A Week on the Unity Watch. Make That Watching Weak Unity
The Democratic race has brought many firsts. As the campaign moves into the languid days of summer (hello Memorial Day!), another first must be noted.
For the first time in my memory and possibly for the first time in American history, it appears the likely loser in a hard-fought political contest is trying to dictate the terms of surrender.
How else to interpret the “unity” moves on behalf of Hillary Clinton and those who supposedly speak on her behalf?
Let us summarize.
In the week that just was, Clinton implied Barack Obama was trying to recreate the 2000 recount in Florida or, alternatively, turn the Sunshine State into Zimbabwe.
How?
Because Obama is still awaiting a ruling from the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee on how many delegates it will seat from Florida and Michigan. Clinton made these assertions – privately derided as “absurd”, “disturbing” and “inflammatory” by senior Obama officials — the same day Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told National Public Radio camp Obama would be willing to meet Clinton more than half way if that would alleviate future discord.
Clinton’s position is that the delegates should be seated according to her demands, even though both states knowingly violated the DNC rules and knew they would be punished. Interestingly, Clinton’s camp says this punishment has already occurred. How? The states were deprived, in Communications Director Howard Wolfson’s own words, of “full-fledged primaries.” In what ways were they lacking, er, full-fledged status? Why, candidates didn’t campaign there and voters didn’t have a full airing of the issues, said Clinton’s chief delegate counter, Harold Ickes.
Both Wolfson and Ickes are consummate professionals and adept at pressing their candidate’s case with gusto. But in this formulation they systematically debunked Clinton’s entire case for seating all delegates on her terms and with no penalty. If the primaries in Michigan and Florida were not as real as the others, why and under what set of just rules should the DNC seat their full slate of delegates as if nothing untoward had happened? Why should two states that had manifestly inferior primaries be given full delegate privileges on par with states that followed the rules and conducted robust primaries? Why indeed.
Clinton’s team even went so far as to assert that the Michigan delegates currently flying under the banner of “uncommitted” don’t necessarily belong in Obama’s column. Huh? Uncommitted was the only non-Clinton alternative on the Michigan primary ballot. That’s because every candidate save Clinton took his name off the ballot to conform to the Iowa-New Hampshire-Nevada-South Carolina sequence sanctioned by the DNC. By what sense of propriety can Ickes and Wolfson assert that Clinton has claim on the only reservoir of Michigan delegates who verily screamed NOT CLINTON with their votes?
How this falls into a category of “party unity” I cannot say.
Neither, of course, can team Clinton because in this battle they seek not unity but advantage, as is their right. But once this matter is settled and Florida and Michigan are seated, the Clinton campaign will have, it appears, needlessly antagonized Obama, various party leaders, and Michigan and Florida Democrats who at this stage want to resolve this dispute with minimal discord. The next move will undoubtedly be Clinton’s as many Democrats fear she will follow-through on threats to stage street protests outside the DNC’s May 31 Rules and Bylaws Committee proceedings. What will team Clinton do in the name of “unity” next weekend? What indeed.
Also on the unity front, Bill Clinton’s assertion – transmitted by unnamed friends — that Hillary “has earned” the right to be offered by Vice Presidential slot on an Obama ticket. Earned the right to be asked? Ah, yes. Earned a right to have her decide the fate of Obama’s ticket. Notice, the 42nd President did not let it be known Clinton had earned the right to be offered a slot that she would gladly accept to improve Obama’s chances of becoming president. No. Only that she be given the chance to reject it, rendering Obama simultaneously weakened for offering and spurned by a possible Hillary rejection.
Then came word from Clinton’s finance chief Hassan Nemazee of nasty consequences should Obama not give Hilary right of “dream ticket” first refusal. Nemazee told Politico.com “…there’s a risk that if she isn’t invited on the ticket, Hillary’s political and financial supporters may not feel compelled to be as integrated and involved in the Obama campaign in order to provide maximum support that he’ll need to prevail in November.”
This might seem a bit gauche, but isn’t the first obligation of Clinton’s financial supporters – stalwart loyalists all – to help Hillary pay off her $31 million debt? And again the dangling verb “invite.” It sounds like: “If you don’t ask, we aren’t given the power to say no.” Can this be interpreted any other way?
Honestly, who negotiates in public for an offer they’re sure to accept in such a brass-knuckled way? A unifier? I’m not so sure. As to the “maximum support” Clinton’s political supporters might withhold, it’s worth pointing out that no fewer than 13 former Clinton super delegates have already switched to Obama (two of them former DNC chairs appointed by Bill Clinton). What’s more, the flow of super delegates heretofore “frozen” by the Clinton camp has been moving steadily in Obama’s direction — even after her landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky.
One last point on the financial end of things. Without a single PAC, Obama has raised more than $272 million and has $37 million in the bank. Add up his cash-on-hand and Clinton’s debt and you get $68 million. Just as a point of comparison, that sum is 80 percent of the $84 million Obama would receive if he accepts public financing for the general election.
It seems to me the Obama campaign, having come this far on its own approach to fund-raising, isn’t quaking in its boots at the idea of AWOL Clinton donors. They may well wonder if these donors will dare risk sitting out this race as an act of petulant obeisance to the defunct Clinton machine.
I’ve left Clinton’s grotesquely unfortunate comments about Robert Kennedy’s assassination to the end because, obviously, Clinton did not mean to suggest she’s staying in the race because Obama might be shot. That it SOUNDED that way is her fault and her fault alone. That it spooked and shocked and saddened many is her doing. Not the media’s. Not Obama’s. Hers.
There were a million ways for Clinton to fence off any talk of RFK’s assassination to make it clear to one and all that it had zero relevance to the length of this race. She did not do this. Instead, she rolled into a convoluted expiation on lengthy primary contests that don’t always undermine party unity (unless, one might reasonably observe, the candidate does all described above).
She also cited the historically inaccurate and long-discredited nostrum that her husband didn’t win the nomination until mid-June of 1992. Technically, this is true. But everyone who covered that race, as I did, knows that Clinton clinched the deal on April 7 when he beat an upstart Jerry Brown in the New York and Wisconsin primaries.
Brown was a non-entity in the early contests but rose when other challengers like Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, and Paul Tsongas fell by the wayside. Brown then captured the remaining anti-Clinton vote and rose to official irritant status but no one at the time considered him a serious long-term challenger to Clinton. After the April 7 primaries, the party fell in line behind Clinton, Brown never one another contest and the June California primary was anti-climatic.
There was no reason for Clinton to invoke the 1992 campaigns or 1968 campaigns. None. That she did and that she then rushed to a South Dakota grocery store, posing in front of bottles of condiments made the scene all the more forced, macabre and pitiful.
One would think in answer to the question, “Why are you still in this race?”, Clinton could have said: “Because 17 million people have voted for me and I owe it to them to give it my best until the end; hundreds of thousands have contributed to me in small amounts, especially lately, and I owe it to them to use their hard-earned money to make my case to as many voters as I can; I am running a race on behalf of all Democrats but also making a case as the first woman who has come this far and I owe it to history to give nothing less than my all; I’ve said it’s a core principle to seat delegations from Michigan and Florida and I will not waver until this matter is resolved.”
She could have said that. But she didn’t. The answer she didn’t give would have inspired unity.
But it doesn’t feel like that’s what this week was all about.
We can’t afford John W. Bush McCain — not in treasure or blood.
hillary for white house janitor. yes hillary 08. we support your janitorial bid. obama for president. therefor, everybody wins.
hillary 08. yes, we support you. we support your 08 bid for the whitehouse’s janitorial seat. if you take that job, then maybe you can clean up the sperm bill left on the oval office floor.
obama 08. yes we can
No mis words here, she said what she said.
I have been up with this election from January.
I have seen all that can come from an election.
The Clinton’s have gone to far in the pass, to put in the mind of some fool the words invoking rfk-assassination-while-defending-campaign, is as low as she could have gone.
Same on her, i feel she as lost her mine and reputation in this race.
There will never be unity as far as I’m concerned. OBAMA the nominee. THEN I’M VOTINT JOHN McCAIN.
I don’t believe Clinton was actually stating why she was staying in the race, but rather making a point that people are trying to say the nomination MUST be decided prior to June 1, which is absurd. She was only staing and two past very important races were still going well in June. Why does the media jump all over everything she says and give Obama a free ride (and especially his wife) on any and everything that is said. Senator Clinton may just be a little smarter than the media. She knows it is going to be virtually impossible to unite her supporters behind Obama. I believe she will try because she is such a true, loyal American, but I don’t think she will be successful. WHY DOES EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID OR DONE IN THIS RACE HAVE TO BE ABOUT OBAMA. God help us all.
Why are you reporting on how Obama is NOT trying to unite the party. Quit being so biased Garrett and at least look at the whole picture.
Okay Garrett, we get the picture. Your leg tingles when Obama is near too. Admit it. I never liked your reporting anyway. Why has it always been up to Clinton to make things right. I’ve never in my 70 years seen anything as biased as this race has been. I think the people need to flood the news agencies with their displeasure of the people who are doing the reporting. If they can’t be fair and balanced, they should be fired.
I love it. The Democrats are eating their own young. For being the self proclaimed “Party of Unity”, they sure are an embarassment to themselves. Hillary and Barry Obama’s attempts to become President is damaged beyond repair at this point in time.
Neither one of them even have a “long shot” in this Presidential election. The bad juice hasn’t even come to the surface against the Democrats. Wait until they pick a nominee and if anyone thinks that the Democrats are getting hammered now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
You forgot to mention that Obama ran adds in Florida. OBama cheated. Obama signed the
pledge form as did Hillary, that they would NOT campaign in Florida and Mich.
Hillary Clinton needs to ACCEPT REALITY!
I’m so tired of this woman with her anger, and sense of entitlement. She’s played “old school politics” from Day One (in which she was clearly NOT ready).
We can do so much better than Sen. Clinton. She’s just not presidential material when compared to Sen. Obama.
Now, that was an article that was telling it like it is! I didnt think foxnews had it in them to be objective.
Hillary continues to be divisive because she wants Obama to lose in Novermber. Her loyalty is not with the Democratic party but herself.
She obviously believes John McCain will be a horrible president and a one term president, because she’s setting everything up for a run for the white house in 2012!
Good luck with that plan Hillary, you’re on your own.
Keep Fighting Hillary – MILLIONS Support and VOTE for YOU!!
It is the DNC and the obama group that have caused all the “party unity” – every comment made that is not glowing to obama is considered to be racist, untrue, not fair, or just plain wrong.
The obama group will stop at nothing and step on anyone to get the nomination.
But – IF obama should manage to STEAL the nomination – what really has he won???
Obama will never be elected due to his WEAK and questionable background – he will never be the President of the USA. The Millions of Hillary supporters will not vote for him – not due to race, gender or spite, but because he is NOT QUALIFIED.
Looks like the DNC has lost – again!
its clear to see that even on fox writers like major garrett are extremely biased against hillary clinton. all you have to do is just read his column. obviously an obama culty or mccain supporter. but , which ever , he is clearly a hillary hater. dont like strong women in power i would think. columns like his just perpetuate and support the big problems of race and gender,. msnbc goes out of its way to support and report favorably on obama while taking jabs at clinton. thats why i dont look to them for fair and unbiased news. now thanks to garrett it looks like fox is not all that unbiased after all.
Shame on you Major Garrett. Unity is ultraliberal speak for “dare not question whether our candidate is weaker than the candidate for the opposing party”. Hillary is representing the rage of millions of Democratic voters who are disenchanted with the state of the party and with out treatment (I’m from Florida, and I can assure you that we don’t want some bland skim-milk compromise on our delegates; frankly, they’ve delayed so long in honoring them, it makes very little difference either way). I didn’t think that YOU were in the tank with Obama, too. For shame. BTW, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Hillary said about RFK. It was a factual statement and, convoluted conspiracy theories aside, was not intended to suggest any subtle meaning other than to show that the primaries continued through June in earlier Democratic primary contests. With even RFK Jr. saying that nothing was wrong with the comments, you media pundits should be ashamed of yourselves for manufacturing this issue.
barack Obama took his name off the ballot because he was losing by 20% there and chose to go to uncommitted. Its known in MI that if you wanted to vote for Obama that was “uncommitted.” now he wants to steal Hillary’s delagates. He may be the most corrupt since Nixon. so many people are being mislead here if so unfortunate for democracy.
http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264
Barack Obama is trying to steal the election and people are just learning about it now. I really though Fox would get it right especially since more democrats were tuning in.
Oh dear; you have become bias in your reporting of Obama. I’d say they better do somthing with Michigan and Florida or we are going to end up with the most inexperienced and dangerous candidate this country has ever known. It should miss your attention that 1/2 of the democratic part isn’t going to vote for Obama even if he unfortunately obtains the nomination. We simply do not want him. It is really the press that is to blame, as afterall, they gave Obama an easy ride for far too long. We should have had the negative history and assocaitions long before December. But alas, noooooo, you all had to anoint him.
Hillary should fight and stay in. This is about the safety and the future of America. It is not about some power hungry far left liberal who has inspired but empty words that a book inspired and mostly the quotes of others who truly were inspired from within. Stop the Obama cheer leading. It would serve you to consider those of us who just cannot stand him and who are fortuantely entitled enough to move right out of this country if this dangerous man is elected by the soggy brained liberals who push and support him.
P.S. In case you haven’t listened to all of Hill’s comments on the miserable and pitiful request that she lay down her fight for the OB nightmare, she has said those exact words. I am hoping she becomes an independent! Why not, the democratic party has gone literally to hell, if they think us faithful dems are going to unite and vote anything Obama. It isn’t going to happen. We cannot stand him and America comes before the disorganized democratic party qne it’s miserable candidate, Obama. Strong words? Yes, but this is the divide he faces. It isn’t about race, it is about qualifications and safety. He can offer neither. He needs to take his miserable wife with him and go on back to Chicago, attend his hate filled church and have tea with Tony Rezko, his next door neighbor. Perhaps next election he can try again. Maybe he will even have a voting record by then or worked hard to accomplish something on the committee he was to head up. He could have a few more meetings with his cousin in Kenya and work a little more on the Sharia Muslim law that Obinga wishes to reintroduce. Or, he could get some more silent behind door support from Farrakhan and Ayers! Go home, if you don’t see it you have been working to hard!!!
Clinton supporters know that the chances of her taking even the VP are very slim. What shocks me is the Obama supporters attitude, especially the campaign people and superdelegates. They refuse to see the trouble Obama is in. We Clinton supporters WON’T VOTE Obama. We simply don’t like him at all, and we have VERY good reasons not to. I am shocked at the superdelegates response to Clinton dems. They dismiss us as “sore losers” and don’t listen. We are saying, Obama is a racist anti-American hate-monger. The response is,”Oh, Obama and Clinton are virtually the same.” They are not listening.
I thought it was the superdelegates responsibility to make sure the most electable candidate got the position. But Pelosi came right out and said, “it’s not about the popular vote.” What a scam!! Why in the world are Americans even voting, then? Why is the DNC having primarys? They are apparently meaningless, straight from the mouth of Pelosi.
“PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 20-24 finds Hillary Clinton maintaining a significant 49% to 44% lead over John McCain when registered voters are asked about their preferences for the fall general election, while McCain has a slight 47% to 45% advantage over Barack Obama.”
“Despite the fact that Obama is considered to be the highly probable Democratic nominee, Gallup Poll Daily tracking continues to show that, at the moment, Clinton is performing better against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain than is Obama. Clinton’s five percentage point lead over McCain is statistically significant, and considerably stronger than Obama’s 2-point loss to McCain among registered voters nationwide.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107488/Gallup-Daily-Cli...
Hillary has even damaged the credibility of the media, their fear of saying that her remarks about the Kennedys was a shot at Obama, has taken them down to her level. What more damage will she be allowed to do to this country?
Good Morning,
As a white woman who once supported Hillary Clinton wholeheartedly I have to back away from her after this latest goof up. Hillary it’s time that you stop separating the party and band behind Barack Obama. It’s over Hillary and we are tired of the whining, there comes a time when you must let it go and now is that time. Now you want the delegates in Michagan and Florida seated when you knew and backed the consequences of there actions when they voted too early, now since you are losing you want them all seated, that is very hypocritical of you Hillary and now makes me see that it’s not about the Democtatic party it’s all about you and your unwillingness to accept defeat. Please people it’s time to let it GO ! How dare we say if Barack gets the nomination we will vote for Mccain that is very idiotic on all your parts. The Republicans have destroyed this country in the past 8yrs and we want more of the same for another 4 ?Wake up people or we will be back in the great depression messing with these dirty rebublicans who can give a Damn wbout the middle class and poor, Don’t be a fool we can’t afford as Americans to endure another 8 yrs. of the Republican Party in office. Do the right thing and vote BARACK OBAMA President for 2008″
Thanks for reading these words !
Ah, come on Major! Do you really think Hillary would say no to being VP? I don’t think so. Why would she want to go back to the Senate with all of those Senators that stabbed her in the back?
I think that Hillary should continue, even if she goes as far as the Convention. She is the most electable candidate and has the most popular vote. GO Hillary!
re: “That’s because every candidate save Clinton took his name off the ballot to conform to the Iowa-New Hampshire-Nevada-South Carolina sequence sanctioned by the DNC.”
Barack Obama took his name off the ticket to”conform to the sequence”??? LOL!
Mr. Garrett, I honestly thought you were too politically savvy to fall for that one.
Check out the actual events again, sir:
Barack Obama took his name off the ballot because he was going to lose Michigan.
When he lost Michigan, the talk was going to begin, that he can’t win the swing states.
He took his name off the ballot and actually campaigned for “Uncommitted.” The problem is, Clinton humiliated “Uncommitted.” So, now, he took his name off in Michigan to “conform to the sequence”?????
Mr. Garrett, you’ve been had.
No Unity!!!! For her to get behind Obama would be a hugh mistake politically. His associations with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko will end up hurting her.
As for Clinton’s remak’s about RFK, Keith Olbermann said it best and please play what he siad Friday night on his show. Clinton did invoke our worst nightmare!
Hey Major Garrett,
I met you once at an Obama Rally in Waukesha, Wisconsin. You are a smart guy and I agree with you. You should have your own show on Fox News.
Billy Boehm
I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IN THE USA, (WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE A DEMOCROCY) THAT THEY WANT TO SCREW WITHE THE ELECTION BY NOT LETTING FLORIDA AND MICHIGANS VOTES COUNT! OBAMA RAN ADDS IN FLORIDA, WHICH THEY ALL AGREED THEY WOULDN’T DO, CLINTON LEFT HER NAME ON BOTHE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN, NOW OBAMA SAYS HIS WAS NOT ON MICHIGANS( THAT WAS HIS CHOICE TO TAKE IT OFF! WE THE VOTERS FOR HILLARY SENT PETTIONS TO DNC IN FLORIDA ECT AND I AM SURE THEY TORE THEM UP! I FIND THIS YEARS ELECTION TO BE A PAID FIX FOR OBAMA,THE BIG WIGS HAVE SOMETHING TO PROVE TO THIS COUNTRY THAT A BLACK MAN CAN BE ELECTED, WELL SORRY THEIR ARE OVER 400,00 ACROSS THE STATES THAT WE HAVE CONTACK WITH AND THEY TOO WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, WHAT A WASTE OF TIME, I THINK 1/2 THE PEOPLE WILL NOT VOTE AND THE DNC HAS ONLY IT SELF TO BLAME IF DEMS LOOSE!!!!
Senator Clinton does have a case as to who would be the better candidate in the general election, she or Senator Obama. And yes, race does seem to have a role in this. Of the eight States with a black population of 20% or more, Senator Obama won all eight in the Primaries. However, if this was the General Election and the only candidates were Senators Obama and Clinton competing for the Electoral College votes, Senator Clinton would win by 84 votes (including Michigan and Florida). She would win by 40 Electoral Votes not including those two States. And yes, she can win the big ones. She would carry California (55 votes), New York (31 votes), and Texas (34 votes). These three alone account for 120 Electoral Votes. Those eight aforementioned States won by Senator Obama in the Primaries account for only 69 Electoral Votes, 31% of the total of 224 Electoral College votes in the 29 Primaries he won. Senator Clinton’s total would be 308 Electoral College votes with Michigan and Florida counted or 264 votes not counting those two states.
Unity? The ONLY reason HRC is still running is that Bill and her love to be the center of attention, and if she stops running then she completely loses her ability to criticize Obama. If she’s running, her criticisms can be hidden behind the “just drawing contrasts” spiel that usually proceed her negativity. Now that the media is beginning to give her second-class treatment (after all she is now a hopelessly-behind, second class candidate), i.e. she no longer dominates the news and pundits, expect more despearate acts/words. A Clinton ignored is a Clinton angered. Clinton followers suffer from a CULT OF PERSONALITY disorder which means that NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, the Clintons say or do will reverse their followers belief that ‘HRC is the only choice because HRC is my choice.’ But remember–the Clintons will always be there for you when they need you.
… and Obama COULD have been a uniter and spoken up when Bill Clinton’s remarks in South Carolina were unbelievably twisted too… media insinuating Clinton a racist? Even Jackson said the KNEW better. Couldn’t be further from the truth, but Obama did NOTHING to stop that schism. Some “uniter.”
Unity? The Dems will be alright.
Major,
Today’s comments by Nancy Pelosi are a haunting reminder of how Katherine Harris steped in and “put an end to” the recount in Florida in 2000. She should be directly compaired to Katherine Harris as this is very clearly an abuse of her power as the committee chair. She should let the process run its natural course and not impose her will over the will over many millions of voters. Please feel free to use this analogy in your reports, as it is oh so fitting….
Democrats–sheesh–you guys are the ones who said you want every vote to count! Your campaign is like it used to be when I played games with my kid sister. She also just made up the rules as we went along with whatever rules benefited her at the moment.
No one can win games like this because both parties loose something along the way.