Clinton's flawed reasoning

Sen. Hillary Clinton now argues that she is the better candidate for the Democratic Party because she has won the "big states" like California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvnia, Michigan and Florida. She said that, if the Democratic Party had adopted the winner takes all allocation of delegates like the Republican party, she would already be the nominee. I cannot believe that she is now trying to sell this absurd argument to the super delegates that traditional Democratic states like New York, California would vote for Clinton in the general elections, if she was the nominee, but would vote for McCain if Sen. Barack Obama was the nominee. I cannot further believe that she had the gall to include Michigan and Florida in her overall calculations to steal the nomination. Both Clinton and Obama agreed last year that the votes in Michigan and Florida does not count in choosing the eventual nominee. Furthermore, Clinton is nuts to believe that Texas will ever vote for her. Texas has been a Republican stronghold since 1968. The last Democrat to carry Texas in a general election was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

It may be late breaking news to the Clinton campaign traditional Democratic strongholds like New York, California and Massachusetts would vote for the Democratic nominee, even if the Party puts up a chimpanzee for President. After eight years of George W. Bush, Clinton wants the Party to now believe that Democratic states would vote for Republican nominee Sen. John McCain instead of Obama merely because Obama lost the primary to Clinton. Democratic voters in those states may prefer Clinton to Obama as Clinton is somewhat of a known entity, but it is lightyears from the assumption that Democratic voters there would defect en masse to McCain. Secondly, Hillary Clinton is the junior Senator from New York. It would be shocking and astounding that she could loose her home state to an upstart in the primary season. Her argument that the vast majority of Democratic voters in these states would vote for her over McCain and McCain over Obama is complete non-sense, even though McCain won the primaries in all those states. The Clinton campaign must have flipped in the nth degree to come up with this argument.

Speaking of flipping, Clinton is the biggest flip flopper since her husband. In the 1992 general election, then candidate Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas accused incumbent President George Bush, the Elder Bush, of being too soft on China. He said that, as President, he would tie China's normal trading status with improvement in her human rights record. During the eight years of his Presidency, Bill Clinton has given China a free ride regarding China's human rights record. Hillary is now flip flopping on Michigan and Florida, seeking some delegate advantage over Obama. The superdelegates cannot let her get away with a daylight robbery like this. Furthermore, when all candidates agreed not to campaign in those two states, Clinton's instant name recognition would practically guarrantee her a win in both states, especially in Michigan. My understanding is that Clinton was the only candidate in the Michigan primary. Every other candidate withdrew their names from the Michigan ballot in support of the Democratic National Committee's decision to strip them of their delegates.

As for her win in Texas, Clinton had 30 years worth of history in that state. Obama was lucky to be able to close the gap to the extent that he did. However, the most important point regarding Texas is that it is a solidly Republican state since 1968. If Clinton believe she could win Texas in November, she must be dreaming. So, frankly, who cares who won the Democratic primary there, given that neither Democratic candidate would seriously consider spending valuable dollars and time there.

Furthermore, the entire big state argument as justification for overturning the vote of the Democratic members is frankly insulting to the other states. If all that matters is who won the primaries in California, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Florida, there is no point in holding primaries or caucasus in the remaining 40 states. Secondly, if that was the case, who cares who won the popular vote. Now, that Penslyvnia has weighed in, we might as well shut down the rest of the contests because whatever is left is, according to this line of argument, unimportant and voters in the remaining states do not need to cast their ballots.

Finally, Clinton should really give serious considerations to defecting to the Republican Party, if she prefers a winner takes all system of allocating delegates. The truth is that we knew what happened in 2000, Al Gore won fewer states than George W Bush. Gore carried only states. Now, Hillary wants to argue that she could win the presidency carrying only the 20 states she won in the primary.