You Don’t Matter, Apparently

So, the ever-more-desperate Clinton campaign isn’t satisfied with claiming that the 23 states won by Obama somehow don’t matter as much as the 11 won by Clinton…, the problem is anyone who voted by caucus:

In an interview with WMAL, Bill Clinton said:

“the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.”

That’s right, kids — caucuses favor “upper-income voters” (goddamn rich people)….and besides we all know that kind “don’t really NEED a president.”




Never mind that the data indicates the opposite — that lower-income as well as upper-income voters are supporting Obama in greater numbers than Clinton — what kind of anti-democratic bullshit is “they don’t really NEED a president”??

The Clintons just need to admit the real reason for their piss-poor performance in caucuses — they don’t have a campaign as organized and filled with enthusiastic supporters as Obama, and bluntly, they’re having trouble winning states without strong old-guard Democratic Party machines to do all the work.

If Obama is smart, he’ll start telling people in the states that have caucuses coming up what the Clintons think of them, and the fact that they apparently “don’t really need a president.”

In related “upper income” news — Obama has been endorsed by the Service Employees International Union, the largest union in the country, and the United Food and Commercial Workers endorsed him yesterday. Goddamn rich people…. :)

13 Replies to “You Don’t Matter, Apparently”

  1. I have to admit, I’ve been watching Clinton’s campaign over the past few weeks with something akin to stunned amazement. I can’t even begin to imagine what she’s thinking with some of her tactics. Everything she’s doing plays into the very “old-school politicians” charge that she’s denied. She’s trying to win by playing a pure numbers game (exactly like, oh, a certain sitting lame duck president I could mention). And it’s somehow never occurred to her, or anyone in her campaign, that every time she does something like that, even if it somehow secures her the nomination, she gives McCain the political equivalent of a nuke to launch at her. If she wins the primary, it’s going to be by sacrificing any possible chance of winning the general.

    For God’s sake, we’d be looking at an election in which John McCain could legitimately claim to be the more progressive, and least politically driven, of the two candidates. If we’re really stupid enough to do that–to throw away a White House term that, after Bush, is ours to lose–then I think I’m really through with the Democratic Party.

  2. BTW, I’m using “progressive” in its more general sense here, and not in the “new word for Liberal because we let the Conservatives twist and vilify the word ‘liberal’ for decades without fighting them on it” sense.

  3. The “don’t need a President” statement strikes at some of the heart of the Clinton attitude, too: Don’t worry your head about it, we’ll take care of you. The Obama message is “Yes, we can” the Clinton message is “Yes, SHE can” in the nanny-state, “we’ll take care of you” way. Obama is looking to empower Americans. The Clintons need to be needed.

  4. I think what we’re seeing here is throw anything at the wall and see if it sticks because if it doesn’t she may very well lose.

    I think she walked into this thing sure that she could take it, and now she’s having to face the very real possibility that she won’t be moving back into the White House next year.

  5. Man, I don’t know what he’s thinking with that “don’t need a president” bit. The Clintons are not impressing me right now. (Teresa Nielsen-Hayden had a comment about this a few days ago.)

    Caucuses are less little-d democratic than elections, though. (1) They’re not private; it’s easy to be swayed by peer pressure. (2) At least here in Washington, you can’t caucus by proxy (i.e. without being present) unless you’re in the military or are hospitalized or something like that. If you have to work on caucus day (as many service-sector, often lower-income) people do, tough luck, you don’t get a vote. That part bugs me; my mother-in-law, for one, couldn’t caucus for exactly that reason, and she really wanted to.

  6. It’s pretty obvious by her lack of a post Super Tuesday plan that she expected to have won the nomination by now.

    I’m also loving how people are finally waking up to how politically driven the Clinton’s are. They really only care about one thing and that’s staying in power.

  7. You know, I can’t agree with the thoughts presented in that link. Yes, we’ve gotten upset at candidates who have failed to fight when fighting was called for.

    But not when fighting was going to damage the greater cause. There’s still enough time for Clinton and Obama to destroy each other enough to hurt the winner’s chances against McCain.

  8. Whereas I was a supporter of Bill (even with full awareness of the destructive narcissism that was a big part of his personality), this time around it’s one too many self-inflicted wounds for me to excuse.

  9. I just keep staring at her and shaking my head. First caucus voters were unimportant because they were ‘activists’ (doesn’t that mean they’ll be more likely to VOTE and GIVE MONEY to the campaign?). Now they don’t count because they’re educated and upper class.

    The money loan, the wilder and wilder statements, they all look like someone fighting hard to stay afloat. I can only hope that she fades quickly enough to blow Texas or Ohio or both. With any luck, that will trigger her to step down and avoid a nasty convention floor fight.

  10. But not when fighting was going to damage the greater cause.

    Very true. I think I was mostly struck by the “tragedy” comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.