Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary

Overview

People with low bullshit tolerance levels should proceed with caution as this post could send you into a rage.

Hillary is all about enforcing the rules on superdelegates even while she is criticizing rules that diminish the effect of voting, being arrogant, and dismissing the results of voting and caucusing.

Arrogance

Let's begin with the arrogance. As reported by CNN on February 11--after Hillary got her lunch handed to her in several caucuses again--Hillary thinks the democratic process known as the caucus is irrelevant:

Noting that "my husband never did well in caucus states either," Clinton argued that caucuses are "primarily dominated by activists" and that "they don't represent the electorate, we know that."

Oh, those damn activists! If only we could rid the world of those evil bastards...Seriously, let's look at the meaning of "activist." From The Free Dictionary comes this definition: "A proponent or practitioner of activism." And "Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social or political change."

Hmmm...Isn't "change" what this primary is about? It sure has been the theme of Obama's campaign, and once that theme started resonating with the public (that is, the electorate), Hillary decided to make it a theme of her campaign, too. And yet now she is complaining about and dismissing the people who, by definition are trying to bring about social and political change.

Wait--I was not specific enough. Hillary is dismissing the activists because apparently they don't agree with her. Obviously, the "change" sought by the activists is not the sort of "change" Hillary wants (which, by the way, consists primarily of Hillary being in charge). And since Hillary knows that the activists do not represent the electorate, she obviously knows better the activists what "change" is best. Bless their hearts.

But this goes beyond "activists." See, if you want change but do not vote for Hillary, then--according to Hillary--you do not represent the electorate. In other words, Hillary thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is wrong and irrelevant. That is arrogance.

Think I am overstating the case? Well, think again. Mark Penn, Hillary's chief campaign adviser and strategist, said the following on February 14, 2008:

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states--outside of Illinois?

Wow, I'm sure all the people in all those states that Obama won--even those that voted for Hillary--are happy to know that they live in "insignificant" states. That's arrogant and dismissive and stupid. But let's get back to people who disagree with Hillary. Penn was in effect saying that all the people who voted for and will vote for Obama are "insignificant." In other words, all those people are not as important or as smart as Hillary and those who voted for her. That is arrogance, and that goes beyond criticizing only "activists."

And Penn is not the only top Hillary staffer to make such a ridiculous and insulting claim. Harold Ickes, a longtime, big time Dem party operative and Hillary ally, is in charge of the superdelegate portion of Hillary's campaign. There will be more to say about Ickes, but for now let's focus on these statements:

"Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates (superdelegates) than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of (superdelegates)."

Recall that Hillary's campaign is based heavily on superdelegates rather than pledged delegates awarded through primaries and caucuses (the democratic methods, by the way). When that fact is combined with Ickes's statements, it is clear that the delegates Obama received through elections--and thus the people who voted for him--are irrelevant as far as Hillary is concerned. In other words, if you don't vote for Hillary, she considers you to be irrelevant. And that is arrogance.

Dismissing the results of voting and caucusing

The preceding section also clearly shows that if results do not go Hillary's way, she and her supporters are completely dismissive of what the electorate has to say. According to Hillary and her top staffers, anyone who does not vote for her does not represent the electorate, is not significant, and is irrelevant.

Not only is that arrogant and dismissive, it is downright stupid. As I have said--and will continue to say--any Democrat who wants to win the Presidency is going to have to get some Republican and Independents votes. That of course assumes that such a candidate will get all the Democrats' votes. Now, how smart is it for a possible Democratic candidate for the general election to dismiss and downright insult all the Democrats who did not vote for her in the primary season? For you Hillary supporters who are high on the Kool Aid, I will go ahead and give you the answer: it is stupid as hell.

Diminishing the effect of voting and caucusing

And now we get to the real heart of the matter, namely that Hillary does not care what the electorate thinks or says. Hillary does not care about the results of democratic processes. Why? There are two reasons. First, as explained above, Hillary believes that anyone who does not vote for her is irrelevant and wrong. Secondly, she is going to try to use superdelegates to defeat the voice of the electorate.

I have already covered this to some degree in this post. Part of that discussion contains this quote from the Boston Globe:

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

In other words, if the actual democratic, direct means by which the electorate decides the distribution of pledged delegates has Hillary behind Obama, Hillary will try to use the superdelegates to defeat the publicly expressed will of the electorate. Hillary isn't running for President--she's trying to become Commissar Clinton.

But why would Hillary's campaign seek to thwart the will of the electorate? Well, we already ready that she considers people who don't vote for her to be stupid and irrelevant. And, as Ickes said, superdelegates "have a sense of what it takes to get elected," and "are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns." In other words, not only is Hillary smarter than the electorate, so are the superdelegates, most of whom owe their superdelegate status to the same electorate.

If you are a member of the electorate and you did not or will not vote for Hillary, she considers you to be stupid, out of touch, irrelevant, and insignificant, AND she will use the superdelegates--who she considers to be be your superiors in every way--to save you from yourselves.

Conclusion

Hillary complains that the caucuses are not democratic and yet she has declared her intention to use superdelegates to overturn the results of actual elections and caucuses. For you Hillary supporters: Is this really the type of person you want as President?

Does anyone fail to see the abject hypocrisy and power-mad arrogance of such a position? If so, you are in desperate need of pulling your head out of your ass. Think I am being too harsh? Then feel free to explain how Hillary is not being anti-democratic.

I dare you.