SHOCKER – CNN tells the truth about 2008

Well, not the WHOLE truth, but a little bit of it:

It is often assumed that Barack Obama used his gifts as an orator and his aspirational rhetoric to energize young and minority voters in a way that allowed him to wrest the nomination from Clinton, the candidate favored by the Democratic establishment. This is a nice story, but it is not completely true. For one thing, Clinton actually defeated Obama in the popular vote.


Indeed, it appears that the real brilliance of the Obama campaign was to realize fairly early that a true majority was not achievable.

In response to this fact, and having an edge in the early caucus states due to superior grass-roots organizing, the Obama campaign subtly changed the understanding of the rules. It acted as if the nomination would be determined by the delegate count after the caucuses and primaries, regardless of whether an absolute majority had been achieved. What this did was to lower the overall number by more than 800 votes (the superdelegates), and consequently change the threshold of victory.

Since most Americans are unfamiliar with how the nominating process works, this was a fairly easy story to sell. The press for the most part cooperated. Once this fiction was accepted, any other result would be seen as undemocratic. Indeed, Clinton’s complaints about this unofficial after-the-fact rules change were portrayed as a divisive form of sour grapes. After all, following Sen. Obama’s post-Super Tuesday February romp through 10 states, it became obvious that Sen. Clinton would not be able to win under this new threshold.

Ultimately, and most importantly, the elected and unelected leaders of the Democratic Party accepted the Obama campaign’s spin. This was crucial to Obama’s success, since a real victory at the convention depended on these superdelegates ignoring the fact that Clinton was the stronger general election candidate in swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. In the end, it was the endorsement of these superdelegates — again, party leaders and elected officials — that forced Clinton to concede the nomination.

That’s mostly true except for one teensy little fact – without the RBC decision halving the number of delegates from Florida and Michigan and giving Obama ALL the undecided delegates plus four of Hillary’s from Michigan, she would have led in the pledged delegate count too.

Oh, and it wasn’t superior grass-roots organizing in the early caucus states, it was fraud. And there was nothing subtle about any of it, they lied and the Democratic establishment and the media helped them lie.

But at least they finally told a little bit of the truth.

(h/t Riverdaughter)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to SHOCKER – CNN tells the truth about 2008

  1. crawdad says:

    In the end, it was the endorsement of these superdelegates — again, party leaders and elected officials — that forced Clinton to concede the nomination.

    The Democratic party doesn’t believe in democracy.

    • Mary says:

      Obama BOUGHT those superdelegates with $$ to their own campaign coffers.

      And many of those superdelegates supported him AGAINST the majority wishes of their own state’s voters.

      Fuck em.

  2. Mary says:

    This makes me nauseous. CNN was one of the WORST supporters of the “new rules,” and freely bashed Hillary for “sour grapes.”

    Telling the real story now isn’t enough. Tough titty, CNN.

  3. murphy says:

    I always like to link to this page whenever this discussion comes up (and thanks for bringing it up!)

    People STILL believe that obama won the primaries. He really really really didn’t. She got MORE votes than he did, and without the DNC vote-stealing, she had more delegates as well.

    I know everyone who comments here knows this already, but Lurkers, click the link — I dare ya!

    • DandyTiger says:

      Would be nice to have the same chart if we had counted FL and MI correctly, showing Hillary not only winning the popular vote which is not in dispute (but perhaps not widely known), but also winning the delegate vote.

      • DandyTiger says:

        And I should add, it’s perfectly fine for the Dem party, even with those proper counts, to have the superdelegates decide to select Obama instead. That’s the rules. Just have the balls to show that’s what you did.

  4. Obama getting the red caucus delegates wasn’t superior organizing. Hillary didn’t even try there, as they were meaningless, ’empty calories.’ (In previous primaries, had anyone bothered with them?) Those states were never going to deliver any electoral votes. Even campaigning there was in fact cheating, gaming the process.

    Obama’s reason for collecting red state delegates was the same as his reason for being off the ballots in FL and MI: to create a confusing situation that could be resolved in a smoky RBC meeting of his cronies.

  5. gxm17 says:

    I read that article this morning and was stunned. I wasn’t expecting the MSM to ever tell the truth, not even a little bit of it. I’m glad someone finally did but, tragically, the damage is already done.

    The true cost of Obama’s coronation is not just in dollars, it’s so much deeper than mere money. IMO, it destroyed the Democratic Party and we can only hope that putting this incompetent after the last incompetent doesn’t take down the entire freakin’ country.

  6. Rangoonthirtythree&athird says:

    Christ I know we will never see a Frontline documentary putting the work of these people ton caucus together. Pity.

    “Oh, and it wasn’t superior grass-roots organizing in the early caucus states, it was fraud*. And there was nothing subtle about any of it, they lied and the Democratic establishment and the media helped them lie.” -Word!

    *Texas Caucus Fraud (Updated)
    by Pacific John (John Siegel)

    ,Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:08:18 PM EDT

    My observations in Texas were that caucuses were broadly illegitimate. In a few well-run counties, Hillary’s caucus vote was the same or better than the popular vote, but in chaotic counties, she fell behind by double digits. While Texas is the only state to have both a binding popular vote and a caucus vote, we saw similar results in Washington State, where Obama’s numbers plunged in the unofficial primary compared to the caucuses .

    This stands out: only four major Texas counties were orderly enough to report most of their caucus results election night, and in three of these, caucus preference mirrored the popular vote (HRC popular/caucus): El Paso (69/75), Austin/Travis (37/34), San Antonio/Bexar (56/57). In the case of Austin, I have read reports that that both sides ran their caucuses well.

    These counties had exceptional organizations, but it should not take heroics to run a fair election.

    On election night in El Paso, it became obvious that the Obama field campaign was designed to steal caucuses. Prior to that, it was impossible for me to imagine the level of attempted fraud and disruption we would see. It was far worse than any GOP campaign I have organized against on the Central Coast, worse than Tom Bordonaro’s, worse than Andrea Seastrand’s, worse than the Dole campaign whose supporters vandalized our headquarters.

    +We Will Not Be Silenced (Documentary on 2008 primaries)
    “The DNC and the Obama Campaign need to be held accountable for the catastrophe of the 2008 Democratic Primary. We must right their wrongs…after all, this is America, the Land of the Free, where every American has the right to a fair, honest voting process, and to have his or her vote counted…”

    Alegre’s Corner:: “Oh Boy…”
    by: Pacific John. Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 15:59:15 PM EDT … Fox and Friends #4: John Siegel rebutting Steve Hildebrand (no official …… – Options 

  7. DeniseVB says:

    We have a long way to go with the media. About that Hank Williams, JR “Hitler” comment. Here’s what he really said…..

  8. Three Wickets says:

    The President of Contempt

    When a good history of anti-Americanism is someday written, it will note that it’s mainly a story of disenchantment—of the obdurate and sometimes vulgar reality of the country falling short of the lover’s ideal. Listening to Mr. Obama, especially now as the country turns against him, one senses in him a similar disenchantment: America is lovable exactly in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

    Hence his increasingly ill-concealed expressions of contempt. Hence the increasingly widespread counter-contempt.

Comments are closed.