I Won't Do It.
Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM PDT
I was greatly disturbed by the "news" coverage I heard on both CNN and MSNBC last night following the highly-predictable Clinton win in West Virginia. What I can see occurring is the media aiding and abetting what I consider a likely Clinton scenario: to further divide the Democratic party by attempting to define it in terms of race while simultaneously positioning for the May 31 Democratic Rules Committee to literally steal this nomination from Barack Obama.
Today, without a hint of sadness, I declare unequivocally that I, a resident of a swing state, will NOT pull the lever for Hillary Clinton if she successfully steals this thing.
More over the fold.
I have choices in my life. I'm fortunate enough to be college educated and professionally skilled and, for now, I have choices in my employment. I have choices in my marriage. I have choices in my friendships and the types of people with whom I associate.
It's not news nor particularly a revelation to me personally that Hillary Clinton is not a person with whom I would choose to associate in some fictional personal life that provided me the opportunity to establish a friendship with her. I don't doubt her intelligence or her savvy - I doubt her integrity and truthfulness. I don't associate with people I find (and I'm speaking subjectively throughout this diary) questionable in the areas of truthfulness and personal integrity.
Last night I listened to Howard Wolfson assert AGAIN that the delegations from Michigan and Florida should be seated AS IS, with delegates apportioned according to the vote totals. I heard Wolfson AGAIN assert that Florida and Michigan had record turnout and that those voters ought not to be "punished" for the actions of their Democratic leadership. I'm going to put the idea of the "record" nature of the Florida and Michigan turnout to bed right now.
(All vote information was taken state-by-state off of CNN's Election 2008 page. Only states that had Democratic and Republican primaries are included.)
What you're looking at above is a list of states where both Republicans and Democrats held primaries. It's sorted by date in ascending order. The line after March 4, 2008 indicates when Huckabee officially got out of the race. I include this because it's reasonable to assume that Republican turnout would be lighter after that date due to McCain's nominee status.
You'll note that prior to March 11, 2008, only FIVE states saw Democratic turnout BELOW that of Republican turnout. One of those states was Utah, which Romney won overwhelmingly. The explanation given for the high turnout there was, of course, Romney's Mormon roots. Another of those states was Arizona. Again - high turnout for Republicans given that it's McCain's home state. So I'll discard those two mentally and point out that we're left with THREE states, out of TWENTY-EIGHT, that held both Republican and Democratic primaries through March 5, 2008 where Democratic turnout was BELOW that of Republican turnout. Those three are Alabama, FLORIDA, and MICHIGAN. Huh.
So, Wolfson (and McAuliffe) - your argument that the Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated AS IS due to the "record" turnout in those states doesn't exactly hold water. But I'm sure you already know that - and shame on the press (with the exception of Bill Schneider, who did mention the turnout issue in FL and MI about a month ago) for failing to call you on it every time you open your mouth.
After the (at best) math-challenged "record turnout" reason, the reporter (can't remember who it was) went on to ask if it was fair to seat MI given that Obama wasn't even on the ballot there. Wolfson again referenced the "record turnout" and speculated that Obama presumably removed his name from the ballot in Michigan because he knew he'd lose. I'm not making this up. AND I've heard him reference it at least twice before.
Hillary Clinton herself has dialed back the race-baiting a notch on the stump. But her surrogates haven't. Every chance they get they telegraph the idea that Obama can't win "white, working-class voters". Every. Time. Clinton has shown herself and indeed proclaimed herself to be the head of her own campaign - so if surrogate is saying it, it's s good as having come from her mouth as far as I'm concerned.
I'm also sick of hearing her say that if the Democrats had the Republicans' rules, she'd already be the nominee. Since when was how Republicans did ANYTHING remotely representative or respectful of voters? Moreover, it's a patently stupid comment because IF the Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, Obama would have run his campaign differently in accordance with those rules. If Obama had known that there was a possibility the FL and MI delegations would be seated proportionally with the results as they stand today, he probably wouldn't have taken his name off the ballot. What a vacuous argument. AND a condescending one, frankly.
The Clinton campaign is going to try to steal this from Obama. They are. All of this talk about how this is good for Obama and how she's going to get out of the race gracefully after June 3rd is just that - talk. Their actions speak louder, however. The race-baiting, the arm-twisting with respect to the Rules Committee, the repeated comments by surrogates that she will LEAD in the popular vote (which necessitates counting Florida and Michigan AS IS), the repeated articulation of the 2,209 delegate bar to achieve the nomination (it's NOT 2,209 - it's 2024.5) - all of this is designed to undermine Obama as he seeks the nomination. And all of it is being done with an insidious lacing of speeches with statements such as "I will support the nominee" and "I will campaign for the nominee" to provide just enough cover for what they're REALLY fully engaged in doing.
I'm not buying it - and neither should you.
I don't associate in my daily life with people I know to be liars (she and her campaign are LIARS) who have no hesitation to distort reality to suit their own ambition and who race-bait. I don't support in a Democratic candidate a willful blurring of the rules to suit a particular preferred outcome. That sounds WAY too much like what we've been suffering under with George W. Bush - a disdain for rules or anything that stands in the way of what he wants to do. Am I saying Hillary Clinton is indistinguishable from George W. Bush and the people he surrounds himself with? No. But as each day passes, GWB's regime and Clinton's campaign become blurrier and blurrier.
My vote is my endorsement. And I don't endorse people who rail against everything I think is important. Fairness - justice - rules and rule of law - inclusiveness (as opposed to divisiveness). Those are key to the core of who I am and Hillary Clinton couldn't be farther from where I am.
Finally, I had a conversation last night with my husband. I was truly distressed as I watched the post-WV media narrative unfold. I told my husband that handing the nomination to Clinton would literally break me, and that I would disengage from the Party as a result. I meant it. He (rightfully) pointed out that MANY people "soldier on" in a bad situation because they are committed to their cause, whatever that might be. I intimated that I wasn't sure I could do that in the event that the nomination is literally pulled away from Obama. I would have lost my faith in something I've always believed in, imperfect though it may be. I still feel that way today.
And it's important to note - I did NOT feel this way in January. I started out concerned about Hillary Clinton's inherent negatives, but without any other particular problem with her. I have stated here on Daily Kos that I would vote for her if she achieved the nomination. At this stage of the game, however, after all of her campaign's tactics and what seems (to me) to be a clear plan to literally steal the nomination from Obama, I retract that. I will not vote for her. Period. I'll vote - but I'll do a write-in.
Of Barack Obama.
It's the only juxtaposition of my values and morals that I can find in the event she steals this thing.
Have at it.
