It Ain’t Over ‘Till the Clintons Say It’s Over
In politics as in war contenders swear they’ll never give up – until they finally do. Then, suddenly, they quit.
The Clintons may not keep their promise to take their cause all the way to the convention in August. But if they want to keep fighting, even though they’re behind in the delegate count, they do have options.
The party elite seem to believe it’s very important to avoid convening the nominating convention with the nominee still undetermined. Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is begging the Super Delegates to make and announce their decisions before the convention. The media herd, moonstruck over Obama, serves up daily commentary on all the damage done by Hillary’s continuing campaign.
But, if the Clintons want to keep fighting and are short on delegates they know they can go the convention rules committee with contrived challenges to the legitimacy of Super Delegates who intend to vote for Obama. For combative politicians the delegate selection rules offer a tempting buffet of loopholes and ambiguities, and the Clintons have demonstrated a talent for fabricating sanctimonious outrage from legalistic minutia.
Here are some excerpts from the Democrats’ politically correct delegate selection rules that are perfect for the Clintons’ style of politics:
“… the national and state Democratic Parties shall adopt and implement affirmative action programs with specific goals and timetables for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans and women.
The Clintons could challenge the ethnic composition of any state delegation on the grounds of lack of compliance with affirmative action goals and timetables. It can take years to litigate such a claim and the party bosses will want to do anything, to offer any concession or compromise to resolve it
“In the selection of each state’s at-large delegation, priority of consideration shall be given to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans and women, if such priority of consideration is needed to fulfill the affirmative action goals outlined in the state’s Delegate Selection Plan.”
BUT…
“This goal shall not be accomplished either directly or indirectly by the Party’s imposition of mandatory quotas at any level of the delegate selection process or in any other Party affairs.”
A perfect ambiguity! If a state delegation is perceived to be underweight in favored ethnic groups it can be challenged. Or, if the delegation meets diversity goals it can be challenged with the allegation that a mandatory quota was imposed.
“For purposes of providing adequate notice of the delegate selection process under Rule 3, the times, dates, places and rules for the conduct of all caucuses, conventions, meetings and other events involved in the delegate selection process shall be effectively publicized, bilingually where necessary, to encourage the participation of minority groups.”
Surely ANY state delegation could be challenged on the grounds of insufficient notice, or an insufficient array of foreign languages.
“State Democratic Parties shall ensure that district lines used in the delegate selection process are not gerrymandered to discriminate against African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans or women.”
The Clintons can challenge the district boundries of any delegates who lean toward Obama! How simple is that?
Finally there’s this little nugget tucked into the rules regarding pledged delegates:
“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”
Why don’t the rules say a pledged delegate must vote for the candidate she has pledged to support? Why this ambiguous language? Apparently, this is an escape clause so pledged delegates can change their votes to “reflect the sentiments” if not the actual votes of the folks back home. The Clintons might be able to persuade some pledged, Obama delegates that “the sentiments” of their constituents have changed after the raving Rev. Wright, or some other offensive revelation injects a new dose of angst and apprehension into the festivities.
These are only a few of the possibilities for Clinton style exploitation of the delegate selection rules. Be assured, their challenges to delegate selection procedures will have a tone of sanctimonious outrage over “discrimination” or “bias” against women or minorities or the poor, or gays, or some other sympathetic, victim group. If the Clintons do live up to their narcissistic reputation, and do keep fighting this way for what they believe is their entitlement, we can expect retaliatory delegate challenges from the Obama forces.
Democrats had better settle in for a long hot summer of rancorous, self-serving disputes over delegate selection.
Many of we laymen observers have predicted for months that the Clintons would bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the campaign process – not to mention the Democratic Party – if it suited their personal ambitions.
Currently we are being informed in hushed tones by the political chattering class that the Clinton’s have the right to pursue the nomination to its conclusion. True enough. However, this is akin to existential musings about the meaning of “is” or “sex.” Yes, technically correct, and amusing to a lawyer. But is there any doubt that the true intentions of the Clintons are to find some way to circumvent the rules and process set up by the Democratic Party itself? (That’s the politically correct way to say “strong arm.”)
But why complain? Give me some popcorn and a cool beverage and I’ll sit back and watch as a no-track-record candidate who is basically running on the coat tails of their spouse, and another candidate who was an unknown and effectively a parking ticket fixer in the Illinois legislature just a few short years ago………tear each other up.
Come to think of it, that’s a sad commentary on the quality the candidates. Bartender, make that a double if you would.