'Forget delegates, rules, votes: I deserve it. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.'

[seafan]

My winning strategy



link to cartoon


By Rosa Brooks
LA Times

April 24, 2008


Forget delegates, rules, votes: I deserve it. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.

Thank you, Pennsylvania! What an incredible margin of victory you gave me! Ten percentage points over Barack Obama. Count 'em! Ten!
All right, 9.2 points if you insist on actually counting. But they said I had to win by double digits to keep my campaign alive, and I think 9.2 points counts as double digits. And I am alive! And kicking! And punching and biting and kneeing my opponent in the groin!
Oh, we know what the pundits are saying now. They're saying that most polls showed me ahead by 25 points in Pennsylvania a few months ago. But is it my fault if people just don't like me as much as they used to? Thanks to me, they don't like Obama as much as they used to either.

And you know what? I think I deserve a little bit of credit for that!

Who said elections were supposed to be popularity contests, anyway? Go ahead, like Obama better if you want to. I read the polls too. Americans think Obama is more "trustworthy" than I am, more "sincere" and "down to earth," less "cold" and "mean." According to the polls, a majority of Democrats actually think he ought to be the presidential nominee. Well, who needs them!
Presidents don't need to be popular. Look at George W. Bush. He has the highest disapproval ratings in the history of public polling, but he still gets to live in the White House, and Congress still funds his wars. If he can do it, I can too!
But you know, what I really want to do here is talk about a fundamental misperception many have about this race. People seem to think my opponent has some kind of "lead" because he's won more "delegates" and more "votes" and more "states" than I have. But are we going to decide this important race on the basis of such arbitrary metrics?
Start with the delegates. How is it fair for the Democratic nominee to be selected mostly by elected delegates?

Sure, it's in the Democratic Party rules. But let me ask you: Is this a country of rules? Once again, take a look at our current president. Does he let rules bother him? Laws? He does not!
He believes in power, and he's made it clear that not even Congress' laws bind him when he's exercising his executive prerogatives. The same principle should be applied to me when I'm exercising my prerogatives as would-be executive.
On that theme, let me remind our party's pledged delegates of another thing: Just because you made a pledge doesn't mean you have to keep it.

.....

For instance, I pledged in August 2007 not to campaign or participate in states that broke Democratic Party rules by holding early primaries -- as in Florida and Michigan. But you don't see me sticking to that pledge, do you? I kept my name on the Michigan ballot when Obama honored the pledge and withdrew -- which just goes to show you, he's too naive to be president -- and I swore that the Michigan vote "is not going to count for anything." But guess what? I had my fingers crossed!

You "pledged" Obama delegates, do you catch my meaning?

Let's turn to "votes." My opponent seems to think it matters that he's ahead in the popular vote. But Mr. Popularity isn't ahead in the popular vote if you count the votes I got in those nullified Florida and Michigan primaries. And pledge or no pledge, I'm counting those votes, even if no one else is.

.....