Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:31 PM ET May 21, 2008
Give credit where it’s due: Hillary Clinton has shown grit and determination in finishing out the race. She has proved herself a strong campaigner. And in the week since West Virginia, she has stopped the cheap shots that had marred her campaign this year.

But Clinton has continued with one claim that could have a pernicious effect on the Democrats’ chances in November. While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie “Recount,” which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats. For a party scarred by the experience of 2000, when Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than George W. Bush but lost the presidency, this argument is sure to make it harder to unite and put bitter feelings aside.

Oh, and it’s not true.

Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.

After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 449,486.

This does not include Iowa (where Obama first broke from the pack), Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote narrowly), Maine (where Obama won easily) or Washington state (another strong Obama state). Why? Because these caucus states don’t officially report their popular votes. But if we’re going to truly count all the votes, official and nonofficial, as Hillary advocates, you can’t very well not include caucus states.

Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by realclearpolitics.com based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 559,708.

Now we come to Florida and Michigan, whose popular votes Hillary says should be counted. The argument for counting them is no better than for counting the caucus states (and maybe worse, considering that these states violated party rules by moving their primaries up on the calendar, and no one campaigned there). But for the sake of argument let’s count ‘em. That gives Hillary a lead of 63,373.

HILLARY WINS POPULAR VOTE!

Not so fast. If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead.

Beyond not being official numbers, there’s another problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn’t on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?

Try 238,168. That’s the number of Michiganders who voted for “uncommitted.” Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for “uncommitted” was a vote for Obama.

That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.

With a big win in Puerto Rico, Clinton could possibly erase that margin (plus several thousand more that Obama is expected to net in Montana and South Dakota). She could then proclaim that with the help of Puerto Rican voters who cannot vote in a general election, she is the popular vote winner.

The shorthand many Clinton supporters are already taking into the summer is that she won the popular vote but had the nomination “taken away” (as Joy Behar said on “The View”) by a man.

What a helpful message for uniting the Democratic Party.

If the Obama people have any sense, they will demand in their negotiations with the Clintonites that Hillary cease and desist in her specious claim to have won the most popular votes.

Given that more than 35 million voters took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, the math games on both sides look awfully silly. Everyone should agree to call it a tie.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109

I really strongly question this. I question it on two bases:

1. Large chunk
2. Women

Second one first: IMO the “women” thing is largely an illusion fueled by a particular kind of white feminism that is (ok, I’m going to say it now) white race loyalty naming itself feminism. Most — not all unfortunately but most — of the “women” who are into this feminism-white-race-loyalty are white. These are people who probably don’t think of themselves as white supremacists or white race loyalists. They often cloak it for themselves and for others, though I myself believe that even those who don’t know it upfront know it deep down anyway.

So it is not about women as a group. It is not. It is about white people enacting white race loyalty. The women ones in this group are saying it’s about feminism and sexism — that’s actually not true, that’s cover. The men ones in this group are among the people Ms. Hillary pandered to in the W Va and KY primaries. Same thing different twist.

Then — about “large chunk” of women. I highly doubt this. They are loud as hell, that’s for sure. White supremacy in this society sure amplifies what they have to say. The lie that this is “women” (51% of the population) instead of a group of mostly white race loyalists is bolstered by a long history of a particular kind of white feminism that falsely says that white women represent ALL women.

In addition to the many many Black women and other women of color who aren’t in this “‘women’ who will defect” group, there , there are plenty of white women, including white feminist women, who support Senator Obama. Now, I know that the white feminists who support Senator Obama are not immune from more subtle forms of racism/white supremacy — it is there for sure among other wings of white feminism and white progressives in general. I know this from long experience.

But this overt white-race-loyalty-feminism — it is not as big as “women” for SURE and is not even as big as white feminists for sure. It IS as big as hardcore white race loyalists, men and women.

That is who and what we’re talking about, primarily: White-race-loyalists.

Some of them will call themselves feminists and say they speak for all women because it makes them look way bigger and more important than they are.

It’s possible this group (including men and women) will prevail, but the more I watch Senator Obama and his team in action, the more I feel like he is capable of not letting it happen. But that’s another issue.

The question for me is, how crucial to a Democratic Party win is the white race loyalist vote? Are white race loyalists part of the necessary base of the Democratic party? I would like to believe not.

But if so, of the “white race loyalist” vote is required for a Dem. Party win, then something is very wrong with the Democratic Party and obviously re-making the map (as Senator Obama is already doing, I think) is crucial and necessary change if the Democratic Party is going to be viable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080522/pl_bloomberg/abkil5tbuujk&printer=1;_ylt=Ak5vDRDfe9i9r8L.1dq6x_Kpg9IF

————

You sound silly. Black people are voting and we’re still being ignored.

“Think it thru?”

The Democratic Party better “think it thru” before even thinking about listening to Hillary and snatching the rug from underneath Obama.

A vote for Hillary is a vote to be ignored. Only a dumb ass continues voting for somebody who openly mocks and disses them.

Blacks sitting at home on Election Day if Barack Obama is not the Democratic Nominee?

In the words of Barack Obama:

YES WE CAN!

Youll sound like a maniac over the next 4 years, it will be your fault for not looking at the greater good than quitting.”

Unfortunately, to me this comes off as getting the trusty and “useless except for voting the way told blacks” back in line.

Maybe you should release the stupidity alerts at Hillary’s website, Tailor Marsh’s blog, etc because that is where it belongs. Blacks and Obama have been above board this entire process. It would be stupid to acquiesce and solidify their votes as a guarantee even when essentially being told that they don’t mean shit to the party because brown is the new black. Gosh, if their is no ounce of racial pride, then you are right and we (well not me because I’m smarter than most) will do as master commands as usual.

Look it from outside yourself: The Less You Vote, The Less Power you have. In Politics, If You Arent An Asset, You Will Be Ignored. Think it Thru.

“Taking your ball and going home” cause your feelings are hurt does nothing to solve the problems this country has.

Its the exact opposite in this case.

If Black People didnt vote because Obama didnt win and we lost cause black people dont vote–thats the deinition of stupidity.

McCain will pummel this country and if you allow him to do that because your feelings are hurt:

Youll sound like a maniac over the next 4 years, it will be your fault for not looking at the greater good than quitting.

Politics doesnt need you, you need politics and a money voice with politicians to change things.

blogs.abcnews.com/politic…8/04/clinton-campa-1.html

Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

Jake Tapper
ABC News Senior National Correspondent
April 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What’s so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign’s most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC’s instructions — even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted — along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee — to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the “count Michigan and Florida” rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.

Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.

It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once — when he was DNC chairman — threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state’s Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.

In his lively book, “What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,” McAuliffe tells the tale. If you’re an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.

McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.

“Our plan became very controversial,” McAuliffe writes. “Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first.”

McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.

“After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind — however, not in Carl’s,” McAuliffe writes.

On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell’s wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.

“They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire’s,” McAuliffe writes, “which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

“‘If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,’ I told him.

“They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority…The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I’d had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl’s Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all…

“Soon Carl and I were going at it.

“‘I’m going outside the primary window,’ he told me definitively.

“‘If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,’ I said. ‘We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.’

“He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

“‘You won’t deny us seats at the convention,’ he said.

“‘Carl, take it to the bank,’ I said. ‘They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.’

“We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.”

Clinton herself said, in October 2007, “It’s clear, this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.” She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

It wasn’t until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, “Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it.”

As for Ickes and McAuliffe — they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.

As McAuliffe said then — “the rules are the rules.”

Why? “For the good of the party,” he wrote (then).

- jpt

Thats my mother too. While she has a college diploma, she lacks access to various media. She is then susceptible to Clinton’s distortion.

Many as you said, lack certain analytical skills due to their lack of education and I am not being condescending. She is effectively manipulating them with her lies, smear tactics etc… She cannot do it with those who either have access to more diverse media and can analyze the situation….boy oh boy.

They are being Bamboozled

Oops. I meant Bashar, not his father.

Although the same doubts existed in 2000 when negotiations failed.

Against Race Politics

Sorry I had to write this b/f I had a chance to log in!!

Has Syrian dictator Hafez Assad sincerely abandoned his anti-Israel hostility? Or is Assad’s willingness to negotiate with Israel simply a tactical move, designed to obtain the strategically crucial Golan Heights in order to weaken Israel’s ability to defend itself in any future confrontation? Most Israelis have serious doubts as to Syria’s trustworthiness.

I also doubt Syria’s trustworthiness, but I hope I am wrong to doubt that Syria really wants a permanent, peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Not voting Democrat for ANY reason is at this point in history, practically treason.

That’s not only crazy, it’s sickeningly servile.

That woman would have been given the hook months ago by a Democratic Party that valued its loyalest constituents. Her deceiptful, divisive, and race-baiting behavior has gotten this far because a spineless, cowardly Democratic Party didn’t have the courage to take a stand and establish some boundaries.

So hell no; I’m not about to be nationally humiliated, belittled, and mocked …

and then turn right around and reward a party for standing by while I’m humiliated, belittled and mocked.

What kind of person does that?

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. I don’t see Obama or his surrogates talking about the Holocaust (”It took the Allied Forces to end the Holocaust”). I don’t see Obama and his surrogates saying “Well, the Jews are only where they are because of X..Y..Z.”"

I don’t see Obama saying “Well, Hillary only won New York because of that big Jewish population.”

I don’t see Obama saying “I’m for hard working Americans, Gentile Americans.”

Come on, now. And no self-respecting Jewish person would vote for someone or a pary who continuously dissed them with no repercussions. That’s not going to happen, and you shouldn’t expect blacks to sit back and let it happen either.

What is it that you hope you are mistaken about you haven’t stated a position?

They voted for Obama and he has dissed them.

How has Obama dissed Jews?