A couple weeks ago the New York Times columnist Frank Rich received a thumbs down from the Kalamazoo Post with his promotion of ancient anti-Clinton memes. This week, Rich makes up a whole new set of delusional memes to be cast about without regard for accuracy. He must be studying the swift-boat Kool-Aid recipe and his fellow liberals are drinking it up.
My critique of Frank Rich's most recent missive would be equally scathing and replete with references, but I'm not sure I want to make a mini-career of trying to clear up all of the inaccuracies in Mr. Rich's blather. I'll make a couple observations. First, we learned that Frank Rich watched Hillary's entire Town Hall broadcast but has absolutely nothing substantive to say about the actual content of that broadcast, only that it apparently wasn't as cool as the Barack Obama Youtube video. The horror!
We also learned that Bill Clinton is a racist for praising Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina campaign and Hillary's strategist is a racist for saying the word "cocaine" (a word used in Obama's own memoir), but Rich is not bringing race into the conversation when he uses the term "ghettoize" or when he talks almost threateningly about a potential "race-tinged brawl" at the convention. And Rich accuses the Clintons of risking "shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America"? Methinks he doth protest too much.
Finally, Rich fictionalizes the current situation of the "ghost delegates" from the phantom primaries in Florida and Michigan. Somehow Clinton is the establishment candidate because she went against the Democratic establishment and entered those primaries and won delegates. As the primary season matures, it is becoming glaringly apparent that the Democratic Party may not have a candidate with the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination unless these two large disenfranchised states are somehow counted. According to Rich, Clinton is somehow being unfair for asking for consideration of those votes that loyal Democrats had cast for her and then he makes up some claim that she is being disingenuous because she never wanted them counted in the first place. Huh? Idiot.
Finally, Rich fictionalizes the current situation of the "ghost delegates" from the phantom primaries in Florida and Michigan. Somehow Clinton is the establishment candidate because she went against the Democratic establishment and entered those primaries and won delegates. As the primary season matures, it is becoming glaringly apparent that the Democratic Party may not have a candidate with the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination unless these two large disenfranchised states are somehow counted. According to Rich, Clinton is somehow being unfair for asking for consideration of those votes that loyal Democrats had cast for her and then he makes up some claim that she is being disingenuous because she never wanted them counted in the first place. Huh? Idiot.
If Mr. Rich likes Obama, great... he should vote for him. But he should refrain from this BS demonization of Hillary Clinton. At some level we should see the lunacy of this constant and pointless unsubstantiated malevolence towards the Clintons; it was wrong when the right-wing smear machine made stuff up, and it's wrong when soft-headed liberals do the same. If the left wing of the Democratic Party intends to win the White House, they will need to polish their tactics because such obtuse reasoning and rank inaccuracies will never make it against the right-wing Leviathan waiting in the wings.
2 comments:
I am not a Rich fan but I think he is spot on with his accusation that Clinton is being unfair with her attempt to have the delegates from Michigan and Florida counted. At best the outcome was tainted because many people either didn’t vote. If these delegates are counted without a revote, the “loyal democrats” you mention will have been duped, blatantly lied to by their own party.
Six major Democratic candidates have signed a pledge not to campaign in those states unless they comply with party rules, which included moving the dates back. Florida jumped the gun and scheduled its presidential primary for January 29 -- before the primary season officially opens on February 5. Michigan's governor signed legislation setting its primary date on January 15. Clinton and Obama signed the pledge.
The Democratic Party rules committee voted not to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan at the convention if they don't change their date. The Republican Party also says those states will be penalized delegates.
Clinton - just four days before Florida's primary announced that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated even though she agreed, in writing to honor the rules committee’s decision. The national party eliminated all the delegates from those states _ more than 350 in all _ because they broke party rules against holding their primaries before Feb. 5..
Clinton could claim most of the Michigan delegates because she won that state's primary after the other major candidates pulled their names from the ballot.
I am not opposed to a revote and then counting the votes but to change the rules of the game after the fact is wrong at every level and in my opinion for Clinton to lobby for such a change screams unethical. She signed an agreemnt and wants to renig because she is in a battle and can win by going back on her word.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/04/primary.calendar/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/06/looming-delegate-fight-ov_n_85402.html
http://www.startribune.com/nation/14376066.html
Voice of Reason:
The fact remains that after all the delegates are added up, we may have a situation where neither candidate has the required number. What does the Democratic party do? Estimate or extrapolate, ask for a re-vote? Wasn't this the way Gore lost in 2000?
You and Frank Rich are not correct in the characterization of this snafu. (In his usual fashion, Rich gives no reference on the HRC quote from NH public radio.) The "pledge" to which you referred was merely a promise that none of the candidates would "campaign" in those penalized states-- it said nothing of placing names on ballots or even counting delegates. (see your CNN reference.) Each of the candidates expressed hope that the process would have been resolved and none of them said anything about wishing for the disenfranchisement of entire states.
http://tinyurl.com/343aao
In the typical soft-thinking of the Democratic National Committee, the decision was apparently to be left for a later date since they never changed the minimum number of delegates needed for nomination. Well, that later date is approaching and the Clinton campaign is lobbying for those MI and FL delegates to be seated. Why the hell wouldn't they? Duh.
What flavor of stupid is a candidate who leaves his/her name off a ballot that may come into play at a later date? This may go to court if an amicable or smoke-filled room solution is not arrived at soon. To paraphrase Tom Lehrer, if the meek are going to inherit the earth, they are going to have kick ass for it. One of Obama's first decisions as a candidate was to leave his name off two huge ballots; this smacks of the timidity that plagued the two previous Democratic presidential candidates, and frankly, I want the next Democratic candidate to have the gonads to actually win the general.
This may sound like cynical politics as usual, but any other attitude would be naive. Is Hillary really expected to concede the nomination when she a) leads or is nearly tied in the delegate count, b) may lead in the Super delegate count, and c) has more uncounted delegates in the two states being penalized? You and Frank Rich need to take a Reality Pill.
(You referred to HRC giving something to the Rules Committee in writing-- do you have a reference? If that is true, then it may change my opinion if/when the Rules Committee makes a final decision about seating MI and FL delegates.)
Post a Comment