Dear Editor,
Mr Vishnu Bisram’s letter, ‘The New York Times says Clinton did win the popular vote,’ (SN, 8.6.08), deserves a comprehensive response.
What really mattered to the DNC – not to the New York Times and Mr Bisram – was the issue of the delegates count, and at the end of the day, Mr Barack Obama got more of these than Mrs Hillary Clinton. The New York Times analyses Mr Bisram cited were merely expanded perspectives of the overall race that hold purely academic interest for Mr Bisram and those of his ilk but which hold no real material relevance to the outcome of the winner of the primaries.
Let’s take this claim that Mrs Clinton got more of the popular vote than Mr Obama. It should go down in the history book with an asterisk and a footnote explaining how she got the numbers. It should be viewed the way many US baseball fans think of home-run king, Barry Bonds’ record, with an asterisk and a footnote explaining the record is tainted because he is suspected of using performance enhancing drugs (ie he cheated).
This is what Mrs Clinton’s “more popular votes” lengthy footnote should actually read like: After the DNC stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates – the only recognized group responsible for selecting a nominee and not any popular vote count – all the Democratic candidates agreed to abide by the DNC’s ruling not to contest in those two wayward states.
Mrs Clinton, in an interview late last year admitted that even if the two states went ahead and held their primaries their results still won’t count. She said at another place and time that the delegates count, not the popular votes, was what ultimately mattered. Though she agreed not to campaign there, to the surprise, perhaps anger, of some Democratic leaders and supporters, Mrs Clinton showed up the night of the Floridia primary to ‘celebrate’ with those who voted for her. In Michigan, Mr Obama even removed his name from the ballot, yet while some Michigans voted for Mrs Clinton others voted ‘uncommitted.’
It was in this context of Florida and Michigan not being legally recognized in the primaries by the DNC that Mr Obama did not participate in either state, and at the end of the legally recognized primary race that excluded the two pariah states, Mr Obama was ahead in the popular votes.
However, long before the race ended, when Mrs Clinton and her top DNC supporters realized her Super Tuesday blowout did not happen as expected, they slowly began making their case for Michigan and Florida to be counted. In the end, they used their political muscle, the DNC caved a little and this accommodation was what put Mrs Clinton ahead of Mr Obama in the popular votes count. This could be placed right up there with cheating by being disagreeable!
Clinton apologists have argued about the unfairness of the DNC disenfranchising voters from Florida and Michigan, but their real concern was not about those voters, but about trying to put Mrs Clinton over the top and unfairly push Mr Obama out of contention. It was an ugly effort that failed and further exposed Mrs Clinton’s negatives.
It will always be a tainted win for Mrs Clinton. Her recent achievements on behalf of American women will long be overshadowed by her truly polarizing personality, to which we can now add disagreeable and ungracious loser!
As for Mr Bisram, he can keep saying she won the popular votes the same way he has been writing letters showing she will win the nomination and that Indian Guyanese in Queens will vote for her overwhelmingly. Is it just me or has anyone else suspected Mr Bisram is biased against Mr Obama?
Mr Bisram also said that in another NYT statistical analysis Mrs Clinton left the race while she was still ahead in the electoral votes, and that while Mrs Clinton would trounce Mr McCain, Mr Obama would lose to Mr McCain. No mention is made of the latest Gallup nationwide poll that showed Mr Obama and Mr McCain in a statistical dead heat (46% to 45%).
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
