Blogs > Gordon: My Back Pages

Gordon Glantz is the managing editor of the Times Herald and an award winning columnist.

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Good Lovin' Gone Bad

My house isn't too hard to identify.

Outside -- on the lawn -- is a political sign that says: HILLARY and the words "for president" underneath.

Not only is it the lone show of support for Hillary Rodham Clinton's dying bid for the Democratic party's nomination for the White House on my street, but one of the precious few I see anywhere in the area.

And even though Saturday's mockery of a sham on how to allocate delegates from the inexplicably disenfranchised battleground states of Florida and Michigan pretty much gave Barack Obama the nomination, I'm not taking the sign from my lawn.

It's not even about Clinton anymore.

It's a matter of principle.

The same principles this country was supposedly founded upon.

That's why, closer to my front door, I have a big American flag permanently affixed.

I'm trying really hard to still believe in the promise of America, but make no mistake about it. Proof positive of that promise being broken came on the final day of May in the year 2008.

The will of the people, one exercised on Election Day, clearly means almost nothing.

There was a lot of talk from this Rules Committee about the sanctity of rules and the value of obeying them (even though America was founded on the premise that rules of games rigged in favor of the self-righteous were made to be bent until they are broken and used for firewood).

The extra delegates gift-wrapped for Obama in Michigan, giving his campaign strategists a free pass for never getting his name on the ballot there, were what sent the embarrassing scene into a fast descent toward chaos and anything but the party unity the Rules Committee arrogantly thought they could broker.

While the compromise for Florida -- letting the votes and delegates stand, but cutting them in half -- was probably the best the Clinton campaign could hope for and a minor victory en route to losing the war (just like Obama's pending coronation will be for him), the Michigan solution was a the kind of mess my 14-month-old daughter leaves after a meal.

The Obama people had the gall to seek half the delegates. But I guess when you're a media creation, you can ask and receive -- just about. He got just a handful less than half, an allotment that equates to roughly 600,000 votes no one even cast for him, from a committee willing to oblige his whim.

How and why anyone thinks this will heal wounds is nothing less than amazing and shows how out of touch the alleged party of the people is with the people who are probably going to now vote with their feet -- particularly in the large, swing states carried by Clinton -- come November.

What was supposed to be an exercise in democracy Saturday became one of futility.

As points were made and votes were cast, partisans in the crowd shouted at each other and applauded loudly -- albeit intermittently -- as if at a tennis match.

While Obama may have had numbers (surely bolstered by MoveOn.org), Clinton's backers were clearly more passionate.

The fact that the committee was clearly taken aback by the hostility in the room, one that symbolized the party's division that history will show was created more by Obama's arrogance than Clinton's persistence to have all the voters heard, was almost enjoyable.

A clown named Jim Roosevelt, the committee's co-chair, told the crowd "you are dishonoring your candidate ..."

In actuality, Roosevelt and friends were dishonoring the voters.

Another member explained that without rules, there would be chaos.

"What do you think this is right now, you (bleep)?" I shouted back at the television, prompting my livid wife, an even more ardent Clinton backer than I, to guffaw out loud.

Clinton supporters chanted "Denver" as the committee members took turns appeasing one another with pats on the back for what they kidded themselves into thinking was a job done well, signifying that loyal Hillaryites will not be so easily dispatched.

Harold Ickes, speaking for the Clinton campaign, added that he has been instructed to take the fight to the convention in Denver as well.

"There's been a lot of talk about party unity — let's all come together, and put our arms around each other," the former chief of staff for Bill Clinton who is also a member of the Rules Committee that approved the deal. "I submit to you ladies and gentlemen, hijacking four delegates (in Michigan) ... is not a good way to start down the path of party unity."

No, it's not.

And as much as I want the Republicans pathetically trying to wash the blood off their hands somewhere other than the White House, you are not going hear any talk of unity where I live.

And that place isn't hard to find.

Outside -- on the lawn -- is a political sign that says: HILLARY and the words "for president" underneath.

And even though this race is all but over, I'm not taking it down.

It's a matter of principle.

37 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, Gordon. What did you think the DNC was going to do? It's over.

June 1, 2008 at 7:23 AM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

GG - All that happened yesterday is that the RBC voted for the Michigan solution that was suggested by the Michigan Democratic Party. It was the state party that took solutions suggested by the Clinton campaign and by the Obama campaign, and simply split the difference.


You say "the will of the people, one exercised on Election Day, clearly means almost nothing." But in the Michigan primary, nobody knows what "the will of the people" was.

Every candidate except Hillary removed their names from the Michigan ballot, as the Democratic Party suggested should be done.
Voters in Michigan were told that their primary was not sanctioned and many decided not to take part.

When voters went to the polls in Michigan they found just one candidate on the ballot: Hillary Clinton. Their only other choice was "Uncommitted."

This was a completely, totally and absolutely flawed election. And you cannot fairly take the results of a flawed election and turn that into delegates.

The Obama argument was that you take the flawed election and disregard it, seat all of the delegates and split them evenly between the two remaining candidates.

The Michigan Democratic Party listened to both arguments and came down exactly in the middle. And yesterday, the RBC did what a good national committee does -- it listened to the local solution and approved it.

When you cut through all the rhetoric and the hysteria, that's what happened. And that decision was both fair and balanced.

And in the end, it will also be moot, because Obama will win the nomination by more than the approximately 60 disputed half-votes from Michigan.

Hillary has run a strong race, and after Tuesday she will have achieved her stated aims of seating both Michigan and Florida, and running through all the state primaries. And I expect her to make a very healing, unifying statement in support of Sen. Obama at that point.

June 1, 2008 at 8:38 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This editorial conveniently leaves out numerous facts such as:

1) Saturday's decision by the Rules committee did NOT give Obama the nomination - he had it regardless of yesterday's decision.
2) Obama has been beating Clinton in fundraising and internet presence for months, if not through the entire campaign.
3) Clinton did NOT call for Florida and Michigan's delegates to be seated when she still had the lead; this became an issue only once she lost the lead to Obama.
4) Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and has been too arrogant to apologize, as Edwards did.
5) Clinton's supporters and campaign are allegedly concerned about Michigan and Florida's citizens having a "voice," yet feel it's unimportant to give Obama's Michigan supporters that same voice even though every candidate except Clinton removed their name from the ballot. Clinton originally accepted the DNC's decision regarding these 2 states and did not campaign there. Again, only when she lost the lead to Obama did it become an issue to not have these delegates seated.
6) Out of the 30 members of the Rules committee, 13 were Clinton supporters, yet only 1 of them felt that Florida and Michigan should be given no punishment whatsoever for breaking the rules.
7) According to recent polls, the majority of Democrats feel that Clinton has brought far more negativity into this campaign, yet many voted for her anyway. What does that say about them?
8) Clinton has repeatedly whined about "sexism" in this election, yet seems to forget that her own husband has often referred to her as the "girl in the campaign." Can you imagine the backlash if Obama had referred to her in that way?
9) Clinton, in her desperation to secure more votes, has repeatedly refused to denounce the racism existing in her core supporters. 20% of the voters in West Virginia and Kentucky, through exit polls, said that race played a factor in their decision. In other words, they're not voting for a black guy. This is a despicable embarrassment for the party.
10) Members of Clinton's campaign have reported to the NY Times (who endorsed her) that it is common knowledge within her campaign that she comes first, the party comes second.
11) The Clinton supporters who are vowing to vote for McCain in November clearly have no understanding that they will be spiting themselves, and the country, by doing so. Clearly, their selfishness is more important to them than the party securing the White House.
12) Most importantly, last week's polls show that many of the swing states, such as California and New Jersey, where Clinton won, are now supporting Obama over Clinton, putting to rest her argument that only she can win the swing states in November.

Clinton didn't bother to take Obama seriously until it was too late. While she is a strong candidate, her mistakes (as well as her husband's) are what cost her the nomination.

June 1, 2008 at 9:42 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Montco Pa Dem, let's make a deal. When the election comes in November, your vote will only count as half. Since this is all well and good with you, it shouldn't be any problem.
And P&P, we all know that race card is in the hip pocket, ready to played at any time.

June 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

20% of her supporters in those 2 states say that race played a factor in their decision and that's a "race card?"

I find it interesting that you didn't address the other points I made. Very telling.

June 1, 2008 at 10:05 AM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

PB&J --

This was a primary to help pick a candidate. It was not a general election. The two are different -- very, very different in the eyes of the law.

The rules that govern a primary are the rules of the party, not the the rules of the US Constitution. And because Michigan and Florida violated the rules of the party, their delegates are paying a price.

If there was no price to pay, the party could never enforce its rules.

That's what yesterday's Rules & Bylaws Committee hearing was all about.

June 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hil Love will go on and on for Gordon. Meet the Press with our Gov. Rendell feeling the same way is very interesting. In many Townships signs (Political) have to be taken down after an election. Possibly the Primary Election here in Montgomery did not take place.Did we perhaps do something wrong?? Oh, Barack Obama may win, not Hil?? Our County is Republican & Commissioners will abide by the Majority Vote gets the #1 Chair.

June 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gordon, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you'd rather stay home on election day and see the republicans stay in the white house rather than vote for Barack Obama? That doesn't make much sense. At least Obama and Clinton have a number of commonalities in their positions. I don't think you can say the same of John McCain.

June 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P&P: Most of your other points were so mindless that they weren't worthy of a response.
But let's play along anyway -
1) Gordon said the same thing, didn't he? The only difference is that these people are in a hurry to appease Obama. They could've been more fair and he still wouldn't gotten the nomination. Giving Hillary moral was idiotic and divisive.
2)And your point is what? The truth shall set you free, and the truth is that he is getting money from special interests just like any other politician. He is a politician's politician. That's why, after 20 years, he had a moral epiphany, just as the Rules Committee was making fools of themselves, about his church.
3)That's mumbo jumbo and you know it. I don't care what she did or didn't do. She's only Mrs. Robinson to Gordon, not me. I'm not in love with her by any stretch. It was about the voters in those states. How could this happen in Florida after the travesty in 2000?
4)I think Ann Coulter had it right on Edwards. It was easy for Obama to oppose the war when he wasn't even a senator when it started. Once he was, he voted for funding each and every time - just like Hillary did and just like Mr. Hairdo would have.
5-6) Stop plagiarizing from propaganda leaflets from college campuses and grow up!
7)And the media played no role in this???
8)Your use of the word "whine" is unworthy of any further discourse here. If the jokes made about her being woman were made about him being biracial, cities would be burned down.
9)Look where they live! Obama wouldn't be where he is now without plenty of white votes, so shut up about a contrived double-standard.
10)Members of the Clinton campaign should shut up, too. And do a better job next time.
11)I agree, but I'm not so sure many seniors and women will.
12)California and New Jersey? Oh, I get it. Far-left humor. It's going to be won in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigana and maybe Colorado (the only state where Obama is stronger than Hillary).

Obama won this campaign playing just inside the margins of a framework that needs to be changed. I don't believe in moving the goal posts, like Hillary tried to do, but it may make a difference down the road.

June 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gordon, you break my heart. You are almost more anti-Obama than anti-Bush. I don't get it. Maybe you belong in Kentucky or West Virginia.

June 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB&J - I'm happy to debate you here, but I'm not going to accept childish insults. This will be my last response if you don't change your attitude.

DISCLAIMER - Gordon is an old friend and I love him dearly even if he has no taste in presidential candidates. :)

1) "And even though Saturday's mockery of a sham on how to allocate delegates from the inexplicably disenfranchised battleground states of Florida and Michigan pretty much gave Barack Obama the nomination" THIS is Gordon's comment - verbatim.
2) My point is that he has run a more organized and progressive campaign and that, amongst other things, is why he's in the lead and about to win. Her alleged "experience" isn't helping her, is it?
3) It is NOT mumbo-jumbo. If I'm wrong, prove it.
4) Forgive me if I have a hard time respecting someone who quotes Ann Coulter. How does he not vote for war funding? The troops haven't suffered enough as it is? They don't have what they need with the funding that has been given. There is no option but to fund the wars as long as the troops are there. The troops should suffer for Bush's mistake?
5&6) Again, if I'm wrong prove it.
7) What does the media have to do with my comment? This is HER supporters talking, not Obama's.
8) AGAIN, you did not address my point. Why is Bill's comment acceptable if sexism truly exists in this campaign?
9) Who cares where they live? Have you read my comments? You're not addressing them. I wonder why. Obama has given us no reason that he has a problem with whites or any racial or ethnic group, for that matter. It's Hillary who is willing to accept votes from racists because all she cares about is winning, but the rest of us ahould cry ourselves to sleep over the "sexism" she's suffering from.
10) We agree!
11) We agree again!
12) I am ANYTHING but far left. My point, which I think you missed, was that her claim that she can only win the swing states is moot because New Jersey and California (so far) are now supporting him as opposed to her.

June 1, 2008 at 3:46 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denver! Denver! Denver!

June 1, 2008 at 4:14 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, don't try to disarm me with these "we're old friends" baloney. Prove it!
Only children would be insulted by childish insults.
I'm not going point by point with you because you've consumed too much Kool-Aid.
Obama is done. Finished. He needs Ohio. He needs Pennsylvania. He needs Michigan and Florida, neither of which was made whole Saturday. Don't give me California and New Jersey. Those are obvious.
Gordon "Mrs. Clinton, Are You Trying to Seduce Me" Glantz is right. Dead right.
Face the facts, P & P.
And which one of you is the alleged old friend?

June 1, 2008 at 4:21 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree about the tone of these remarks. Many are uncalled for. Calling Gordon Glantz a racist is totally unfair. Many of us blacks in the Norristown community have called him friend for a long time. His position is that Hillary is more electable. He may be wrong, but he is not a racist for going against a black man in favor of a white woman.

June 1, 2008 at 4:24 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PB&J - all I have to say to you at this point is that Gordon and I have known each other since the summer after 9th grade (he had just finished 10th grade). We both worked at Camp Arthur-Reeta. My husband, Paul, has known Gordon for a short time but his name is included here because we agree on this issue.

Whether or not you believe me isn't relevant. Give me a buzz when you grow up.

June 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, girlie, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. More information than I needed, but thanks.

June 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Montco Pa Dem, I admire hopeful spirit. You think the sounds of Kumbaya are going to drawn out the protests?

June 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM 
Blogger tlees2 said...

So the question is do we Democrats unite, or do we get John McCain who will continue the senseless war in Iraq and extend the choke hold of the Republican Party (and its ability to nominate Supreme Court justices) on the executive branch?

June 1, 2008 at 5:29 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe that Gordon is racist and I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is racist, either. I do think she's forgetting what is important in her desperation to "win."

June 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tlees2 -

We unite. We have no choice. Before Obama took the lead I was convinced that Hillary was going to win the nomination and I had every intention of voting for her in November if that happened. I didn't feel good about it but I was going to do it anyway. What choice is there when McCain is the only other option?

June 1, 2008 at 5:33 PM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

Uri -- You bet: Kumbaya,If I Had a Hammer -- and according to Lisa Mossie -- The Internationale. Whatever it takes.

There won't be any protest. A few Hillary supporters (perhaps including GG) will be so put out that they won't vote for Obama. But their numbers will be more than made up by the many, many independents and disgusted Republicans who vote Democratic in November.

It's going to take a tidal wave of epic proportions to wash away the stench of the past eight years, but that's exactly what's coming: A great big Democratic wave.

June 1, 2008 at 6:57 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You think so, ey?

June 1, 2008 at 8:19 PM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

You betcha.

June 2, 2008 at 5:07 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

gotta love naivete. Only dem Dems!

June 2, 2008 at 7:08 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So since we're all playing the game of How Well Do I Know Gordon, let me jump in. I may not go back to long ago endless summers but I think I know him enough to say that while he isn't an overt racist, he may be a covert one. Maybe Obama has brought out his inner racist. Or maybe Gordon is just sore because a black man is going to get to the Oval Office before a Jewish person.

June 2, 2008 at 7:11 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not fair. Gordon has been as passionate a support for Hillary as anyone out there. Unless you know something I don't, Hillary isn't Jewish.

June 2, 2008 at 8:01 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since we're so involved in the Middle East right now I don't think a Jewish prez would be a good idea anyway.

June 2, 2008 at 8:40 AM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

I suggest that the blog owner (either GG or the tech guy who set this up) delete that ugly, bigoted, racist graffiti left by (who else?) Anonymous @ 7:11A.

And Uri -- I'm the least naive person you'll ever meet. But keep on believin', bro...all the better to blindside you in November.

June 2, 2008 at 8:45 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

tlees2- It's not a good feeling right now if you are a Democrat. Clinton's promo on the front page of our newspaper today, just because she made another win (kind of). It would help the Party if she would stop right now and let the Democratic Party get their act together or for sure November will be a month to remember - not good.

June 2, 2008 at 12:35 PM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

Quite the contrary, anonymous@12:35. It's a great feeling right now if you're a Democrat.

We've got a young, smart, funny and charismatic candidate for President who's going up against an aging, confused, angry defender of the least-popular President in history.

I can't wait for November.

(By the way, there are lots of reports starting to circulate that Hillary will officially end her campaign tomorrow night or Wednesday. Stay tuned...)

June 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If she does, she does. At least she gave an option to the "uneducated" voters (the hard-working union members wearing hard hats that send their kids to war first) longer than that phony John Edwards.
And I have to laugh at the poster who said "We've got a young, smart, funny and charismatic candidate."
Wow! Those are great traits ... for a lead role in a romantic comedy opposite Drew Barrymore. For president we have already had the guy who you would want to have a beer with. You see how well that worked out.
Us Dems have no choice but to vote for Obama and hope for the best. I'm sure GG will swallow his pride and do the same.

June 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make no mistake about it, Clinton will still wield a lot of power. She carries Obama's fate in her hands. If she half-heartedly supports him the way she and Bill did Gore in 2000, Barack will suffer the same fate as Gore. It would be ironic if Florida were the breaking point again. If I lived in Florida, I wouldn't vote for Obama just to make a point. Same if i lived in Michigan.

June 2, 2008 at 1:17 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is an excellent point and one i haven't thought of before. Perhaps it was her on party's power brokers that failed Hillary more than the media. They didn't get mad for the Clintons leaving Gore alone on the campaign trail, they got even by pulling the rug out from under Hillary as soon as a viable candidate emerged. It's unfortunate though. I agree with G2's premise that she has a more solid shot at beating McCain once Obama is no longer seen as a super-hero.

June 2, 2008 at 1:24 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give Hillary a little time to see where she went wrong, four years isn't that long. We tried to explain to our party, here in Montg. & PA. that she was not the one we should be supporting. Of course we thought for sure Richardson would be our candidate, but hopefully he will come into the Cabinet - he has a lot of smarts that are needed to run this country.

June 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM 
Blogger Montco PA Dem said...

Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbayah

June 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MontcoPADem 6/2-- You missed the point. Hillary still believes the campaign is all about her will/time table. Barack Obama has been the clear winner for quite some time. Her ego is making headlines, when Obama's name/picture and the people he wishes to surround himself, come next year, should be uppermost in our minds. Not a good feeling, Yes, for the Democrats when she claims so much coverage in the newspapers.

June 5, 2008 at 11:34 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Six Pack - I thought your group was on vacation with family, but I do believe you and the other 5 were at "99" - Good group! See you in September after school is in and you could have two or three more joining if you don't mind.

June 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home