| The Clinton campaign has repeatedly fallen back on criticizing the process after every loss --- challenging the right of students to caucus in college towns when they realized they would turn out in large numbers for Obama; challenging the Nevada Democratic party's right to set up worksite caucus locations for casino workers otherwise disenfranchised once their union endorsed Obama; challenging the entire caucus process once they had repeatedly been out-organized and defeated by large margins. At no point in 2007 did Hillary Clinton critique the caucus format, nor did she challenge the Rules and Bylaws Committee's initial decision to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. These decisions were made only later, only after they became necessary to keep her chances alive. The most dangerous moments at Saturday's RBC hearing were when Harold Ikes repeatedly challenged the legitimacy of the process, arguing that although the Clintons might lose, the party process was fundamentally unjust and an Obama nomination illegitimate. And these ideas filter down to Clinton's supporters. According to Newsday: And many of her supporters are vowing to fight on despite the odds. Some have circulated a 17-page critique of the party's primary rules prepared by Clinton supporter Stephen Herbits.
It's titled: "The 2008 DNC Presidential Nomination Process: A Crisis Of Legitimacy."
This group is not connected to the campaign, but they are pursuing the campaign's logic to its natural end and accepting the campaign's rhetoric. I've never ceased to be amazed at the ultimate insiders on the Clinton campaign --- people like former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe or Harold Ickes --- express shock (shock!) at the way elections are conducted around here. They could have been voices for reform during any time in the last two decades that they dominated the DNC. Hillary Clinton personally has made arguments comparing the DNC's initial decision not to seat Florida and Michigan delegations --- a decision she herself explicitly agreed with and which her surrogates on the RBC (Ickes included) voted for --- to Zimbabwe's corrupt government, to apartheid, and to the civil rights movement. The Clinton campaign has spared absolutely no fire when turning not only on Obama but on the Democratic party. In Nevada, they tacitly supported a lawsuit against the state Democratic party to close caucus locations where Obama supporters might caucus. On Saturday, as the DNC tried to work out a compromise to meet both campaigns halfway, Clinton surrogates repeatedly threw up their hands at the injustice of it all. Harold Ickes made open threats. Continue your run for president, continue to try to sway superdelegates. Fine. And be a voice for changing the nomination process for 2012. But don't try to change the rules after the fact. Don't challenge the Democratic party's nomination procedure as unjust and illegitimate after you've lost, or treat in bad faith the DNC's constant attempts to remain neutral, find compromises, and mediate between the two campaigns --- that's what will be so destructive to the party and will ultimately give Clinton supporters an excuse to sit out the election in November. Hillary Clinton must eventually recognize that she lost --- fair and square. The future of the party depends on it. Too much is at stake in this election. Another seat on the Supreme Court. The opportunity to finally end the war in Iraq. A historic opportunity of having a solid Democratic majority to pass a progressive agenda on health care and poverty. That's what this election is about, not Hillary Clinton. |
