballot. And since this
is a complicated, internal-party matter that sounds weird to those not
versed in it (of course Michigan and Florida should count!), she’s
adding a public challenge that, if the other Democrats deny, will make
them seem anti-Michigan and Florida.
BUT, it’s maybe not as clear-cut as Ezra makes it out to be. Yes, Obama and Edwards weren’t on the Michigan ballot because they agreed to this — but Hillary’s not the only one on the ballot in Florida: Obama also is. So while this political maneuver is extremely sketchy, it’s hard to see where the two are really all that far apart.
UPDATE: Ruchira points out in the comments that Edwards, too, is on the Florida ballot. The fact that Hillary was the only one on the Michigan ballot, and is now asking for those votes to count, still seems problematic. But the fact that all three are on the Florida ballot undercuts that, though to what extent is unclear to me. In any event, I don’t think the delegates from Michigan and Florida are what’s going to matter — what matters is that Clinton’s move now gives her an advantage in Florida, and the votes in Florida are going to matter to the extent that the press decides to make Florida matter.
Accidental Blogger 
4 responses to “Hillary Is Evil (Joe)”
Joe:
Edwards too is on the Florida ballot.
LikeLike
First the Clintons demanded that the primaries be front loaded. The logic was that Hillary’s coronation would be sewn up by Super Tuesday. But now that things don’t look so certain, especially after so many primary voters have been turned off by the Clintons, Hill and Bill are waging a bar fight for every crumb they can pick up to their advantage. They are smug in their confidence that once Hillary has the nomination, everyone will calm down and support her. May not happen this time. I am hearing some murmurs that Ralph Nader might run if Hillary is the nominee. And judging from the comments on most discussion threads, many voters like me, will sit on their hands rather than have the blood of the Democratic Party on their conscience by voting for Hillary. Too bad, there is no “None of the above” option on the ballots. That would have been a message worth sending out to the two parties.
I am not very clear how the Florida thing is going to play out. But the DNC and Howard Dean now realize who the real bosses of the Democratic Party are.
LikeLike
Actually, Joe, Hillary wasn’t alone on the Michigan ballot, which still included Kucinich who had not dropped out of the race at that point (Link). But you are right in stating that she had the lion’s share of the vote, with Not committed coming in second. Kucinich managed barely 4 %.
Nader may be a spoiler if Hillary wins the nomination, or even Bloomberg might choose to run as an independent. We’re definitely ‘living in interesting times’, as the Chinese curse goes.
LikeLike
Well… I tend not to count Kucinich.
I’m surprised more people haven’t been talking about the potential Nader entry, considering that Democrats tend to blame him (rather than Gore) for Bush’s victory in 2000. Given his comments about the candidates, if you’re thinking about Nader, Hillary is the worst candidate to vote for, and Edwards is the best.
I can’t figure out why Bloomberg would run, unless he wants to tip the election in favor of the Republicans. He can’t seriously expect to win.
LikeLike