I read some tedious squealing from eriposte the other day at Soto's site about the "popular vote" and thought nothing of it. But this morning, after reading this diary, I realized that this phony count, which leaves out states that are part of the nomination and includes states that aren't, is part of Clinton's latest assault on low-information voters.
This is the kind of "I hope they're dumb enough to fall for this" bullshit that turned me away from Hillary months ago: on healthcare, Iraq, and now even on the process itself, the Clintonistas operate just like freepers.
But now, they're attacking the process itself, just like the Republicans did in the general elections of 2000 and 2004.
Here's astrology-boy talking about the latest conference call:
- She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted [sic]. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...
Ah, a boy and his talking-points! Just warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it? Usually, it would be the Republicans distributing this kind of drivel, after which Media Matters and dKOS would be running around playing Pooper-Scooper Politics, cleaning up after teh stoopid.
Let's take this ignorant crap apart line by line, shall we?
I love that manly mode of arguing: "She's leading in the popular vote. Period." Jerome is speaking his punctuation, just like a freeper, to compensate for the argument he can't make. And, while we're all happy that Jerome finally got his period, that's not important right now. The phony "popular vote" fraudulently includes the self-disincluding states of Florida and Michigan (as if we wouldn't notice) and cuts out Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. It also ignores half of the process in my home state of Texas, as if we wouldn't notice. This is like letting Arthur Andersen count Democrats' votes.
Next, Jerome calls this non-issue a "moral" issue, just like a freeper. The word "moral" is used by wingnuts to excuse themselves from having to make rational arguments. There is no rational argument for the so-called "popular vote," because it's a cooked number that has nothing to do with the nomination.
Then, he can't even get his usage correct, just like a freeper. Years ago, I found that if I wanted to see whut frepers wer righting, I had too mispel wurds in duh Gügle, or else I'd never find them.
Finally, he ignores the four caucus states without individual reporting, just like a freeper talking about 2000 or 2004. The Clintons' only hopes for 2008 rely on tactics developed by the Republicans in 2000 and 2004. Clinton v. Obama anyone? I know how the Republicans on the Supreme Court would call it.
But I guess this is what happens when you're a superstitious moron who spends all his time defending an irrelevant elite from a majority of the country who urgently need changes in both politics and policy: you go freeper.
Yes, we all know that caucuses are different from primaries. In Texas, we had both, and I saw the processes first-hand as a polling judge. The fact that Obama has better support among the more activist wing of the Democratic party is a strength, believe it or not. It would take one of Hillary's dead-enders to pretend caucuses are anti-democratic. Just like freepers, they don't seem to know much about their country:
The term Caucus is first attested in the diary of John Adams in 1763 as a meeting of a small group interested in political matters, but William Gordon's "History of the Independence of the United States of America, 1788" speaks of the establishment of caucus political clubs as going back fifty years earlier than his time of writing in l774
Republicans would have you believe that Big Bad Government is an invasion from Mars. That way, you don't participate and they can do what they want. The Clintons would have you believe that caucuses are somehow alient to the nomination process. That way, you don't participate and they can't get what they want.
In Texas, Clinton's TV ads even gave the wrong times for the caucuses. I saw an awful lot of people arrive early, look confused, stand around with no one but the Obama people to explain things, get pissed off and leave. Apparently, attacking the caucuses has been Hillary's plan all along.
Just as Obama does better with younger, more diverse, and better-educated voters, Obama's support show why he's a party builder. The history of the Clintons, not to mention tactics like these, show them as a drag on a party that doesn't seem to matter much to them.
.