Switzerblog

While sitting home sick this weekend (which sucks, I don’t recommend it), I had the opportunity to watch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decision and related reaction. I also had ample time to consider things about Hillary Clinton’s campaign that have been on my nerves for weeks now. Hopefully I get this all out in a coherent fashion!

First off, the RBC not only did the right thing, they did more than was necessary. Both Florida and Michigan were well-informed of the outcome of their changed primary dates, and imporantly, Harold Ickes and other Clinton supporters on the committee, with Hillary’s full support, voted last year to strip both states of their delegates. The only reason this is an issue is because she’s lost and needs an issue to stir up her supporters.

A (very weak) case could be made for seating the full delegates – tactically, from Obama’s perspective, it would really just delay the inevitable, and would assuage Michigan and Florida’s voters. Who, of course, have been whipped into a froth about the issue with Hillary’s incessant prodding. Realistically, though, this shouldn’t happen. Both states knew what the outcome would be of changing their dates, and to give them a free pass would not only send the message that no rules need be enforced, but would be a big fuck you to states like Nevada and South Carolina who would have liked to be earlier, but complied with the rules. Florida’s recent complaining that it was all the Republican legislature’s fault, not the Democratic voters, rings empty to my ears. Really, Florida Democrats? You let Republicans dictate your party’s nomination process? Let’s not kid ourselves, they had the opportunity to adapt and use a caucus system to apportion their delegates. So, other than the opportunity to soothe the two state’s feelings, the only real advantage to this would have been unplugging one of HRC’s many bogus arguments.

Leaving things as they were was, tactically, a non-starter as well. It would have respected the rules, of course, but HRC has worked overtime to get those all tossed out the window anyway (since her campaign didn’t understand them to start with, they must not matter). The anger Hillary’s ginned up among her Michigan and Florida supporters would have gotten completely out of hand had they just left things alone. (Look at this lunatic for a barometer of the response that would have gotten…this person isn’t even from Michigan or Florida, and is this unhinged despite the rules being changed in her candidate’s favor!)

So, that leaves us with the solution we’ve got, which aside from Harold Icke’s posturing, was supported by most of Hillary’s supporters on the committee. It moves the goalpost out a bit, but frankly Obama should make up that difference this week and “end” it. I say “end” because I’ve lost faith in Hillary’s sense of reason, and until I see differently, I assume she’ll refuse to concede until the last delegate casts their vote in Denver. And for you Hillary supporters who are so up in arms about the Michigan uncommitted delegates being given to Obama (and don’t forget the four “hijacked” delegates, woe is us!), even if they seated every delegate as is, she’d still be 130 delegates behind, and he’d only need 110 to seal the deal. She’d lose anyway. And frankly, had your candidate not been taking great pains to game the system ex post facto, and had evidence not indicated that Hillary supporters had made efforts to fill those uncommitted delegate slots for the national convention, this action would not have been necessary. Don’t like that? Tough shit.

This brings us to the alternate reality on Planet HRC. You see, despite frothing up their supporters with the false hope that she could win if the full delegates were seated, the campaign knew that was never the case. They just wanted to be able to count Florida and Michigan (where, lest we forget, Obama kept his word and removed himself from the ballot) in their interpretation of the popular vote. You see, on planet HRC, if you include Florida and Michigan, both states where Obama respected the rules and agreements and Hillary did not, Hillary leads in the alternate reality popular vote. In the real world, of course, that only works if you throw out caucus states where she lost and ignore the Texas caucus, which counts in the delegate count but went for Obama. But it seems that if you talk to any HRC supporter at this point, their alternate reality has taken over their brain. (shame that the legacy media is buying into this fiction, too)

What other beliefs are truths in the alternate reality of Planet HRC? Well, that Obama will lose nationally to McCain, but Hillary would win. That her primary wins in “big states” translate into electoral college victory, but guaranteed losses for him. That he’s run a “sexist” campaign. That he’s somehow stolen the nomination from her. That he is, himself, a racist. And if reports yesterday are to be believed, some folks on Planet HRC now believe Obama is a murderer! Hooray – supporters of the woman who will forever be accused by Republicans of murdering Vince Foster now accuse their opponent of being a murderer because he, um, “took” the nomination from her (that chain email should hit the ol’ inbox in 3..2..). At least most of them don’t think he’s a Muslim, although many of them are convinced that this belief is so widespread it will destroy him. Our only hope is Hillary! The one that goes unspoken, but is definitely a subtext here and infuriates me more than almost anything, is the idea that Hillary deserves the nomination because “women have suffered long enough”…which, of course, ignores the fact that Obama is a black man in a country famous for its past embrace of slavery and deeply ingrained racism!

To be clear:
A: No one “deserves” the nomination, except the person who earns it by winning primaries and caucuses.
B: Women have suffered. Blacks have suffered. Neither is comparable. And neither fact makes any member of those classes “qualified” to be President. To suggest so is ludicrous and stupid.

So let’s address these. The idea that Obama can’t win in November but she will is driven from current polls, which show her doing better than him against McCain in the electoral vote (Obama leads in national preference polls, she essentially ties). There are a couple factors at play here. One is Florida. She wins it, he’s losing big. Thanks to Hillary’s efforts, Florida is a lost cause. She’s been at great pains to paint him as the devil there. The main issue, however, is that Obama is right now at his low point in the polls, after two months of constant attacks against his character and relentless scandal-mongering from the Clinton team. During those two months, aside from the Bosnia lie nonsense and the RFK gaffe, Clinton and McCain have both gone unexamined, both in their character, recent actions, and their history. Clinton and McCain are both at their high point in national polls. Clinton is one big bundle of scandals, none of which Obama has examined (nor has the media!). If she’s your nominee, it’s one after the other for months and months, plus her generally disagreeable nature during this campaign, and you’ve got a sad loss for a formerly promising candidate. Obama’s seen the kitchen sink thrown at him, and a 10% lead in national polls against McCain is his low point. Cleaning up the electoral votes, even without Florida, is not just possible but likely. The reality is, once Democrats start pounding on McCain, and Democratic incumbents (there are more of them, remember!) start working with Obama, states will swing his direction.

The big state argument is laughably bogus. She won California, ergo Obama will lose to McCain? Fucking nonsense. She won New York, ergo he can’t beat McCain there? Honestly, what idiot can actually believe this shit? She’s guaranteed him a Florida loss, and my guess at the moment is she’ll work to undermine him in Ohio as well, but if I’m right, neither state would be a loss on HIS merits, but rather would be due to HER efforts.

He’s run a sexist campaign? He’s a racist? He “stole” the nomination? Buh..what!? People in the media have certainly been sexist, no doubt, but Obama’s been nothing but deferential throughout. The “sweetie” comment would have gone unnoticed by all but the most determined feminists had Hillary not turned the sexism filter up to 11. And the campaign that harbors Geraldine Ferraro and Harriet Christian (“an inadequate black male who wouldn’t have run if it wasn’t a white woman running!”), or which openly states they’re the choice for “hard-working, white voters” certainly has little room to be casting the racism card. And as for “stole” the nomination…well, if your definition of “stole” is “won more delegates according to the rules”, then yes.

Okay, you get the point. Planet HRC has some sort of reality-deflecting atmosphere that creates Harriet Christians. I have friends at work about whose sanity I’ve come to have my doubts…because their arguments about this have gone so far from being reasonable or rational that I simply can’t understand them anymore. But the reality is, the only possible reason for all these Clinton supporters who claim they’ll vote for McCain in the fall to actually do so is to give themselves the “I told you so” edge. They want to say he can’t win, then work to guarantee it. And that, my friends, is a complete separation from reality as far as I’m concerned. Make no mistake: With Hillary’s supporters, Obama wins in the fall. Without them, he (possibly) loses. It’s that simple, and it’s their choice, not his. Remember this when November 6th rolls around and we examine what happened. Did the fog lift? Did they make the right decision, or not? Time will tell.

I give up.  It’s just become too disgusting to bear. 

Now, Hillary’s running an ad featuring Osama bin Laden.  So, finally, it’s enough for Switzer.  Fuck off, Hillary.

They’re still talking about Obama having to answer “tough” questions at the last debate (and the media, btw, is happily supporting this talking point  the linked CNN article says Obama was “asked several pointed questions”).  As I’ve said, those questions were neither tough nor pointed (and no one other than Hillary, Republicans and the media have suggested they were), they were simply stupid and ill-conceived.

Add to that Hillary’s continued opposition to anything Obama says that is plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously truthful.  Such as, you know, the bitter nonsense.  Or from this weekend, when Obama suggested that any of the three remaining candidates would be a better President than Bush.  Despite the fact that she’s openly said, several times, that McCain is ready to be President and Obama is not, she’s now (again, btw) trying to argue that he supports a Republican and thinks McCain would be a wonderful president. 

Uh, Hillary?  A deceased potted plant would be a better President than Bush.  So yes, McCain would be better than Bush.  Luckily for us, McCain will be running against Barack Obama and not Bush (and more importantly – you might take a note – not against you). 

Back to the OBL ad…I’ve argued that folks shouldn’t be so surprised by Hillary’s tactics, because this is the very thing people used as justification for supporting her from the beginning – her willingness to campaign like this.  But I truly, and perhaps naively, assumed that Hillary would at least be above this, the slimiest of campaign options.  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague Tom Daschle, whacked by OBL campaign ads?  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague in the House, Max Cleland, a goddamn war hero defeated by ads featuring OBL? 

Sorry, stupid questions.  Of course she does…that’s why she’s using it.  Trying to use fear, xenophobia and racism to defeat her opponent. 

I’ve had enough of Hillary.  I no longer care if Obama goes negative on her; in fact, I hope he goes nuclear.  Rather than destroying the party, which she is clearly willing to do, I’m willing to see her own career destroyed.  This makes me sad, as she has done good and I believe still has good in her.  But if something must be sacrificed to save the Party, let it be her career.

So Hillary’s embrace of right-wing talking points is leading even the righty National Review is starting to swoon for her. After the ABC debate debacle, much has been made about the, um, paucity of quality questions. Much of the media agrees that ABC should be embarrassed by the quality of the questions, and Obama has enjoyed mocking them for wasting the first hour of the debate before asking about a real issue.

But today, Hillary had this to say:

Hillary: Well, we were both asked some pretty tough questions, and you know, that’s part of what happens in a debate and in a campaign. And I know he spent all of yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. But you know, being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressure you face inside the White House. And in fact, you know, when the going gets tough, you just can’t walk away. Because we’re going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make. And I think that we need a president who can take whatever comes your way. You have to stand strong. You have to fight for the American people. Because it will not be easy to stand up against the special interests. {Switzernote – that’s rich}

Anchor: So you were fine with the debate? You didn’t see any problem with them?

Hillary: Well, can I say I’ve been through, what, 23 of these debates? And if you’ll recall, I was asked some pretty tough questions in nearly every one of them. That goes with the territory. Having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House, I know how hard it is every single day. When the going gets tough, you can’t run away. It’s going to be tough going dealing with these hard problems… The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists.

Yeah, Hillary’s really gonna stand up to those special interests. Heh.

But here’s what gets me about this. The only people calling the wasted first hour of the show “tough questions” are ABC, conservative douchebags, and…Hillary. Not one complaint I’ve seen at Kos, from any progressive, and least of all from Obama has been about “tough questions”. No, the complaints I’ve seen have been that those questions were a waste of time. ABC’s time, the viewer’s time…everyone’s time.

The National Review has this to say:

…And every once in a while, when she demonstrates she has the guts to ‘go there’ in front of a Democratic audience that want their debates to be criticism-free lovefests, I’m tempted to say, ‘I like the cut of your jib, Senator.’”

…

Hey, is anybody else getting this weird tingle up the leg when Hillary speaks lately?

You know, Hillary likes to talk about who Obama’s known or worked with in his life…perhaps the company you keep works both ways! When right-wingers start to like the ‘cut of your jib’, you’re on the wrong path.

But here’s what really concerned me when I heard the audio clip of Hillary making her statement above: They weren’t tough questions. They were stupid questions. And it concerns me that Hillary can’t tell the difference anymore.

Yeah, I’ve been out for a while. Yeah, everyone’s covered this to death.  Whatever, sue me.  My blog, my rules!

I’ve been defending Hillary lately, despite the increasing difficulty of doing so and the increasing, um, unpleasantness of her supporters.  I don’t think she’s destroying the party, although she’s certainly doing us no favors and making herself no friends.  I don’t think she’s ruining Obama’s chances in November, although she’s certainly made his job harder.  My basic defense has been thusly:

• Prior to the primary season really getting going, Hillary’s willingness to do anything to win was seen as a strength.
• By this I mean she was willing to go nuclear on her opponent.  Claw, kick, low-ball, dirty ads, you name it. 
• We’ve wanted a D candidate to do this for years.  It struck us as the way to win (it worked for the Republicans, right?).
• She’s doing not only what we’d expect (I mean, we remember who she is, right?), she’s doing exactly what we wanted her to do. 
• We just didn’t expect this to be the year that her tactics wouldn’t be needed, nor that she’d turn her guns inside the tent.
• It’s too much of a good thing. 

So, my view has been to tell people to suck it up.  We also thought the Dean folks would never, ever work for Kerry, and they did (in droves).  People get over this kind of thing.  The party will survive, and Obama will have survived the trial by fire folks said he A: hadn’t faced and B: couldn’t handle.  Confused ol’ Grandpa McCain will have to get his shit thoroughly together if he’s going to survive the Obamaslaught(tm) in October.

However, I find myself really pissed at Hillary about this “bitter” nonsense.  I mean, I was pissed about the “he said Reagan was great” nonsense before the Nevada caucuses, but this is a whole new level of pissed at Hillary.

Obama said what we all know is true.  People feel their government doesn’t listen to them.  They feel that because of this, their economic well-being has been, to put it mildly, placed somewhere between at risk and destroyed.  So when Obama or Clinton or whatever Grandpa the GOP sends out says “hey, we’re gonna fix things up and get this mill working again!”, folks feel a little bitter about the last umpteen times they’ve heard this, and rightly assume it’s bullshit.  And so they turn to the things they feel they can trust – God.  Guns.  Family values (whatever form that may take in their household).  And they find someone to vote for, since you gotta vote for someone, who matches them on at least those counts. 

This is what our public discourse has become?  That speaking the obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth requires an immediate two-week long attack?  That the media not only willingly joins in on this parade of lunacy, but drives it even after both campaigns have moved on?  Is the truth so dangerous and hurtful that we’re unable to hear it without being offended??

I know, none of this is news.  Yes, our public discourse has been like this for years, and no, I’m not surprised by it.  Well, I am a little surprised at the depth of the depravity on this one.  Because in this case, Hillary, the self-styled ‘hero of the working class’, is not just trying to make Obama unelectable, but by doing so is setting the stage for completely shutting down possibly the first real, honest discussion of the plight, and thinking, of working class Americans in many years. 

And this makes me sad.  Draining a shot of Crown Royal in a bar doesn’t make you blue-collar, nor does it make you “in touch” with real Americans.  Making up a clearly false, or at minimum grossly exaggerated, story about your background hunting, doesn’t make you blue-collar, nor does it make you “in touch” with real Americans.  Heck, Hillary, you don’t even need to be blue collar to be in touch with real Americans. 

You just have to understand, and be willing to admit, that maybe they have a reason to be voting for the things they vote for, and maybe they need a new reason to believe their lives can be better.