Clintonacracy

Email Print posted by schmoab 03/05/2008 03:00:01 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
How does democracy work in the Clinton Universe?  

After hearing Geraldine Ferraro and the Clinton campaign manager go on today about the Superdelegates, I've decided that the Clintons have a very different view of government than most Americans do.  They believe in an Aristocracy/Oligarchy system whereby a small group of people are supposed to decide what's "best" for everyone else.  It seems the Superdelegate system is a vestige of the old "smoke-filled rooms" days.  Superdelegates have never countered the popular will since they were implemented in 1982. 

 

However the Clintonistas are well aware that they will not be able to catch up in Pledged Delegate count, so they want the "well informed" Superdelegates to decide who should win the nomination.  They are essentially saying that the voters are too stupid to select the right candidate, so we should allow a circle of insiders to make the decision for us.  

All I can say is, thanks Clintons.  We would be honored to be governed by people with your clearly superior intellect and political ability.  How very republican (representative democracy) of you.  If you like, you may feel free to anoint Barack Obama VP to make sure you can placate the lowly plebes. 

I wonder if this is any indication of how they would like to get everyone involved in the government? 

< It's 3 a.m. And Hillary's Dreaming | Florida and Michigan got what they wanted >
 Display:
Clintonacracy | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
WOW!!! (none / 1)
You just nailed it on the head, sir...

Thats exactly their outlook...but do you wanna know the big surprise.... THATS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791...Every President has been chosen by the Oligarchy of Corporations and the Super Rich...

It amazes me how many people think we actually live in a place where the plebes (common folk) get to choose what goes on!

Great Post, man!

by bobo1 on 03/05/2008 03:38:17 PM EST

It's all Hillary's fault (none / 0)
Let me see if I understand the logic here. If someone plays within the rules established by the Party then it's not the Party's fault when things like this happen, it's the person who follows the rules. WELL ALLLLLLLRIGHTY THEN!

This argument is like someone bitching that a football team that wins by scoring a touchdown and kicking three field goals to win 16-14 against a team that scored two touchdowns didn't play fair because THEIR team scored more touchdowns.

If you don't like the rules I understand, work to change them, but complaining about someone who plays by the rules is silly.  

I'm sure if the situation reversed itself then Obama would never, ever follow the established rules. Barrack would just step aside because he's like Superman and always always plays, not by the rules, but FAIR.

by Hubble on 03/05/2008 06:27:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Considering the Hillary camp's position (none / 0)
on MI and FL, isn't it a little ironic to make the argument you just made?


I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 06:31:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just one more thing (none / 0)
When you write They are essentially saying that the voters are too stupid to select the right candidate, so we should allow a circle of insiders to make the decision for us.  

The original idea behind the Electorial College, was because the founders did worry about an uninformed electorate.

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. .......

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.


After looking at some of the crap the electorate falls for and some of the idiots we have elected President, perhaps the Founders really were smarter than we are.

by Hubble on 03/05/2008 06:39:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The only industry mentioned in the Constitution (none / 0)
is the press, and we subsidize (used to heavily) newspaper delivery for that very reason, because the Founders (especially Jefferson) believed we couldn't have a good democracy without informed citizenry.

Unfortunately the various forms of media have become less and less about providing a variety of detailed and accurate (not to mention relevant) stories, and more and more about increasing ratings and making money while not upsetting advertisers (this situation exploded in the 80's and 90's thanks to media consolidation/deregulation) .

I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college while improving national education in all forms, including improving the media.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 06:47:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you missed (none / 0)
When I wrote

If you don't like the rules I understand, work to change them, but complaining about someone who plays by the rules is silly.  

I believe that changing the rules is what they are advocating, not just bitching that it's not fair.

by Hubble on 03/05/2008 06:45:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nah, I didn't miss that (none / 0)
I don't think Obama is talking about changing the rules, I just think he (for his own interests which also are in the party's best interests) wants the superdelegates to go with the pledged delegates, which is also *within the rules*.

It's not breaking the rules to have the superdelegates wisely not trump the will of the people. In fact not only does that position not require any rule change, it also helps avoid (worst case) riots and a mass of disgusted voters who feel disenfranchised.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 06:51:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was talking to schmoab (none / 0)
as he was bitching about the attitude of people being too stupid.

I have no problem with Obama trying to get the Super-delegates to align with him. He's playing within the rules.

The idea that Super-delegates need to align with the popular vote sort of defeats the idea of a Super-delegate free to vote independent of the "will of the people".

Again, it's the will of the Party at this point, not the will of the people.

The Party makes the rules, and members are free to try and get them changed, but don't bitch about the candidates who play within the rules.

As to what is in the Party's best interest is a subjective statement, that can be argued in a number of ways, most not aligning with the proposition that what is in Obama's best interest is also the Party's best interest.

by Hubble on 03/05/2008 07:27:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I disagree 101% (none / 0)
with this statement: As to what is in the Party's best interest is a subjective statement, that can be argued in a number of ways, most not aligning with the proposition that what is in Obama's best interest is also the Party's best interest.

I explained *why* it IS in the party's best interest, but you didn't explain why "most" arguments contradict my argument.

It's an objective fact that all else being equal, it's better if the superdelegates are not perceived as overriding the will of the people.  Take Obama and Hillary out of the equation and just read that statement.  People were pissed about the electoral college pretty recently, and if the superdelegates trump the elected delegates, you can expect yet more resentment.

Now, you can argue the effect won't be that strong, but you can not argue there won't be any (negative) effect.  Again, taking Obama and Hillary out of the equation and just looking at the situation with two hypothetical candidates.

PS---Even Hillary supporters would prefer that Hillary win outright and not have the superdelegate issue come into play, all else being equal (although obviously many of them will gladly accept party upset if it means she wins the nomination). It clearly complicates the issue.

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 08:09:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The party's best interests (none / 0)

Are to fairly represent their constituents.  Otherwise there is no Party.  Just because Clinton can steal the nomination doesn't mean it would be a good idea.  The Superdelegates overturning the pledged delegates would be a great way to start a third party--much more likely than any of Nader's efforts. 

Anyway I don't think that's very likely.  Ben explained it pretty reasonably during the show today.  

A problem could arise if Hillary ends up with more popular votes and Obama still has more pledged delegates.  I think that is the Clinton campaign's goal at this point--to cast doubt on Obama's right to the nomination. 

Incidentially I'm in favor of the Electoral College. It will never be changed anyway.

by schmoab on 03/05/2008 08:12:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Say it (none / 1)
I am a hater

Amazing the mind reading abilities of the haters and the media.
Did you know she is secretly a racist too, all those years of supporting civil rights was just a smoke screen until now.

Lets talk about the voters,

1. caucuses are not truely representative of the voters

2. what is the overall "popular" vote count (almost even at last count)

Our primary system is a joke. You talk about "super delegates". Look at Texas, that is a fair system right? Weighted districts? combo primary/causus (both of which benefit Obama) and no complaints from you.


It appears to me that when our screwed up system benefits Obama it is o.k. but when she tries to use the rules to her advantage it's unfair.


 

by LORD FOUL on 03/05/2008 05:47:55 PM EST

There's a bigger picture here (none / 0)

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here Shmoab.  None of this has happened yet.  Let's face it, they're pretty close in delegate counts.  I just don't think it is realistic to expect Clinton to fold up right now with things this close.  Would anyone else?  It would be best for everyone if a clear winner was established before either candidate quit.  Being split evenly is just bad luck, like in 2000.  The worst, most stupid thing that could happen is for supporters of either of them to pick up their toys and go home without voting in the general election.  Then you may as well just give it all away to the assholes who are choking the country to death.

Remember this about McCain.  It isn't just him we have to worry about.  Apointments have been made by Bush and company all across the board.  They've appointed party loyalists and toadies and fundamentalists to hundreds of administrative positions that should have been staffed with competent professionals.  We need a complete house cleaning or the government will continue to be disfunctional.   The regulatory agencies will continue to polish their nails and ignore their duties.  They will continue to be staffed by party hacks or plants from the industries they're designed to regulate.  The judiciary will continue to prosecute along party lines rather than being impartial, the supreme court will continue to be loaded with people who think the cloth flag is more important than the constitution it symbolizes and the military will continue to be led by men whose assessments never deviate from what the boss wants to hear.  And of course the corporations will continue to make record profits while the country accrues record deficits right up until the day it all just falls apart. 

Hey, either one's more personable than Kerry was.  I like Obama better, but I have to admit, Hillary is one tough cookie.  I have to admire that.

by bfaul on 03/05/2008 08:17:05 PM EST

Let's talk will of the people (none / 0)
At this point if you count ALL the people who have voted it would mean Hillary is leading the popular vote when you include Mi and FL.

So do the Obama fans REALLY want "The will of the People" argument? Are is just the will of some of the people within the rules of The Party?

The purpose of the Superdelegates was intended to have a independant group of people who could, if needed based on the INFORMATION available at the time of the convention vote in the best interest of the party.

It's really funny that everytime the worm turns the arguments from Obamabots turns with them.

Hillary won the Texas popular vote why aren't the Obamaniacs out there petitioning to give Hillary the delegates from the caucus portion, after all isn't the argument "Will of the People" not  the will of a few?

I can understand upholding the votes of States with JUST a caucus, but in Texas the PEOPLE CLEARLY voted a preference. Were is the outrage over this destruction of the Democratic process, and allowing Obama to steal delegates against the clear "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"?

Gosh are we going to let a few people overturn the democracy everyone is screaming for?

My point is the process is what it is, and people need to stop screaming "CHEATER CHEATER!", everytime someone works the system. Everyone does it, even Obama Christ.

by Hubble on 03/05/2008 11:27:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
(Yawn) (none / 0)
Obamabots? Obamaniacs?  You just disqualified yourself, unless Bobo hijacked your PC in which case I forgive you Hubble.

In the meantime, I'll continue to avoid cheesy, childish names to belittle all supporters of Hillary Clinton.

At this point if you count ALL the people who have voted it would mean Hillary is leading the popular vote when you include Mi and FL.

Well, yeah, if you count those two disqualified states, then yes, things change.  But that's an absurd argument, because we all know why, *at the very least*, one of those two states shouldn't count no matter how much you love Hillary.


Again, this goes beyond the candidates. The general point is that if the *perception* is that Hillary stole the nomination, that's bad for the party no matter how you cut it (you can argue how bad, but not the general fact that it's negative). Reverse the situation and it's no different. And *if* the superdelegates decide in favor of Hillary (again, barring an elected delegate miracle), that WILL be the perception.


PS---By the way, who would win between a Decepticon a Republicon and an Obamabot?

by ihavenobias on 03/05/2008 11:44:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh come on (none / 0)
I have previously posted that I will not apologize for using the terms Obamabots or Obamaniacs, there just too good. How often can you get a great catch name, and if the Obama supporters are soooo soooo sensitive that they can't take a joke and laugh at themselves then we as Democrats really are in serious trouble.

I have personally been called a lot worse on this board, and sometimes it's meant in humor and sometimes it's just a plain insult.

Funny part is the most vicious insults have come from people who were supposedly progressive, but because I didn't agree with them they called me some very hurtful things that my poor liberal Psyche almost never recovered from.

Some people need to get over themselves get a sense of humor, and realize that if the real political opponents find out a name bothers you then they own you with it.

That's how "liberal" became a bad word, not enough people stood up laughed and proudly proclaim "Hell yea I'm a liberal and proud of it."  Humor kills disarms and often reverses all smears if done properly and often.

That's why Democrats are viewed as a bunch of up tight PC, wimps.

As to perception, you act like the American people have an attention span greater than a gnat. By the time November gets here it won't matter who the nominee is, as long as the loser sucks it up and endorses The Party nominee, and America will be focused on important issues like does John McCain use Viagra, or did his wife have a breast lift.

by Hubble on 03/06/2008 12:03:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
silly dork (none / 1)
since when does liberal have a bad name ?

You dont have to apologize for using terms like obamba bot what you do have to do is stop bitching that other people are vicious when you do exactly the same shit you dork.

dork is my new term for non liberal hillbilly supporters who call people obama  bots.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/06/2008 08:27:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny are you REALLY that much of a ........ (none / 0)
If I were you I would work on my reading comprehension skills. I wasn't bitching about people being mean to me, I was laughing about it.

I don't go on live chat because most of the time I'm busy doing other things like living my life and don't have time. Of course I would never assume to be as witty and quick on my feet as you because we all know "Ain't" no one as witty, articulate, and smart as you.

I would challenge you to show were I was bitching about your lame attempts at insults.

I quit picking on you at the request of other members and I don't intend to start back, because after a few post the new members of the forum can see what an intolerant, immature, nick-jumping, humorless, sad, little man you really are.

You might want to read this part slowly, so you can understand what I was saying in the post.

REPUBLICANS used the term LIBERAL and turned it into a negative in the minds of the American people. It is their number one insult. Liberals didn't have the balls to stand up and say "Yes we are liberal and proud of it." Instead they began a 20 year long campaign of being apologist.

I have said it's time to reclaim the name and turn it back into the positive that it is. Of course then an asshole like you comes along and pretends to be liberal giving the rest of us a bad name all over again.

FOR THE NEW FORUM MEMBERS JUST SO YOU WILL KNOW.

Now is the time for Tiny to post a scathing reply with just the right insult, referring to me as a bitter old man, blah, blah, blah, because "AIN'T" no one going to get the last word on him.

by Hubble on 03/06/2008 11:09:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
man you cant resist can you Hubble (none / 0)
Are you REALLY that eager to prove my point dork?

by Chinese Democracy on 03/06/2008 03:10:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See Tiny has to get the last word (none / 0)
Dork Out!

by Hubble on 03/06/2008 07:34:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hubble (none / 0)
I think Tiny was inviting me to live chat. I might do it just for the entertainment value, but there is one important rule that I want him to adhere to.

Both hands on the keyboard!

(No funny business.)

by KenTX on 03/06/2008 03:13:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont care what tiny thinks (1.00 / 2)
But I know it would be entertaining. You are not very smart and I know you are not fast on your feet that's why you avoid it.

As far as my hands . You don't have to worry about that. You are gross

by Chinese Democracy on 03/07/2008 01:29:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm glad you liked my joke at the end of my post! (none / 0)
You Wrote: "As to perception, you act like the American people have an attention span greater than a gnat. By the time November gets here it won't matter who the nominee is, as long as the loser sucks it up and endorses The Party nominee, and America will be focused on important issues like does John McCain use Viagra, or did his wife have a breast lift."


To some extent I agree with that. But at the same time, people have a constant, general feeling that their vote doesn't count. It's a big part of why there is so much voter apathy and low turnout (normally).

So when you inflame the idea that their vote really DOESN'T count (whether that idea is real or imagined), it *does* stick with them. We need to keep this situation in that context. 

Not to mention the fact that there are so many young and new voters who are probably more excited and paying more attention, but also more likely to feel like they've taken a punch in the gut if they come to believe their vote was pointless.

by ihavenobias on 03/06/2008 10:30:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You finally get a glimpse. (none / 0)
“I've decided that the Clintons have a very different view of government than most Americans do.  They believe in an Aristocracy/Oligarchy system whereby a small group of people are supposed to decide what's "best" for everyone else.” 

Conspicuous consumption only applies to Democrat Elites.
Al Gore flies around in a G3. John Edwards owns a 26,000 square foot home. Bill Clinton moves around in SUVs. But these same guys are trying to pass laws to force Joe Average to drive a Prius, keep his lights off, and live his life like Fred Flintstone. 

Quality private education only applies to Democrat Elites.
Chelsea Clinton, Albert Gore IV, Vanessa Kerry, Eleanor Mondale all went to exclusive private schools. But Democrats want to make sure that Joe Average does not receive vouchers so he can also send his children to private schools. 

Upward mobility only applies to Democrat Elites.
Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Barbara Streisand have millions of dollars in wealth. But instead of taxing wealth in America, we tax the income of Joe Average. The system is rigged so that we demand more income tax from Joe Average, but we don’t go after the trust funds of inherited wealth of the Kennedy family.

Quality Health Care only applies to Democrat Elites.
Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry have received the world’s best health care throughout their lives, courtesy of Other People’s Money. As leaders of the Democrat Socialist Party, they are entitled to the best medical services available. But they are planning to force the “little people” (the rest of us 300 million Americans) into socialized medicine, where everyone will receive the same government provided substandard care. Just like in Communist East Germany, Party Leaders will be entitled to “premium” medical care.

by KenTX on 03/06/2008 02:54:28 AM EST

Why dont you ever go to the live chat? (none / 0)
 I have a feeling you don't think to fast on your feet. It would be funny.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/06/2008 08:29:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
True story (none / 0)

I saw KenTX (or maybe it was KenTex, but what's the difference really) in the chat list a couple of days ago.  His name abruptly disappeared and was replaced by Bobo1. 

When I made a comment to the tune of, "Oh look, Ken is Bobo now," Bobo's name also abruptly disappeared. 

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying.

by OneHitKill on 03/06/2008 09:07:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We've already covered this!!! (none / 0)
I was KenTX's alter ego up until a few days ago when Ken Tex put me in my proper place. Jesus man, get your head out of your ass and pay attention!!!!

I dont need an alter ego to make more sense than most on this blog...:)

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 03/06/2008 10:06:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No accusations here (none / 0)
I didn't say anybody was anybody else's alter ego.  I'm just recounting a true story of what happened in the chat room.  Maybe it was just a coincidence.

by OneHitKill on 03/06/2008 08:24:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just shittin w/you man... (none / 0)
It was a big hububalloo with Juarez, ken, Tiny China man and others. We all had a good laugh at it I suppose. I think Juarez might be back as someone called Evening StarNM. I haven't asked though!!!

I havent figured out if Fred is Ken TeX or someone else. Whoever it was, it was fucking hillarious. I love getting put back into place!!! It teaches humility and respect for my crooked elders!!!

Have a good evening...

bobo1

by bobo1 on 03/06/2008 09:11:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
saw that too (none / 1)
If they aren't the same person, they are sharing the same brain.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/06/2008 03:11:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clintonacracy | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: