So it's a little like Christmas eve... the anticipation, the excitement....but it's not. Instead, it's the eve of the Pennsylvania primary and you'd think Bill Clinton,like Santa Claus, might be keeping it under wraps. Or maybe some wise staffer high up in the troubled campaign might have thought it wise to exile Bill to the Canadian border. That's where I would have sent him after the Granite state primary, which seems about two centuries ago. Just to remind, that was when Hillary found her voice; about a nanosecond later, Bill trampled all over that voice and that defined the campaign narrative for a while ....

And then there's the fact that the Keystone state is looking a helluva lot like the Granite State. Both candidates have spent weeks there, bowling, swilling and shootting, and spent nearly 20 millions dollars (Obama outpacing Clinton almost two to one). Yet, Bill still ain't leaving the room, the building or the state. And he's not going shy. Take as evidence tonight's riff when he told the washingtonpost.com that Hillary would be nominee if running under Republican party rules.

"Former president Bill Clinton today told washingtonpost.com's Ed O'Keefe in video interview following a rally for his his wife's campaign at Market Square in Pittsburgh that Hillary would already be the nominee -- if she were running under Republican party rules.

Link to The Trail: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/21/bill_clinton_defends_hillarys.html#more "If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she'd have a 300-delegate lead here," he said. "I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don't have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result."

The former president was responding to increasing concerns among Democrats that a prolonged Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race improves Arizona Sen. John McCain's chances."

Support for the patently anti-democratic electoral college which pro-democracy reformers are trying to abolish...support for an electoral college which, along with a Bush Supreme Court, threw the 2000 election to George W. Bush who has destroyed our country in these last 8 years? Desperation wears many faces but is the Clinton team really going to start blaming the voters who have come out in unprecedented numbers in these past month for bad decisions and throw the decision to the primary electoral college? Isn't the electoral college an "elitist" institution? Why is no one expressing bitterness about this idea?

Bill Clinton should let Hillary Clinton define her race, her voice and her message and not mess around with defending the electoral college. I hate the sexism that has been a factor in this historic primary campaign; yet I also resent a spouse who sometimes, sadly, seems more eager to defend his own legacy of Clintonism than be a valuable campaigner for his partner.

Comments (23)

1. wise to exile Bill to the Canadian border.

   Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL at 04/21/2008 @ 11:03pm

   hey!

   what did i do to you?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/22/2008 @ 01:51am

2. He's the best politician that the democrats have produced since John Kennedy.

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/22/2008 @ 01:21am

   vote green!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/22/2008 @ 01:53am

3. Sorry, Frosty! I wouldn't wish him on you either! Seriously, has any former President done so much to sully his own reputation? As if his conduct in the Oval Office weren't bad enough... The "most intelligent" president we ever had is going to be looked at as a fools by future generations. What a shame.

   Posted by sjduskin at 04/22/2008 @ 01:55am

4. Wait, this is an excellent indicator of Billary's behavioral performance if they ever return to the White House. Talk about the fear factor, that specter alone should chill the blood of millions.

   Posted by sloper at 04/22/2008 @ 02:20am

5. The Sexism and Racism still rearing it's ugly head in this nation makes both agruements a Wash- IRRELEVANT! As for Bill he once again my be sending US smoke signals- Trying to give US a heads Up as to who he is married to. He may attempting to enlighten the Voters, he may actually be doing what a true Patriot would do- undermine Her chances because she is a Covert Cheney Protege. Seh is a Republican (their Second Horse in the Race) and he's trying to save US from being conned again.Seh probably has Too much dirt on him to just come out an endorse Obama- so he's working on the Inside. He's not stupid, nor lost his Political skills, red between the lines just because they are still married doesn't mean they have anything in common. she probably Blackmailed him so she could get her chance to Take this election for Her party (The Corporationists- Not real Dem Nor Real Repub). thanks Bill- I'm getting what you are trying to convey!

   Posted by Purple girl at 04/22/2008 @ 07:39am

6. You know ...maybe FRANK is right and Clinton IS one of the smartest politicians to come down the pike in a long time.

   But then....that might lead to another conclusion...

   the theory, bandied about some, that....he wants her to LOSE!

   I know, I know, but look at the track record. Key moments in her primary campaign, Bill opened his big trap and said something that hurt her at a critical moment or turned the focus OFF her and back onto him. South Carolina and "Jesse Jackson won her" for one, which allowed the obvious charge that he, she, and her campaign were trying to inject race into the campaign..

   Could it be that Bill's ego doesn't WANT to see "another Clinton Presidency"...one that due to its historic nature (first female President) would over-shadow his own and make him "the man married to the Woman President"???

   Maybe...and as FG noted, he IS smart enough to pull it off and careful enough (atleast in his political life) to make it SEEM...as if he isn't!

   Posted by Mask at 04/22/2008 @ 08:57am

7. No, "Rio Bravo," in a direct vote system, the requirement for a majority would NOT be necessarily abolished.

   Not if we use a single-transferable vote (STV) or instant runoff-vote (IRV) system, which KvdH and I have taken pains to explain to you in these forums. The IRV system always REQUIRES the winner to receive at least 50% of the vote plus one vote, unlike the Electoral College, which simply makes the winner SEEM to have received a majority.

   Under the IRV system, everybody ranks their choices as first, second, third, et cetera. If no candidate wins at least 50% plus one vote in the first counting of votes (in which all votes are credited to the voters' first-choice candidates), then the candidate with the poorest result is eliminated, but this candidate's votes are not thrown away - as they would be in our present system. Instead, these votes are all transfered to the voters' second choices. Then there is another vote count. Again, if no candidate yet wins 50% plus one vote, then another candidate is eliminated, this candidate's votes are all transfered, and the votes are counted a third time.

   The transfer of votes does not stop until one candidate has 50% plus one vote. No other outcome except for an absolute majority or greater is permissible for a winning candidate - which is as it should be.

   The IRV system also minimizes wasted votes - which is as it should be. It would permit anyone to vote for Ralph Nader or Ron Paul or anybody else without handing the election over to the candidate whom he or she likes the least.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/22/2008 @ 09:19am

8. Bill Clinton was so brilliant that the Democrats lost the House and Senate, only to recently get them both back. So brilliant that the DNC under the reign of many a Clintonista lead that top down approach that did nothing for grassroots efforts or to actually win any election. So brilliant that he, yes I'm going there, had a bj in the White House with an intern. I'm in awe of his brilliance. Perhaps one day in this election cycle Bill will learn of a this thing called Youtube, in this series of tubes we call an Internet, and learn that you remarks are recorded.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 04/22/2008 @ 09:29am

9. Bill Clinton was so brilliant that the Democrats lost the House and Senate

   Posted by TZIMISCE 04/22/2008 @ 09:29am

   all according to plan.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/22/2008 @ 10:08am

10. Like he could do something for her...

    They are such a pox upon our house.

    Posted by Lil at 04/22/2008 @ 10:11am

11. all according to plan.......

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/22/2008 @ 10:08am

    Oh yes he is a regular Oracle of Delphi. If i blunder this up enough, the Republicans will overplay their hand and the Democrats will be in a position to build a majority party.

    Posted by Tzimisce at 04/22/2008 @ 10:12am

12. why would mr. clinton want the democrats to have a majority?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/22/2008 @ 10:35am

13. She wouldn't be up by 300 delegates, but she would be ahead. On the other hand, she would still be behind by an estimated 800,000 popular votes, which shows how counter the republican system and the electoral college are to democracy.

    Posted by kimbiaje at 04/22/2008 @ 11:01am

14. Support for the patently anti-democratic electoral college which pro-democracy reformers are trying to abolish...

    I'd like to remind Katrina and the leftist bloggers that we do not have a pure democracy. We have a Republican form of government (not the Republican Party, but a collection of states, that have most of the enumerated powers granted by the constitution).

    The reason for the EC and why it is demonstrated to be badly needed in these current times is precisely for the reason that Katrina and other leftists despise it. It provides a balancing power to the large states. Without the EC, leftists in CA and NY for example would wield an unequal power in controlling our executive branch. This was part of the wisdom of the founders.

    No matter how much Katrina and leftists like Jakobfabian want to transform us into some model of European collectivism, we remain a Constitutional Republic the United States.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 12:51pm

15. Rather than try to abolish the Electoral College, the National Popular Vote bill would simply work through the states to guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).

    Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538).

    In less than two years, the National Popular Vote bill has been signed into law in Maryland, New Jersey, and Illinois--states possessing one-sixth of the electoral votes necessary to bring this law into effect (46 of 270). The bill has passed one-sixth of the legislative chambers in the U.S.--one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland.

    For more information, that debunks much often mistakenly repeated "conventional wisdom" about the history and benefits of the Electoral College, please check out www.NationalPopularVote.com

    Posted by mvy at 04/22/2008 @ 1:04pm

16. KVH wants us to be more like Finland. Multiple little special interests parties and instant runoff elections where the fifth place entrant can magically win. The Lani Guinier special vote. Lots of deal making and coalitions. Wheee!

    Posted by sntauri at 04/22/2008 @ 1:27pm

17. No matter how much Katrina and leftists like Jakobfabian want to transform us into some model of European collectivism, we remain a Constitutional Republic the United States.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person

    And what do you think would happen if some of those states decided they'd had enough of the other states and chose to go their own collective way? Plus, as a supporter of Bush's imperial dictatorship, LvL, your Federalism seems to need a bit of work.

    Posted by jmusolino at 04/22/2008 @ 1:38pm

18. Without the EC, leftists in CA and NY for example would wield an unequal power in controlling our executive branch. This was part of the wisdom of the founders.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 12:51pm

    Wow, you mean The Founders knew that "the leftists" would take over New York and the still-Spanish California!?!??!?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 04/22/2008 @ 2:03pm

19. Posted by JMUSOLINO 04/22/2008 @ 1:38pm

    Well, JMUS, you gotta remember that LVLIB considers everything done since the 19th Century, except the Interstate Highway System and NASA....

    to be un-Constitutional and socialism!

    Posted by Mask at 04/22/2008 @ 2:04pm

20. And what do you think would happen if some of those states decided they'd had enough of the other states and chose to go their own collective way? Plus, as a supporter of Bush's imperial dictatorship, LvL, your Federalism seems to need a bit of work.

    Posted by JMUSOLINO 04/22/2008 @ 1:38pm

    They certainly have that right. It is doubtful a single state would actually do that in today's world.

    Secondly, you are just another leftist spinner of hyperbole. There is no Bush dictatorship. Please provide the date and quotes when Bush suspended the constitution including elections to take his place. Tell us when he said that he would not step down at the end of his term? Tell us when he disbanded Congress and the Supreme Court?

    Try getting your head out of far left propaganda long enough to check the air of reality.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 2:43pm

21. Posted by MASK 04/22/2008 @ 2:03pm

    Sometimes like this, not sure where the smart ass ends. Obviously I was referring to the danger of a few states controlling the presidential elections.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 2:45pm

22. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 2:45pm

    Hence the "heheh" at the end, Lare.

    BTW, if you'd like a moment of bipartisanship? Unless Obama or McCain wins the popular vote, but loses the EC vote (a la 2000)....expect NO movement on dropping it and it will plod along as it has for 200+ years.

    Again, Ms vanden Heuvel tilting at windmills!

    Posted by Mask at 04/22/2008 @ 2:56pm

23. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 2:43pm

    Imperial dictatorship is different than a dictatorship. You can have an imperial dictatorship without suspending the constitution. It just requires taking over another country and forcing rule on them.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/22/2008 @ 2:57pm