A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 1: Endorsements)

The content of the Hillogism

Here's how this one goes...Obama has received big name endorsements. Those big name endorsers are part of the Democratic Party establishment. Therefore, Obama, not Hillary, is the "establishment" candidate.

This bullshit started on February 6, when one of Hillary's chief advisors, Mark Penn, told reporters "The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, 'You know, it's really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change.'"

Hillary then repeated this Hillogism three days later at a news conference:

Clinton is trying to turn the tables on Obama saying that he has "increasingly run an establishment race and he has increasingly relied on big endorsements and celebrities to sort of attach himself to to get the kind of validation that comes from that sort of endorsement."

Is anyone buying this? Anyone thinking that Hillary is right needs to put down the Kool Aid and keep reading.

Hillary's objective

Hillary is trying to show that she is not the establishment candidate by claiming that Obama is the establishment candidate.

Definition of "establishment"

Before proceeding, the term "establishment" needs to be defined.

Merriam-Webster defines the term as "an established order of society...a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class[.]"

Another definition is "A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society."

With these definitions in mind, let's see who is the "establishment" candidate.

First reason why this Hillogism fails: Hillary's endorsements

Go to this page and see just how many endorsements from current and former officials and celebrities Hillary has racked up. Go to the endorsements page on Hillary's website to see a chronological list of those endorsements.

Contrary to what she is trying to imply now, Hillary has received plenty of establishment endorsements. And, contrary to what she is implying now, she is making those endorsements part of her campaign. Don't believe me? Then explain why her website has a separate page listing all of her endorsements. And then feel free to go to Obama's website and see if you can find such a page there. If you find it, let me know. The point I am making is that Hillary--once again--is being blatantly disingenuous and hypocritical, this time by claiming that Obama is the one relying on "establishment" endorsements.

Hillary's problem is that Obama received high profile endorsements (many of which I have discussed on this blog) after her victory in the New Hampshire primary. That means that those endorsements have received a good bit of coverage lately. That also means that she lost out on getting some big name endorsements after her win. She tried to get Ted Kennedy's endorsement and was turned down. She tried to get Claire McCaskill's endorsement and was turned down. Since she was not getting big endorsements, she had to try to do something to minimize the effect of Obama's endorsements. And so she presently claims that Obama's endorsements show he is "establishment" and she is not.

Hmmm...This claim has come only after Hillary tried to show that Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsements did not mean much because she had been endorsed by Robert Kennedy's children. I guess she now thinks that some Kennedys are more important than others. I guess that the children of Robert Kennedy, some of whom went into politics, are not "establishment," while Caroline Kennedy--who for most of her life has purposefully avoided going into politics--is "establishment."

The fact of the matter is that if Ted or Caroline Kennedy had endorsed her, she would be reminding people of it at every opportunity to show that Democratic icons--"establishment" if you will--were supporting her. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool.

Coming up in Part 2--Hillary's fundraising.