Hillary Clinton did not win “the popular vote” in the Democratic Party primaries. If there were some way of tallying the votes – and there isn’t – it stands to reason that she would have won the most delegates if she had won the most votes. Many of the delegates were chosen in caucuses where several rounds of voting occurred. Nobody kept track of the individual votes because that was irrelevant; it was the number of delegates that mattered.
Most of the caucus states chose Obama. But to claim that she won “the popular vote,” Clinton ignores those states. She also adds the outlawed primaries in Michigan and Florida, as well as results from territories that cannot participate in the general elections.
To say that she won the popular vote is barefaced lying, and she knows it. But she doesn’t seem to care. If a lie will advance her mischief making, she will use it with enthusiasm. And she has made mischief, malicious mischief. She has alienated an important segment of the Democratic Party’s base – older white women. No one can tell how many of these voters will support John McCain in the fall.
It is possible that she has incited such rage among these women that some are prepared to “cut off their nose to spite their face,” as the saying goes. They may know that McCain has a 25-year history of opposing women’s health issues, but what do they care? I suppose they think they’re too old now to worry about reproductive rights or the possibility of a McCain Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade. But, even so, they should stop to consider McCain’s opposition to breast cancer programs. That (God forbid) might affect some of them.
Now, Clinton has finally conceded defeat and says she plans to support Obama. We shall have to see how that develops. How will she manage the turnaround? Will she tell her enraged flock that she was just kidding when she said all those mean things about Obama?
Will she say that she does know he is not a Muslim and was just being a brat when she implied otherwise? Will she take back her slur about his relationship with “a slum landlord”? Will she say she realizes he cannot be blamed for his ex-pastor’s crazy sermons? Will she take back her remarks about his inexperience, and concede he might be ready to answer that 3 a.m. call after all?
There’s a lot for her to recant. How credible would she be if she does that?
One thing she could do to restore some of her lost credibility is to admit she didn’t win that “popular vote.” But I won’t hold my breath until she does that.