Come Denver, Superdelegates Could Change Their Minds

Photo credits: courtesy of cdn.channel.aol.com

Craig Crawford’s post yesterday, July 14, at Trail Mix (CQ Politics) summarizes how the importance of the role of the Democratic Party’s superdelegates in choosing the nominee has shifted along with the fortunes of Barack Obama since day one of the primary.

Crawford writes:

“There was a time months ago -- when Hillary Rodham Clinton led the Democratic nomination race -- that party superdelegates were the bad guys according to the rhetoric coming out of Barack Obama's camp.

“Obama supporters trashed the unelected, automatic and unpledged delegates as undemocratic autocrats when it looked as though they might put Clinton over the top. Not anymore.
“With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.

“All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton's name on the ballot at the national convention -- which a few die hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.

“Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on superdelegates to win the nomination.”

Crawford links to an earlier post at CQ by staff member, Shawn Zeller that reports a conversation with Heidi Li Feldman, a Georgetown University law professor.

Feldman contends: "‘…there’s still ‘no way of predicting’ the outcome should there be a fair vote. That’s because Obama has not secured enough pledged delegates to ensure the magic number of 2,118 needed to claim victory; the Illinois senator has gone past that benchmark only with the pledges of about 390 superdelegates — and they can change their minds at any time up to the moment they cast their ballots.

‘“If they had a meaningful vote, I have no idea who would win. But I know that if Sen. Obama were sure he would win, there wouldn’t be a negotiation about Clinton’s role at the convention.’

“So Feldman, who says she has raised about $100,000 for Clinton, has turned her prowess to raising money for advertising demanding a convention vote, and she has teamed with a fellow pro-Clinton blogger, Marc Rubin, to form the Denver Group to lobby the Democratic National Committee, much of the staff of which has already moved from Washington to Chicago to work for Obama.

“Feldman says she won’t vote for Obama if Clinton doesn’t get a convention vote. Rubin says he might not. Both say they aren’t worried that their efforts will continue to divide Democrats at a time when they should be uniting to take on Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. In fact, they argue, many Democrats might stay home if they feel Clinton gets short shrift.

‘“What they have to do is make it possible for people to say to themselves that there was a fair and correct process,’ Feldman says.”’

Sexism and Misogyny Fuel the Rants of Hillary-Haters

Stanley Fish’s post at Think Again (NY Times) this morning is a bracing read for those of us who have been struggling against the continuous onslaught of sexism and misogyny directed against Hillary Clinton since the day she announced her candidacy. And make no mistake, much of the Hillary-hatred is fueled by the zeal of Obama supporters for the one they’ve evidently been waiting for.

In today’s post, Fish replies to responses to his previous column on Hillary hating:

“The responses to my column on Hillary Clinton-hating have been both voluminous (the largest number in the brief history of “Think Again”) and fascinating. The majority of posters agreed with the characterization of the attacks on Senator Clinton as vicious and irrational, but in not a few posts the repudiation of Hillary-hatred is followed by more of the same. Lisa (No. 17) nicely exemplifies the pattern. She begins by saying “I agree that there is a rabid nature in the manner in which numerous conservative groups attack Hillary Clinton,”, but in the very next sentence she declares that “most of Hillary’s reputation is well earned” and then she spends nine paragraphs being rabid. A significant minority of posters skipped the ritual disavowal of hatred and went straight to the task of adding to it.

“These Clintonphobes said things like “there’s nothing to like about her”(394) and wrote at length about her clothing, her voice, her laugh, her arrogance, her “countless plastic surgeries” (an inference it would seem from the fact that at 60 she still looks good), her insincerity, her stridency, her ambition, her love of power, and her husband. In their view, the hatred they expressed was not irrational at all, but was provoked by a record of crimes and character flaws they are happy to rehearse. Their mirror image on the left objected to my saying that President Bush fills the same role for liberals that Clinton fills for her detractors. No, no came the protest. However free-floating hatred of Clinton may be, hatred of Bush is firmly grounded in the record of a disastrous presidency that has left us at war, in debt, and in bad odor throughout the world. The two groups differed only in the bad qualities they attributed to their nemesis. Bush haters derided him as stupid. Clinton haters complained that she is too smart (the word “brilliant” is used as a pejorative), seems to know it all, and makes those who hear her speak feel they are less intelligent than she is.”

As I recall, Fish didn’t name the Hillary hating in his earlier column as sexism or misogyny, but this time around he takes sexism into account:

“Comments like these would seem to lend support to the view (voiced by many respondents) that sexism is what ultimately motivates the Clinton bashers. “A woman who doesn’t apologize for who she is. What’s not to hate?” (79). “Any woman who is anything more than a wallflower will always be attacked” (105). “People just can’t tolerate a woman in power” (111). “Why not get right to heart of the matter? It’s sexism. Most women on this planet face it every day” (168). If so, they face it from women as well as from men, at least on the evidence provided here. Carol Maloney (158) reports that many of her intelligent women friends are unable “to discuss Hillary in a logical manner.” Kat (23) wonders why “women seem to be on the Hillary hatred bandwagon.” Carol (359) says “What I find most disturbing is the amount of hatred spewed at Hillary by those who are so much like her … It is very odd. Is it really self-hate?

“One might ask, can it really be sexism if it is women who are practicing it? Sure it can. If sexism is defined as the conviction that women are unsuited by gender to perform certain tasks or hold certain positions, that conviction is as available to women as it is to men. Still, sexism doesn’t seem an adequate explanation of the Hillary-hating phenomenon if only because so much of the venom in the comments is directed at the Clintons as a team. The idea is that nothing but evil can emanate from them; they are a moral blot on the nation’s escutcheon, a canker-sore on the body politic, and they must be removed (perhaps by any means necessary). No doubt sexism is a component of such sentiments–a number of women respondents accused her of riding on her husband’s coat-tails and lambasted her for not leaving him–but sexism doesn’t really account for an anger that sometimes borders on the homicidal.”

Homicidal? Well, yes, what sentient being could ignore the rage manifest in the comments of hundreds of Obama supporters swarming the internet 24/7? In response to Fish’s contention that sexism is an inadequate explanation for the hatred directed at both Clintons, more needs to be said.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, Chris Matthews was forced to apologize to her for his sleazy on-the-air comments. In addition, many in the media were forced to eat crow for having been eager to write Clinton off based on poll numbers. As if looking for another target, the day after the New Hampshire results were confirmed, the media turned its wrath on Bill Clinton and soon began attacking the Clintons as a couple.

I’m also a little disappointed that Fish fails to mention the contradiction I addressed in yesterday’s post at Katalusis between Obama’s image as a political messiah and the behavior of his Hillary-bashing followers. However, Fish does describe how Obama panders to the obvious vilification of Clinton by his numerous supporters in the media (from both the left and the right) and his zealous fans in cyberspace; I urge you to read more of Fish’s post at Think Again in today’s NY Times.

Note: According to his bio, “Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has also taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins and Duke University. He is the author of 10 books. His new book on higher education, "Save the World On Your Own Time," will be published in 2008.”

Hillary Clinton Wins Las Vegas Debate

I watched the Las Vegas debate last night (See YouTube), and I’m in complete agreement with CNN’s post-debate analysis: Clinton was the clear winner.

In comparison to all of the other candidates on that stage, Obama and Edwards appeared callow and unpresidential in their clumsy attempts to elevate themselves by slinging mud at frontrunner Clinton. In fact, the audience booed each of the two second-place guys for their inappropriate personal attacks on Clinton.

Marc Cooper at the Huffington Post acknowledged that ironically it was Obama who stumbled on the immigration question: “When asked for a simple yes or no answer on whether he supported the granting of driver licenses to the undocumented, Obama offered an indirect and rambling explanation and only said "yes" after being prodded by the moderator.”

Cooper summarizes Clinton’s effectiveness in responding to attacks from Obama and Edwards:

“During the first fiery ten minutes of the debate, Obama showed a heated passion and determination to challenge the front-runner. But as Clinton steadily shot back at him, Obama seemed to cool and never regained the dramatic edge he might have initially achieved.

“The same can be said for candidate Edwards. He came out bashing Clinton as supporting a political system he called "rigged" and "corrupt" but after her accusation of mud-slinging, the former North Carolinian seemed to recede into the background of the debate.”

After last night’s debate I decided that if push came to shove, I’d vote for any of the other four candidates before I’d vote for Obama or Edwards; I suggest they go home and grow up before running for office again.