Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Because mathematically, the game is over.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will Hillary Be the Last One to Know It's Over?

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted May 15, 2008.


Because mathematically, the game is over.
Advertisement

Hillary Clinton is dead, at long last; it took one last excruciating election night, with CNN's John King doing his spastic Minority Report routine over a video map of Indiana, to finally do away with her. When it was over, when the last votes were counted in Lake County, Indiana and the mathematical reality sank in, everyone in the world understood that Hillary was cooked except, perhaps, Hillary herself -- and that gesticulating asshole with the boxing gloves who appears behind her at seemingly every victory speech.

Even Hillary's closest friends and supporters started popping out of the woodwork with sad looks on their faces, pleading with HRC to cut the shit already and bow out before this thing gets really embarrassing. Former Clinton pompom carrier Dianne Feinstein even came out with an ominous comment about needing to call Hillary to find out "what the strategy is." As in, What the fuck are you doing? People are starting to stare!

Because mathematically, the game is over. Obama's win in North Carolina all but assures him of being significantly ahead in both the popular vote and the delegate count by the time the primaries end. His delegate total grew to 1,854, versus 1,697 for Clinton; his lead in the popular vote expanded to about 700,000. This is not the kind of margin you make up with 57-43 wins in Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

So no more Hillary: no more Rocky references, no more Tom Petty, no more carefully orchestrated leaks of human imperfections mined deep in the anus of Barack Obama's increasingly sullied biography. No more guilt-by-association raps, no more purges of insufficiently ruthless campaign staffers, no more woe-is-me whining about media conspiracies and the "race card" and Florida and Michigan and her empty war chest -- no more whining about being outspent, from a candidate who had eight years of White House chips to cash in. No more tearful "How can you do this to my mom?" phone calls to superdelegates from Chelsea Clinton, no more of a hectoring, red-faced Bill Clinton lecturing us about whatever side of his ass we forgot to kiss that day. The Clintons are finally done. They were a big draw for a long time -- but I think we're all going to be surprised by just how much and how thoroughly we won't miss them once they're finally gone.

If they're finally gone, that is. For in reality, the mathematical situation after North Carolina for Hillary is bleaker than before only by degree. Her situation since about the Potomac primaries has always been hopeless, so for her to stay in this race and keep alive the possibility of some monstrous extra-democratic crisis would hardly be surprising.

Ultimately, that might be the Clintons' real legacy. Their decision to stay in the game and press on when there was no hope of winning through good old-fashioned voting may have finally institutionalized what is becoming a habit in American politics: the fight for power through lawyers and backroom maneuvering instead of votes, and the reflexive, automatic impugning of the legitimacy of the process when the process leaves you a few bits short.

When all's said and done, what may end up being most interesting about this race is that we all knew it wasn't really over, even when the voters said it was over. We've advanced to a stage of our politics where the transfer of power is no longer simply a matter of counting votes: Now we have to wait for the dust to settle, to make sure the secondary, post-election political battle reaffirms the status of the "elected" winner, and the only way we know for sure how things have turned out is to see who's actually sitting in the Oval Office at the end of the fight.

By now, we're pretty much used to this shit. In 2000, the presidency was decided by the Florida secretary of state and the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2004, we all hesitated to believe it was completely over until John Kerry decided not to sic his lawyers on the Ohio results. And in 2008, the Democratic nomination will be decided by the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee -- a group of people that until this week had never been heard of by anybody at all, anywhere. On May 31st, the committee will decide whether to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida -- delegates the same committee banned from the convention as punishment for moving up their primaries. And the math governing that committee may be very different from the humdrum voter math we all watched on CNN as the ballots were tallied in North Carolina.

To wit: If Hillary Clinton has more juice on that rules committee than Barack Obama does, they might very well seat Michigan and Florida, and Hillary might actually win this thing. And anyone who doesn't recognize the significance of yet another episode of this sort of backroom cabal settling things has never lived, as I have, in a Third World country.

In places like Russia and Uzbekistan, the votes are less important than who's counting them, and the only math that matters is the aggregate of a bunch of phone calls whizzing across the capital in the middle of the night, in which the only important considerations are purely geographic in nature: Who's controlling the TV stations? The election commission? The police station near the Kremlin? The army in the Western District? At 4:08 a.m., which (read: whose) federal judge is most likely to answer his telephone? Like a game of poker, you can't guess the outcome until you know who's holding what cards.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary clinton

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hissy fit
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 15, 2008 6:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I got this image in my mind of Hillary stamping her foot and saying: "But, dammit, I was ENTITLED to the nomination!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hissy fit Posted by: Xynyx
Hillary?
Posted by: kiwijohn on May 15, 2008 10:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who? McCain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary like most US citizens do not accept facts
Posted by: leerhok on May 15, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cf "Intelligent Design" or more generally the belief that the religions of our day is more fact and less superstition than religions of yesteryear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe H hopes it will be common knowledge who B really is and
Posted by: leerhok on May 15, 2008 11:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nobody will discover who H really is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bobby Obama
Posted by: DR. LARRY MITCHELL on May 16, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the first time I've seen a mention of Barack Obama and Bobby Kennedy in the same sentence. To my recollection, Bobby Kennedy was greased at the DNC. I think that Obama might be dealt the same hand. He's simply too dangerous to the powers that be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The heck with this Dem vs. Dem bullshit vote Autobots
Posted by: the baron on May 16, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ironically, one of the reasons he changed his mind was to prevent a situation in which the voters chose a clearly over matched candidate. "In the event the majority made an obviously stupid decision," he says, "you'd have these party leaders, these experienced people, to help correct that."


Yeah great plan, GWB anyone? And what about living with the consequences of your decisions? Hence impeachment process. The electoral process has gone to hell in a hand basket, and these "super delegates" are a threat to the democratic process. Who the fuck are they to question my vote?

Screw Hillary and the heck with Obama.

VOTE Optimus Prime '08! Bitches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Denver08: Clinton's Scorched Earth extortion & the Judgement of Solomon
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 16, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
.
.
. . . "it takes a village": Hillary Clinton's campaign debt...

Clinton's Scorched Earth extortion & the Judgement of Solomon


WHAT SORT OF POWER DOES CLINTON WANT TO NEGOTIATE?

I think its more than *just money*...

she has leverage & she's paid a LOT to get it... & not just in her money, but in **calling in favours**...

leverage... priceless



~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

naive article
Posted by: hugues_da_mousse on May 17, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's tiresome to hear Americans say their vote-counting is generally more straightforward than that of countries like Russia or Zimbabwe -- if the author knew anything about local American politics he wouldn't disparage other democracies. Many local American governments are run by tyrants who always manage to win re-election due to mysterious happenings such as ballot boxes that vanish in the night. Although the corruption of these tyrants is often unbounded, nobody does anything about it locally because retaliation is certain & sometimes can be deadly. The only way we ever hear about such horror stories is if the next higher layer of government decides to intervene, which is a rare event. The problems with the Democratic party's nominating system are pale imitations of the problems many local citizens face

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt, I Disagree
Posted by: elaine46 on May 17, 2008 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary has run a strong campaign, winning about half the votes cast in this contest. Ted Kennedy famously took his losing campaign all the way to the convention, and refused to shake hands with Jimmy Carter. Did anyone suggest that he should drop out? In my opinion, she would make a superior President, and has the stamina and toughness I desire in the oval office. She has earned the right to finish out this primary. I reluctantly will vote for Obama, although I am dissatisfied with his health care plan, and his vote on the Cheney energy bill does not please me, among many other reasons I chose Hillary over Obama. It's time for Obama supporters such as yourself to start wooing the millions of Hillary supporters and stop whining. Obama sent me a letter asking me to join his movement, (along with a letter of recommendation from a minister!) but you see, I don't want to join a movement. I just want to elect a Democrat to the white house. A lightweight one will suffice if that's all you have to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Matt, I Disagree Posted by: sheena2u
» RE: Matt, I Disagree Posted by: ovation766