On Sunday's Meet the Press, this exchange stuck out for me, where Hillary Clinton endorser Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, expressed anxiety that Barack Obama could win the big states that lead to an Electoral College win. But wait, didn't Hillary favor abolishing the Electoral College in 2000? Yes, she did, at least grudgingly. Here's today's exchange:
MR. RUSSERT: Governor Rendell, if, in fact, Barack Obama goes to the convention in Colorado in August with the most elected delegates, having won more contests and a higher popular vote, the cumulative vote, could he be denied the nomination?
GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate.
Let’s return to Hillary on NBC on November 28, 2000, while Al Gore continued his Tallahassle in Florida seeking to recount a state he lost. Hillary agreed with the need to abolish the Electoral College, even if the goal wasn’t looking feasible. From Chapter 12 of Whitewash:
On November 28, Mrs. Clinton invited in two network morning shows to fawn over her new book on White House entertaining and decorations, An Invitation to the White House. She was the perfect combination of Martha Washington and Martha Stewart. Neither ABC or NBC had any tough questions for Mrs. Clinton, but made lots of room for compliments. Katie Couric spent most of a half-hour with Hillary. She began the girl talk by congratulating Hillary and asking: "What are you most looking forward to? Obviously getting to work. But when--when you think of the array of possibilities before you...." She mentioned the fight between Bush and Gore in Florida. "What do you think about that?" She did ask if Dick Cheney was right that delaying a transition was a bad turn for the country, and Hillary disagreed. She asked, point blank: "Should the Electoral College be abolished, in your view?" Hillary said, "Well, I believe that," but it’s "unlikely."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe the Founding Fathers were smart after all
March 9, 2008 - 17:41 ET by KC MulvilleFunny... I'm a programmer. Sometimes, they hand me programs where the previous programmer did things a certain way. Occasionally, the previous programmer included a procedure that didn't make sense (to me). When I was younger, I'd throw that stuff out. But too often, my "improvements" hadn't accounted for some crucial fact, and the program would fail. That's when I'd realize that the procedures I'd thrown out were written precisely to address the things I'd missed. Now, I don't throw out anything until I know every aspect of the whole program. That's experience.
You can't expect politicians to have experience -- they're too eager to acquire power. But we citizens, we should know this by now. Experience should have taught us these things.
»→ Exactly KC
March 9, 2008 - 17:49 ET by Cool ArrowAnother important algorithm is International Wiretapping. We haven't been attacked, so the Dems assume that code is unnecessary.
♣ a seal
Demorcats = Homer Simpson
March 9, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Tom1969caAs is so often the case, an excellent illustration can be found in The Simpsons:
~~~
I admire FDR for not insisting on getting the approval of France and Germany before going to war.
--Anne Coulter
Agreed
March 9, 2008 - 21:57 ET by KC MulvilleThere are reasons why we did these things.
Voters get nervous when "new" candidates come along to proclaim that they aren't stuck in old politics. That usually means that the new candidate doesn't know any better. I guess the new candidate just assumes that the reason all these people are stuck is that ... well ... they just aren't as "creative" or as morally pure as he is. If only he could explain it to us.
That's why Reagan was different. Reagan didn't ask anyone to trust his genius and work out solutions for us. Reagan did exactly the opposite. Reagan simply asked us to look at the reality in front of us. Is welfare working? Is appeasing the Soviets working?
Reagan never asked us to go backwards. He simply urged us to do the things that have always worked: strong defense, an economy that fosters opportunity, and a basic trust in people, not government.
»→ Reagan the hardliner
March 9, 2008 - 22:04 ET by Cool ArrowAnd it was his hard line against Communism that eventually brought much goodwill from Europe.
Seems little of what he did involved begging the UN for participation or approval.
Maybe that coalition thing wasn't such a good thing. We seem to be hamstrung by our alliances. I haven't thought it all out. Probably couldn't if I tried.
♣ a seal
beware the ides of april
March 9, 2008 - 18:22 ET by mom_roxKC - great summation
another: Of course candidates should release tax returns (when Hillary first ran for the NY senate seat). Oh, wait. Maybe there's a reason Hillary is stalling on releasing her current tax return.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Oh, wait. Maybe there's a
March 9, 2008 - 23:22 ET by motherbeltOh, wait. Maybe there's a reason Hillary is stalling on releasing her current tax return
Pure stubbornness. The Clintons just reflexively refuse to release anything until it becomes absolutely unavoidable.
I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.
-HRC
Precisely, KC
March 10, 2008 - 10:39 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltAs a programmer, you may remember eBay's several-days long outage maybe six years ago. After they got back up, one of their senior people (I don't think it was Meg...maybe it was) expressed regret that they had such junior people running their IT department; none of them had really enough experience to predict what no one can predict. Experience tells you through your intuition that although you can't exactly see how this method or that manner of execution will fail, it's not the way to do things. It's called "getting bit in the butt".
Personally, as someone approaching the old fart years (I'm pushing fifty...oh, hell, I'm punching fifty in the mouth!), I'm enjoying telling people who don't take my advice at work here, "I told you so." In a politically correct but clear manner.
Experience
March 10, 2008 - 10:56 ET by KC MulvilleLOL! Experience means you've screwed up so often that you know every mistake not to make. Speaking purely for myself ...
Ahhh Hill... that a
March 9, 2008 - 18:00 ET by bigtimerAhhh Hill... that a gal....make sure you agree or disagree with whatever the subject is when it works in your favor.
We see through you out here Hillary...get a clue.
Hypocrite.
Flip-Flopper-ette.
Political whore to the utmost.
As they say in
March 9, 2008 - 21:08 ET by motherbeltAs they say in Clintonland..."that explanation is no longer operative."
And never never forget...To the Clintons, "Rules are just tools" to be used, and abused, to their advantage.
Electoral College
March 9, 2008 - 18:18 ET by allanfThe electoral college is there for a reason. Without it a few states with large poplulations could compeletely dominate the Union. The same theme is repeated in the Senate, where each state gets two Senators.
With a direct popular vote, you would see most campaigning in California, Florida, New York and Texas. There might be a little campaigning in Illinnois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michican, Georgia and North Carolina, New Jersey and Virigina. Thats about it. Those states have about 175 million in population.
The stratgegy for the Democrats would be to build up big margins in New York and California and develop organizations to do that.
»→ allanf
March 9, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Cool ArrowAnd those States with their enormous cities would be even more emboldened to vote themselves benefits from more self sufficient States.
♣ a seal
Exactly
March 9, 2008 - 18:25 ET by allanfThat is why we have the Electoral College. Otherwise California and New York could dominate the nation. New York City is about 76% Democratic and in state wide races, the Democratic candidate has received 75% of the vote recently.
no more county fairs for you
March 9, 2008 - 18:27 ET by mom_roxjust to clarify: with a direct popular vote, the campaigning would be done in the urban populations of those states. The rural areas of those states would receive little, if no attention.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Small states have more influence with Electoral College
March 9, 2008 - 18:38 ET by nkviking75Here in Iowa, there have been a lot of election years where the candidates rarely returned after the caucuses. The last couple of elections were so hotly contested that the candidates had to work small towns in small states like Iowa right up to the end. If our vote in 2000 had gone the other way, I believe Florida wouldn't have mattered and Bush's election would have been uncontested.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
»→ Except viking
March 9, 2008 - 18:41 ET by Cool ArrowThe electoral college has absolutely nothing to do with Caucuses and Primaries.
♣ a seal
The point is that as viking
March 9, 2008 - 23:02 ET by motherbeltI believe that was viking's point: were it not for the electoral college, candidates would ignore small states like Iowa once the caucuses were over (the general election).
If the Electoral College were eliminated.
March 10, 2008 - 18:17 ET by NWUndergroundit would be similar in what we see in the way state elections turn out and just who wield the most power at the state level.
I used to live in California, specifically the Sierras. Most, if not all east state and rural residents resented the coastal cities for the way they ran the state; especially when it came to water use policy. I now live in Oregon where four or five counties have sway over the rest of the 20 something counties in state level elections.Several decades in this country with no electoral college would foment a lot of resentment and disunity, a couple of key ingredients for a nasty civil war.
Party of the elites
March 9, 2008 - 18:33 ET by nkviking75Unfortunately for Hillary, the Democrats' delegate system is not based on the electoral college. For all the rhetoric about "the will of the people" in 2000, Rendell is arguing for the right for the party's elites to choose a nominee.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
looks like Eddie boy was
March 9, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Insane Chipmunklooks like Eddie boy was reading my blog this week
http://johnsebben.co...
(scroll down a few entries)
Hillary and her thugs aren't
March 9, 2008 - 20:05 ET by fitzfongHillary and her thugs aren't going to care whether she gets elected via landslide or if she just gets over the line by cutting the pulley rope to drop the sandbag on her competition. A "win" is a win.
Stupid argument
March 9, 2008 - 21:04 ET by docbClinton saying she won the big states?..Dem/s will win the big states regardless of the candidate but she can not bridge the gap... She is a fool to put this forward. Please see the truth... dirty tricks are not what America wants.
They are consistent
March 9, 2008 - 21:28 ET by c5thenThe Clintons are for whatever helps them win and against whatever is standing in their way.
Superdelegates are a way for the party elites to over-rule the electorate if necessary. Look for the Democrats to try and institute something similar instead of the Electoral College for the general election. They already have the MSM acting as a kind of super-campaign for liberals.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I just caught a link on
March 9, 2008 - 23:12 ET by motherbeltI just caught a link on Drudge to an Andrew Sullivan piece on the Clintons....A Horror Film That Never Ends...and boy, is he spot on. He catalogues their history of how they love to skirt the edge and flirt with disaster. But he also discusses their obsession and their refusal to quit, and says Hillary will never give up.
The money quote, IMO:
They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them. (emphasis added)
Go read the whole thing to see how well he has them pegged.
Even if they have to put
March 10, 2008 - 07:42 ET by Jack BauerTo which conservatives can only say... that's a scorched earth policy we can get behind.
and that's why it's so frustrating....
March 10, 2008 - 07:45 ET by Apollo77to hear so many conservatives start bashing Obama prematurely. I just don't understand this strategy. Everyone is assuming that Obama won the nomination so that it's now him against McCain.
Hillary isn't done and won't give up until she's exhausted every single tactic and trick in the book. As Sullivan's piece pointed out, it's all about her and her power trip. It doesn't matter who she steps on to achieve what she desires.
There's plenty of time to campaign effectively against Obama. However all this Obama bashing is doing now is giving Hillary plenty of ammunition to wrest the nomination back into her fiery hands.
PLEASE... let's be done with the Clintons... Let's not help them !!
yup
March 10, 2008 - 18:33 ET by WesenI agree.
The Socialist Republic of Maryland
March 10, 2008 - 11:09 ET by ahusserThe peoples republic of Maryland. Soon to be the People's Socialist Republic of Maryland, of course, and as a state has no electoral college for the political entities within its borders (counties and one city. The Democrats have ruled the state for at least 60 years and probably more. Within that time frame there have been 2 Republican governors: Ehrlich and Agnew and the only reason Agnew was elected because of a very divisive campaign on the Democratic side. There never has been a Republican majority in the in the state senate or house of delegates to my knowledge. Most of the least populous counties in the state are more conservative either outright Republican or close to parity. The three most populous counties and the City of Baltimore* are overwhelmingly Democratic with 80 percent or more voting Democratic they represent 50 per cent or more of the entire population of the state. Without any electoral college type system in place these four have ruled the state forever and will continue to do so forever. The 18 or so more conservative counties can never have a real chance to be represented. The point being the Electoral College is an important political instrument in leveling the playing field without it population density determines who is elected and who governs.
*The counties are Montgomery, Prince Georges, Anne Arundel and the City of Baltimore. Anne Arundel is a more recent addition to the fold. Baltimore County can go either way.
Rendell let slip
March 10, 2008 - 17:27 ET by DelsaFast Eddie let it slip. The FIX is in. She intends to steal the thing from Obama at and during the convention.
Rendell all but said it when he said all the little places holding elections, did not count therefore, the super delegates could do what ever they wanted. (and they will)
She can sit back and relax. And that is why she and her husband? can be so outlandish with their suggestions they will think about letting the black guy ride in the back of the bus as their VP!!
Yep Eddie let it slip.
Dick Morris, on H&C tonight
March 10, 2008 - 22:34 ET by motherbeltDick Morris, on H&C tonight said if she goes in and wins this thing with superdelegates, they will destroy the Democratic party..it will take them 25 years to recover from it. But I think Andrew Sullivan may be right; the Clintons don't care.