As I understand it, Hillary actually had several 100,000 more votes than 0 did overall, but the way that the delegates are divided 0 got the narrow win.
What has happened to their party is atrocious. It is kind of sad to see their parties destroyed by a coalition of anti-semites, marxists, pacifists and whiners in their midst. Their party kicked Joe Leiberman to the curb over 1 issue - his loyalty and tenure be damned. Those same radicals pushed 0 to the top of the ticket. They are not a majority of the country, but in the primary they are very well organized were able to advance their candidates.
When Bill Clinton came along, I was convinced that reasoned people on the left would see him for what he was, and bolt. Well, they either didn’t see him for what he was, or they chose to consciously go over to the dark side, literally.
Some did decide to go over to the dark side. You can look at the public posts of the left and see irrefutable evidence of it. I do remain somewhat convinced that there is a dynamic in play that receives far too little attention though. I’ll explain.
You and I are pretty much convinced that there is one dynamic at play in politics. Oh there’s many dynamics, but they all boil down to one, more or less. That dynamic is, who espouses the best policies. A guy can be more left than we like, but we’ll vote for him. A guy may be a good person but have terrible policies, and we’ll avoid them like the plague. But here’s the kicker.
I had never realized that folks don’t just look for the best man or best polices until Bill Clinton. Sure he got votes from people who thought he was the best man on those counts, but he also got votes from people who thought he was a lout. He got those votes because he gave them plausible deniability. And I’m not talking about plausible deniability they could quote when talking to friends. I mean plausible deniability they could use when arguing with themselves.
Bill Clinton had the best crew of propagandists the world has ever seen. He also had the media in his hip pocket. No matter what he had done, they were able to find a wedge argument that would allow those who wanted to, to still vote for him.
If Richard Nixon had Bill Clinton’s spin machine and the media, he could have served four terms in office.
If Bill did something despicable, they would say...
Lots of people do this, don’t judge so harshly...
Lots of people do this, you wouldn’t take away their job...
Republicans have been doing something like this for decades...
Yes he’s somewhat flawed, but most geniuses are...
Yes he’s flawed, but we need his wisdom and leadership...
Yes he’s flawed, but the best leaders throughout history were...
Yes he’s flawed, but what will we get in his place...
None of these exonerated Clinton. What they did do, was allow people who like his policies but couldn’t stomach the man personally, to excuse him, and still vote for him. It allowed them to live with themselves.
Sure this is a situation I don’t like, but I’ll be darned if it couldn’t be worse. Sure this is a situation I don’t like, but those Republicans are being unfair to him. Sure this is a situation I don’t like, but it is true that “this arguement” does allow me to still back him, even if he has been a jerk. We just have to have him, and I can live with the fact I voted for him.
Isn’t that precisely what WE have going on right now, without mentioning names?
The Clinton team gave folks a reason to stay with him.
I think Obama has some of the same dynamics in play here. They have given the folks leaning in his direction, a reason to stick with him no matter what is revealed. And like lemmings on the way to the cliff, these folks are mesmerized in a way you and I can’t fathom.
Plausible deniability. I may not have explained this premise very well. I hope you can understand where I am coming from.
This is a dynamic that I have come to think of as very powerful over the last ten years or so. It’s a dynamic that I have found myself less and less willing to be a part of. I don’t like being jobbed.