The Fix is in for Hillary
|
by Richard Poe Monday, January 7, 2008 12:00 am Eastern Time |
Archives 11 Comments |
FORGET IOWA. Forget New Hampshire. Forget the Democratic primaries altogether. The fix is in for Hillary Clinton. When Democrats convene this August in Denver, they will nominate Hillary as their candidate for President of the United States.
The day after Hillary’s loss in Iowa last Thursday, her campaign chief Terry McAuliffe told reporters, “Listen, Hillary is going to be the nominee. There’s no question.”
McAuliffe was not indulging in wishful thinking. He was stating a fact. He knows things the rest of us do not.
One thing McAuliffe knows is that Hillary controls a decisive majority of the Democratic Party superdelegates. The superdelegates control 42 percent of the votes needed to nominate Hillary. They may vote for whomever they wish, for any reason, and may change their minds at will. In August, they will nominate Hillary.
Democrats started the superdelegate system in 1984, to give party leaders tighter control over the nominating process.
This was partly in response to the catastrophic defeat of George McGovern, the radical, anti-war demagogue who, in 1972, lost every state in the union except Massachusetts to Richard Nixon.
To prevent such maverick candidates from winning the nomination in future, party leaders rigged the system. State delegates were no longer permitted to nominate presidential candidates on their own. Henceforth party-approved superdelegates would also cast votes.
Superdelegates are party stalwarts, Democrat officials whose loyalties favor party over state. Their number varies from one election to the next. Currently there are 852 superdelegates, including 29 state governors, 232 congressmen, 49 senators, two “shadow” or non-voting senators from the District of Columbia, and 540 Democratic Party leaders and officials of various sorts.
At this year’s Democratic Convention, 4,049 delegates will vote. Hillary must get 2,025 votes to win the nomination. This is the so-called “magic number”. The 852 superdelegates total 42 percent of the magic number. In a close race, their votes could prove decisive.
At this writing, CNN reports that 257 superdelegates have already pledged their votes: of them, 154 (60 percent) have pledged for Hillary; 50 (19 percent) for Barack Obama; and 33 (13 percent) for John Edwards.
Should Hillary falter in the primaries, the superdelegates will likely come to her rescue and nominate her anyway.
The Web site 2008 Democratic Convention Watch offers updated lists of superdelegates who have and have not pledged their votes.
Of course, Hillary cannot win from superdelegate votes alone. She must get a sizeable number of state delegates as well. This presents no problem for Hillary. Her political machine is deeply entrenched in America’s urban centers. These crowded cities can overwhelm rural voters, bringing entire states into Hillary’s camp, with large numbers of delegates.
The decisive date will be February 5, dubbed Super Duper Tuesday by political pundits. Twenty-four states will hold their primaries that day.
“These states include some of our largest and most delegate-rich states, such as California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, New Jersey and others,” notes Steven Hill, political reform director for the leftwing New America Foundation. “Together these two dozen states hold enough delegates to nearly decide the presidential nomination all by themselves.”
Hillary is counting on that. As Steven Hill explains, “Having a single primary day with so many states… gives great advantage to those candidates with the most campaign cash and name recognition… It creates a virtual wealth primary in which new presidential faces will be quickly eliminated.”
In any contest of wealth, Hillary has the advantage. Her blue-chip backers include the likes of Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of the famed Rothschild banking dynasty.
“I’m always doing everything I possibly can for Hillary Clinton”, Her Ladyship told Portfolio magazine. “I have been waiting for this since Bill Clinton left office, frankly.”
Married November 30, 2000, Lady de Rothschild spent her wedding night in the Clinton White House.
OpenSecrets.org reports that Hillary has raised $90.9 million, only slightly higher than Obama’s $80.3 million.
However, most of Hillary’s money is off the books. No one knows how many millions Hillary has laundered through George Soros’ “Shadow Party“, a network of Democrat front groups masquerading as non-partisan charities. These include Fund for America, the Democracy Alliance, America Votes and Media Matters for America, among others.
Republicans need to stop gloating over Hillary’s every misstep and see the big picture. Hillary has the money, the machine, and the support of global financial elites. Unless we can muster a counterforce of similar strength, Hillary will win the nomination and the presidency.
See reader comments at FreeRepublic.com:
Posted on 01/07/2008 3:29:17 PM PST
ScreamingBolshevik writes: “What happened?”
Let’s not jump the gun. The question is not, “What happened?”, but rather, “What will happen?” Nobody knows yet.
Well… the good news is that the “global financial elites” don’t seem to have as much power over our political process after all. Their candidate of choice isn’t doing so well in her own primaries.
And don’t the Clintons control the Democratic Party? What happened…?
Is it time to revisit the subject yet?
Screaming Bolshevik: Is it time to revisit the subject yet?
No, not yet. Hillary still has plenty of options. The Democrats have not even held their convention yet.
Should Obama’s campaign falter, at any point, Hillary will be next in line to replace him. For this, we can thank our friends in “conservative” talk radio, who deliberately kept her campaign alive by urging Republicans to vote for her in Democratic primaries.
It seems that Hillary has many powerful friends in unexpected places.
So how’d that prediction pan out?
To paraphrase PT Barnum, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the leftward tilt of the Democrat Party.
I know, hindsight, 20/20, etc. It was just a cap in a fish in a ‘net rain barrel, couldn’t resist. Sorry.
Prdiction: McCann will be elected for one term. VP Palin will run in 2012 and become forst woman elected to the presidency of the United States.Her running mate? Hillary Clinton!
Prediction , 2008: John McCann will be elected President of the United States. Sara Palin will run in 2012 with McCann’s wife as her running mate? Hillary Clinton will retire (reasons unknown).
An Analysis of the Second Presidential Debate:
McCann was definitely the energizer!His delivery was totally factual and gave the impression that he was in control at all times. But most noticeable was his maturity and good judgement on questions of grave issue. He spoke clearly and directly, displaying a confidence that was bold and definitive.His most winning point: his faith in our ability to overcome all obstacles. His appearance was truly presidential in a time of crisis.This was proven by a sense of security one could feel from his words and ideals. His character, experience, and long time committment in serving our country puts him head and shoulders above all rivals.
I thought Obama was too mechanical. He tends to lean too much on what must be said at the right time…nothing emanating from the heart. A cloud of suspicion seems to hang over his head…too many questions not answered to the satisaction of the American public. Who were behind his sudden rise to power? In what ways has he profited from this whole experience? His stance on matters of defense are worrisome. Though these are the thoughts of a single viewer, it cannot be denied that similar concerns are harbored by others. Will youth, rhetoric, and questionable associations sway a majority of voters at a time when the country calls for real, genuine leadership? The choice is clear: McCann has none of that unsavory baggage carried by Obama. His love for country was the sparkling gem shown throughout this second debate!
To my dismay, I must sadly revise the comments I made in support of John McCann and his performance at the last debate. All that I did say in preference of his candidacy was true in itself but the main ingredient I was looking for simply did not come across: a feistiness we had hoped he would display at these very crucial times. I know he is capable of making score on this but for reasons unknown, he did not address the issues in the manner we expected. I believe that had he done so, the ratings would have gone through the roof and he would be on track again. Only one debate remains. Perhaps the two advisers n his ring should now be Karl Rowe and Newt Gingrich. So much is at stake here. With the recent report of fraudulent voting in seven states, it is becoming increasingly worrisome for his most ardent suporters. If he expects to occupy the Oval office in January of 2009, he has to become more aggressive in dealing with a very astute and challenging opponent.