I am posting based on a comment I saw on the Obama Blog today:
"The Nashville City Paper reports that superdelegate Lincoln Davis, a Congressman whose district went strongly for Clinton in the promary, has been "slow to endorse Obama." This is not remarkable in its own right, and I'm sure there are other elected officials who are not eager to get out in front of their constituents and endorse a candidate they rejected.Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district said this:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
WTF?? I don't expect the bubbas and yahoos in my state to all fall into line, but for a Democratic executive to use such a scurrilous attack line against his party's presumptive presidential nominee seems to me to call for some kind of retribution from above. I have no idea whether the DNC has any official sway over the state parties - I suspect not - but Howard Dean or someone needs to call on the state party to reign this guy in.
Here is my response:
Dear Mr. Hobbs,
I am a woman living in Maryland, and I just wanted to make you aware of something I came across as being one of your statements:
"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
I want to be as open-minded and understanding as possible about these statement. Are you saying that he does not represent democratic values or democratic principles? Please help me follow your train of thoughts about the things he stands for. And when you say we don't know enough about him, what do you mean? What would you like to know more about him? Or are you saying that you don't know someone like him? Or are you saying that him becoming a senator on state and federal level is a farce? Please help me understand your thoughts because I want to atleast understand what you see that I don't. He has a respectable family history with family that served in WWII, his mother raised him with regular American values of work hard and serve others. He helped several families in Chicago overcome some really trying financial times because of steel mills closing. He wants our troops to be respected at home too. He understands the exclusion that so many people feel from our political system.
I can not and will not subscribe to the GOP standards of acceptance (or Clintons to some degree, though I don't think she meant it) of others not like ourselves. "We don't know people like him, so he must be a terrorist or do things as terrorists do..." This is fundamentally wrong! And for me it cuts me deep because that means the same would apply to me, my sons, and anyone else that looks like Mr. Obama or carries himself in a way to respect other that he doesn't agree with or are less than perfect. These are the politics that have made Americans feel cynical about serving as a citizen. You see, it is easy for the GOP to plant seeds like that into peoples head, because America is not use to the new America. America is full of disagreements, full of people that historically don't look like our forefathers and full of people that love this country because it is the land of the free no matter what we look like, sound like, come from, etc.! We must not let the GOP steal our love of country because of the seed planting they have succeeded in doing.
If you are worried about his church issues, let me tell you about my point of view about that. Many times in African American churches, the church is full of a variety of people, some with limited education, some with much, some with criminal backgrounds, some with no such thing, some from wonderful families some from broken homes. The whole gamet is there. Some are angry still over racial differences and want to explain these grievance all the time. Some are not and want those they love to soften up on those issues. See...Barack Obama is a lot like me. He has true compassion for all kinds of people, because that is what he is. I've seen the gamet of people in my life and rather than run away, I stay to understand and hopefully enlighten to a new more open and understanding way of seeing things, black and white. This is what we do as African Americans because we all have one common thread no matter what...exclusion. Exclusion from being a part of mainstream American because of what we like, see and do. The things we like see and do are because of the exclusion. So, we do a dance everyday between being who we are for each other and being enough so that we can be included. So rather than exlude people that are less than perfect we include and hope for change. That is our God given understanding and this is how I choose to believe when it comes to why he stayed in that church for 20 years. It can't be explained easily and I don't expect him to do so.
So, Mr. Hobbs, I request that you seek a new way of thinking by getting to know who he is and what he really stands for with all his imperfections and try to lead your constituents to support a Democrat. This kind of leader comes only once in a life time and I'm banking on him to be a catalyst to a better tomorrow mostly because of the way so many of the excluded view him.
Sincerely,
Ericka McLeod
Human Being
American
Democrat
Showing posts with label Superdelegates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Superdelegates. Show all posts
Friday, June 13, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
What a Difference a Month Makes!
Or a day or a week or an hour in this highly charged campaign! In reading my last post a MONTH AGO, I can't believe how much things have changed and how happy I am right now vs. then! Our man did it! He beat the Clinton machine! Something Republicans couldn't do even when he was impeached! The magnitude of this accomplishment is staggering. No wonder Hillary couldn't concede. She's in shock that she was beaten by such an upstart! The rest of us are as euphoric as Oprah! Even the conservatives are giddy that the democrats have finally voted to impeach the Clintons. And principled conservatives like George Will studiously backed Obama's decision to make his vice-presidential selection his own:"Obama's choice of a running mate will be the first important decision he makes with the whole country watching, so it will be a momentous act of self-definition. If he chooses her, it will be an act of self-diminishment, especially now that some of her acolytes are aggressively suggesting that some unwritten rule of American politics stipulates that anyone who finishes a strong second in the nomination contest is entitled to second place on the ticket."
And her surrogates like Lanny Davis circulating a petition to make her the VP and Bob Johnson pressuring the Congressional Black Caucus to do the same! Another case of the "audacity of audacity" as Gail Collins put it. Thank God Charlie Rangel, Ed Rendell, and some others said, "Enough!" In the end, the superdelegates acted superbly. These people know that what is good for the party is not necessarily what's good for Mrs. (or Mr.) Clinton.
But as usual Peggy Noonan said it best: "They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.
But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.
May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party."
I already know that Obama's success may have the power to change the course of our nation. Even if he doesn't become president, he has shown us that it is possible for America to live up to its creed. Millions will mobilize for his campaign and for their own future campaigns. Hillary's supporters will doubtless do the same. Hope is alive! Do we now all get what Michele Obama meant? Many may oppose Obama for president, but most can't help but feel something major has happened in our land. We have held up a mirror to ourselves and there may be a few wrinkles or graying hairs out of place, but I think we look pretty good today. We can certainly be proud that in this era, our democracy is atop the list of Japan and the western nations where we usually find ourselves lacking. To the good ol' U.S. of A!Monday, May 5, 2008
If I Were a Superdelegate...
I wouldn't know what the hell to do! (Except that I wouldn't want them to run together!)
But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.
I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*
Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.
The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.
And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?
Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?
For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?
I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.
- Barack or Hillary?
- Hope vs. Experience?
- Idealism vs. Pragmatism?
- Fight to Win or Fight the Good Fight?
- Baby Boom vs. Post Civil Rights?
- Black Man vs. a White Woman?
- Hillary or Barack?
But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.
I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*
Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.
The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.
And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?
Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?
For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?
I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Are We Just Crabs in the Barrel?
After the Iowa caucuses in January I had brunch in New York with a good friend who is the one and only born and bred Iowan I know. (I actually know her sister and brother as well, but "Beth" is a good friend of mine from business school back in the late 90s.) Rather condescendingly (in retrospect), I told her that I was quite impressed that Iowa--a state that is 97% white--had so strongly supported Barack Obama and basically turned him into the first viable African American presidential candidate. She dressed me down for my presumptuousness about Iowans, but props to her for showing this Northeasterner that Iowans take their politics seriously.
At the time I was neutral in the democratic race but starting to pay attention as I'd heard so much about this Barack Obama. I'd heard essays on NPR refuting the charge within the African-American community that Obama "wasn't black enough." My friend Beth strongly supports Clinton because she believes she's the most qualified and she wants to see a woman in the White House. With the charge of "not being black enough," I felt kinship with Obama because I too have felt the sting of that charge from other African-Americans my whole life and I too wanted a president who reflected my life experience as a black man making it in a white world.
In considering Obama as a candidate, I was also dismayed that some (Andrew Young et al) in the previous generation of civil rights leaders were throwing their support to Clinton or hesitating to support Obama, stating that they were being loyal to their friend Clinton and that it wasn't Obama's turn. Never mind that Obama's candidacy is the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of America's future! That's politics though. Loyalty to one's friends is important and everyone who wanted a seat at the table surely expected Clinton to emerge decisively as the democratic nominee. Pity poor John Lewis if Clinton pulls it out!
Personally, I explained to my friend that day that some of the old guard were acting like "crabs in a barrel," a phrase that is used in the black community when we pull down a brother or a sister because we don't want them to get above or ahead of us, like crabs in a barrel clawing at each other to try and come out on top. Now I see this same dynamic writ large with the re-emergence of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech in Philadelphia, Obama went to great lengths not to disown Rev. Wright, much to the dismay of some critics who thought that he'd ducked the most important question: How can you explain and condone your relationship with a man who said such hateful and patently false things? Obama no doubt felt that he had provided a full contextual explanation, but now that Wright has spoken up for himself in such an angry and self-aggrandizing way, Obama will have to address the role his "spiritual mentor" has played in his life.
The real questions are twofold:
At the time I was neutral in the democratic race but starting to pay attention as I'd heard so much about this Barack Obama. I'd heard essays on NPR refuting the charge within the African-American community that Obama "wasn't black enough." My friend Beth strongly supports Clinton because she believes she's the most qualified and she wants to see a woman in the White House. With the charge of "not being black enough," I felt kinship with Obama because I too have felt the sting of that charge from other African-Americans my whole life and I too wanted a president who reflected my life experience as a black man making it in a white world.
In considering Obama as a candidate, I was also dismayed that some (Andrew Young et al) in the previous generation of civil rights leaders were throwing their support to Clinton or hesitating to support Obama, stating that they were being loyal to their friend Clinton and that it wasn't Obama's turn. Never mind that Obama's candidacy is the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of America's future! That's politics though. Loyalty to one's friends is important and everyone who wanted a seat at the table surely expected Clinton to emerge decisively as the democratic nominee. Pity poor John Lewis if Clinton pulls it out!
Personally, I explained to my friend that day that some of the old guard were acting like "crabs in a barrel," a phrase that is used in the black community when we pull down a brother or a sister because we don't want them to get above or ahead of us, like crabs in a barrel clawing at each other to try and come out on top. Now I see this same dynamic writ large with the re-emergence of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In his speech in Philadelphia, Obama went to great lengths not to disown Rev. Wright, much to the dismay of some critics who thought that he'd ducked the most important question: How can you explain and condone your relationship with a man who said such hateful and patently false things? Obama no doubt felt that he had provided a full contextual explanation, but now that Wright has spoken up for himself in such an angry and self-aggrandizing way, Obama will have to address the role his "spiritual mentor" has played in his life.
The real questions are twofold:
- How are we to believe that Obama has good judgment in aligning himself with Rev. Wright? His pastor has so actively denigrated the chances for one of his flock to rise to the greatest political office in the world. Yet Obama proudly declared that he could no sooner disown Wright than he could his white grandmother, a woman who raised him for a time when he was young. He must provide some explanation to all Americans, especially those in Indiana who will vote next week. Frankly, I don't think he has the time to fully explain and turn the tide before next Tuesday.
- Can Obama rise to the challenge of defusing this situation and move on politically? This is something he must demonstrate to the superdelegates lest they start to buy into Clinton's argument that he is not ready for the fall and he cannot win. It is completely within Barack Obama's power to win on this if he's willing to dissociate himself from the reverend and answer the questions before him. My sense is that he wants to put this behind him by acting as though the reverend doesn't have great influence on him politically or that this is political noise not worthy of his attention. This may be true, but if he thinks his opponents are going to let slide a chance to weaken him, he's crazy! And if the voters in Indiana don't buy his explanations, Hillary Clinton will have even greater evidence that "he can't win" demonstrated emprically because he will have failed to win over voters.
The bottom line for me is starting to become that if Obama is not willing to fight for this, then maybe he truly doesn't deserve to win. There. I said it and I hope I don't regret it. Hillary, reincarnated as a political version of The Terminator, has shown she keeps on fighting when knocked down. What kind of fight is Obama going to show the American people?
- Update: I purposely wrote my post above without reading my usual media sources to gather perspective. I wanted to get my own ideas down before turning to the web to see what else is being written. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, no friend to Obama's candidacy certainly, summed it up the best: "Rev. Wright is exacerbating [racial politics] in a way not seen in recent years. Barack Obama cannot remain on both sides of this. He has to make a decision. He is not running for national Mediator. He is running for President. In time, that job brings tough decisions. He's there now." Conservatives might oppose Obama philosophically, but I'm sure many, George Will and Sean Hannity excepted, do not wish the nation's first viable Black presidential candidate to be brought low like this.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Proper Role of "Super" Delegates
Stanley Fish is a law professor and online opinion columnist at the New York Times. His column of March 16, 2008, entitled "Memo to the Superdelegates: No Principles, Please," takes up the question of whether the superdelegates should cast their votes according to some agreed upon standard. Ironically many pundits have characterized leaving the decision of who will become the Democratic nominee to the superdelegates as decidedly undemocratic. Fish points out many parts of our democracy that could be considered undemocratic. I would add to his list of our undemocratic practices the fact that electors from the states, choose the presidential winners in their states. Never mind that this led to Bush winning the presidency in 2000 even though Gore had more of the popular vote. And it also seems inherently undemocratic that voters in so called battleground states get disproportionately more attention from presidential campaigns than voters in non battleground states, defying the concept of "one man, one vote." And we all know that the Supreme Court intervened in Florida to effectively stop the voting recount in certain Florida counties.
I could not agree more with Fish's two concluding paragraphs. Editorialists and pundits are consumed with finding out from superdelegates by what standard they will vote at the convention. They feign shock and dismay that the "democratic" party has such a seemingly undemocratic process for ultimately choosing the nominee and that there is no agreed upon method for casting their votes. I for one would not want there to be such a standard. Let every superdelegate vote according to his/her conscience and political interests. That is the same democratic principle by which we all vote. Why should all "super"delegates vote according to some agreed upon standard that I myself would not submit to? That sounds like some Soviet-style election in which the outcome would be pre-determined. Being unable to predict the outcome of an election means that democracy is at work and not some super imposed standard that delegates must align with whether they like it or not.
As usual in close elections, the ultimate choice will hinge on how the undecideds break when their votes must be cast. This gives all sorts of anxiety to both Obama and Clinton supporters who believe that superdelegates should not use their votes to overturn the outcome of primary process in terms of pledged delegates or popular vote (Obama) or that the superdelegates should exercise their judgment and vote for the candidate who will be the best candidate to win in the fall (Clinton). We already know how many of the superdelegates will vote and Hillary has a slight edge, but it's total delegates that matter and the vote of a superdelegate is equal to the vote of a pledged delegate. There is little surprise that most of the undecided superdelegates wish that one of the candidates would break ahead in the count of pledged delegates so that they will not have be the deciding factor and perhaps pay a political price. This democracy thing can be so difficult!
I could not agree more with Fish's two concluding paragraphs. Editorialists and pundits are consumed with finding out from superdelegates by what standard they will vote at the convention. They feign shock and dismay that the "democratic" party has such a seemingly undemocratic process for ultimately choosing the nominee and that there is no agreed upon method for casting their votes. I for one would not want there to be such a standard. Let every superdelegate vote according to his/her conscience and political interests. That is the same democratic principle by which we all vote. Why should all "super"delegates vote according to some agreed upon standard that I myself would not submit to? That sounds like some Soviet-style election in which the outcome would be pre-determined. Being unable to predict the outcome of an election means that democracy is at work and not some super imposed standard that delegates must align with whether they like it or not.
As usual in close elections, the ultimate choice will hinge on how the undecideds break when their votes must be cast. This gives all sorts of anxiety to both Obama and Clinton supporters who believe that superdelegates should not use their votes to overturn the outcome of primary process in terms of pledged delegates or popular vote (Obama) or that the superdelegates should exercise their judgment and vote for the candidate who will be the best candidate to win in the fall (Clinton). We already know how many of the superdelegates will vote and Hillary has a slight edge, but it's total delegates that matter and the vote of a superdelegate is equal to the vote of a pledged delegate. There is little surprise that most of the undecided superdelegates wish that one of the candidates would break ahead in the count of pledged delegates so that they will not have be the deciding factor and perhaps pay a political price. This democracy thing can be so difficult!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)