Ugh, ugh, ugh

Hillary Clinton, speaking today in Florida:

Here in Florida, more than 1.7 million people cast their vote, the highest primary turnout in the history of Florida. And nearly 600,000 voters in Michigan did the same. And not a day goes by that I don’t meet someone who grabs my hand or holds up a sign, no matter where I am, in Kentucky or anywhere else, and says, “Please, make my vote count.”

Hey, guess what, Hillary? In Iowa, 236,000 people cast their votes. In Nevada, 117,559. In Maine, 44,670. In Washington, 200,000 or so. And yet your tally doesn't count any of their votes, even though it's perfectly possible to estimate the tallies, and even though those states' caucuses (unlike the Florida and Michigan primaries) were indisputably legitimate. I bet those people want their votes to count, too!

I receive dozens and dozens of letters and emails and phone calls, every couple of hours it seems like, all making the same urgent request: please count my vote. We used to be worried about voter apathy, didn’t we? We worried why Americans didn’t participate. Now, people are worried that their participation won’t matter.

You know what I'm worried about? I'm worried about you destroying your own party, undermining your opponent's legitimacy, and needlessly shaking voters' faith in democracy, all because you are shamelessly demagoguing this issue for your blatant own personal gain -- and ridiculously cloaking your self-serving arguments in idealistic terms, acting like some sort of G*d-damned martyr -- when, in reality, you and your campaign agreed to the rules that you now demand be disregarded, and didn't start objecting to them until it was too late!

I believe the Democratic Party must count these votes. They should count them exactly as they were cast. Democracy demands no less.

Ah yes, democracy! Count every vote! But wait, does "democracy demand" that you be granted a 328,309 to zero victory in Michigan, in direct contradiction of the clearly expressed will of that state's voters, who granted you only a 55% "victory" even though you were the only major candidate on the ballot? Does "democracy demand" that you be declared the "winner" because you won an uncontested election that sounds more like something out of Soviet Russia or Saddam Hussein's Iraq than the United States of America? What the hell does pretending that nobody in Michigan supports Barack Obama have to do with "democracy"?

I am here today because I believe that the decision our party faces is not just about the fate of these votes and the outcome of these primaries. It is about whether we will uphold our most fundamental values as Democrats and Americans. It is about whether we will move forward, united, to win this state and take back the White House this November.

"It is about whether I will get what I am owed: the presidency. It is about whether my ambitions can be stopped by such mere technicalities as 'rules.' It is about whether I can construct a ridiculous, indefensible metric whereby I can fool you dumb plebes into thinking I won. Wait, did I say all that out loud?"

I would go on, but it's just too depressing. I can't even bring myself to read the rest of her ridiculous speech. I really think she is seriously one of the most disgustingly shameless people on the planet.

P.S. I'm pretty sure this speech constitutes Hillary setting off a nuclear bomb in Obama's, and the Democratic Party's, path. She is now explicitly and full-throatedly questioning Obama's legitimacy as the nominee (invoking the specter of the 2000 election, and the civil rights movement, in the process!) unless the party agrees to her demands. Demands which are -- objectively -- absolutely beyond the pale. The Democrats cannot simply seat Michigan and Florida, with full voting rights, in exact accordance with the results of the states' primaries, in direct contradiction of the previously imposed sanctions. If the party does this, it would completely undermine, forevermore, its ability to control the primary & caucus calendar in any way. Such an action would be abject surrender to chaos. The 2012 New Hampshire primary would be sometime in fall of 2009. They can't do it. They won't. And yet Hillary is quite clearly saying that, if they don't, they are subverting democracy, and Obama is an illegitimate nominee.

Superdelegates, this is the moment to end it. Every undeclared superdelegate who cares about the future of the Democratic Party should come out for Obama, now. Hillary cannot be allowed to drag this out any further. It's gone on far too long already, but this is the last straw. May 31 must be made irrelevant to the outcome of the race. As must Hillary Clinton.

End it.

P.P.S. Andrew Sullivan:

How do you respond to a sociopath like this? She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.

I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Yes.

P.P.P.S. I managed to skim the rest of the speech, and I just wanted to call attention to this line:

Senator Obama and I are running to be president of all Americans and all 50 states. And I want to be sure that all 50 states are counted and your delegates are seated at our convention.

That "all 50 states are counted" ... except for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington!

There are truly no words adequate to condemn the utter vileness of Hillary Clinton.

Comments

[BK]

She has truly gone off the deep end.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 97]

Brendan

What astonishes me are the people who actually believe she is fighting for anyone else except Hillary Clinton!

Its amazing when you sit back and think of how blatantly flipant she can truly be.

But whats even more astounding is how this shows that the upper most senior "leadership" of the Democratic party has no balls whatsoever.

[Benedict]

The extraordinary fealty which you, Brendan, expect the Democrat party to pay to its own rules seems not at all to be warranted by its conduct over the last eight years.

Since Al Gore went to court to challenge the presidential election of 2000 and, perhaps more significantly, since the Democrat party went to court in 2002 to challenge the crystal clear provisions of the New Jersey election law to get Lautenberg on the ballot instead of Torricelli, it has been clear that Democrats and their party believe that no rule or law should be an impediment to reaching the desired result. In connection with Torricelli / Lautenberg, George Will wrote an excellent column that ended as follows: "For 36 days in Florida in 2000, Democrats displayed ferocious contempt for any rules under which they do not win. Next month, voters everywhere should consider the New Jersey spectacle when weighing how much power Democrats deserve." Given that recent history, why are you so exercised at Hillary? She's merely following the precedent. As a lawyer, you should respect, or at least understand, that.

The real inflection point in this primary process will come if and when Hillary launches a court challenge to get the Florida and Michigan delegates seated. I understand she raised more than $20 million last month. That will buy a lot of lawyering. Her willingness to litigate, not orate, will be the measure of the limits of her personal ambition.

[Jim]

It is my understanding that existing case law says the party would be in the right, and she would lose.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - "There are truly no words adequate to condemn the utter vileness of Hillary Clinton." - is it time yet to say "We told you so !" ?

This is not a new behaviour, neither for Senator Clinton nor for the current and recent Democratic Party ...

There are many honourable individual Democratic Party voters, and the Democratic Party leadership, the politicians, the Elected Officials, have been remarkably unworthy of those honourable party members ...

A number of us have been trying to point this out for literally years on this very blog ... and the two most common responses are "Republicans do it too !" and "Nahh, you are only biased partisan hacks !" ...

Welcome to the knowledge that us "biased partisan hacks" have had for years ...

Compare how Mitt Romney handled things, and how Hillary Clinton is handling things - which one reflects better a position of integrity, honesty, worthiness of our trust ?

[Maggie]

Great post. And agree that there are no words adequate to condemn her utter vileness. What I would so very much like to see would be her subjected to the treatment received by Glenn Close's character at the end of Dangerous Liasions -- where after her unmasking she arrives at the opera and is resoundingly booed by every member there. A public shaming. That's what's needed.

Instead, everyone (including Obama) is pretending she's great so that we don't further ruffle the feathers of her deluded followers. (And I know it's rude, but I think it is more charitable to think they are deluded than that they are as shameless as their candidate).

[MonicaL]

Public shaming? I seem to remember an impeachment... one could say, been there, done that. One could argue that was Bill, not Hilary, but if she had any shame, he would not be such a visible part of her campaign. The Clintons leave a bad taste in my mouth!