Clinton's campaign has one premise -- victory at all costs. If that requires sundering the Democratic Party, so be it. She doesn't care. Therefore, there is no logic that applies. The popular vote only matters if it favors her. The pledged delegate lead only matters if it favors her. Michigan and Florida only matter if it favors her. States only matters if they vote for her. Groups and communities in this country only matters if they supports her. Super delegates only matter if they cast their lot with her.
The central problem is this. Barring a double-digit sweep of every remaining state, Clinton will finish the primaries behind in the pledged delegate count. Still, she has argued that she should remain in the race because the votes of the people matter.
"There are some folks saying we ought to stop these elections." "I don't think we believe that in America," she said. "The more people that have a chance to vote, the better it is for our democracy." - Hillary Clinton at a recent campaign speech.
However, her senior campaign advisor Harold Ickes has confirmed that the campaign will try to woo super-delegates even if she loses the popular vote. So the campaign is at once trying to convince people that:
1. The primaries should go on because the popular vote matters.
2. If the popular vote favours Obama, it should be overturned by superdelegates.
To even a casual observer, this is an absurdly hypocritical position. But unfortunately for Clinton, it's the only one she has left. Personally, I think she should stick around for the upcoming primaries. Her campaign has already invested enough time and money. She will likely win Pennsylvania by a reasonable margin, but at the end of the day she will probably not be able to catch Obama in pledged delegates. Both Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have indicated that they want this race to be over by July 1st, the obvious implication being that whoever is behind in pledged delegates at that point should drop out. This would make the the most sense, and would avoid the discomfort of forcing superdelegates to be the ultimate arbiters of a supposedly democratic nomination process. It would likely also spare Clinton the task of explaining to people why their vote was so important in the spring, and less so in the fall. Again from Kos:
So we have a campaign that is losing by every metric imaginable. And now that campaign says that it doesn't care if she's losing by every metric imaginable. Her campaign will carry on regardless. No one can say that Clinton doesn't play to win. In some circumstances, that is admirable. The only problem is that she already lost.
Meet Frank Hilliard. Bald. White. Blogging Tory. Self-described ladies' man:
I've worked for women, I've married women, I enjoy the company of women. OK, ladies, I'm your guy.
In fact Frank is such a friend to women, he shares his carefully considered views on women and security with the blogosphere, in a post entitled Women and Security, call a Man.
[Women] really favour anti-gun laws, including the current Firearms Act which prohibits the kinds of small calibre weapons women used to carry. Your plan is to call 911 and wait. For what? Well, for a man usually) to show up with a gun. Do you see anything wrong with this?Don't you feel a little embarrassed by leaving the protection of one man(your husband) and then calling for the protection of another (nice Mr. Policeman)? And to keep both you and him happy and free, you are quite prepared to call on American Men to protect you.
Well, Canadian ladies, are you suitably ashamed of yourselves? Your collective pansy-ass approach to security has let down your biggest advocate and heartthrob, Frank Hillier. How can you ever redeem yourselves in his eyes? What's this? Frank has the answer!!
So what should you do to change my opinion? 1. Join the National Firearms Association 2. Get your PAL 3. Write a letter to your MP asking him (or her) to help you get a Type III Authorization to Carry licence so you can carry your restricted weapon around with you.
It's hard to know where to even begin taking apart this vacuous, condescending, paternalistic claptrap. So I won't waste my time doing it. But Frank's 3 steps to changing his opinion is by far the most absurdly hilarious part of his post. Why anyone on earth should care to change the addlebrained opinion of this champion luddite is beyond me. But damn, is he ever smooove with the laydeeez....
Postscript: Just in case anyone cares, this was posted at about 8:40pm PST, a good 3 hrs before Canadian Cynic's civility challenge is due to begin (though I hardly think that 'luddite' qualifies as uncivil anyways).
Update: It seems Frank's unintentionally hilarious musings have also caught the attention of resurrected blogger and friend Red Tory. Click here to check out his dissection of Frank's thoughts on "liberalism" and "conservatism" (such as they may be).