Let's just dispose of this quickly, and move on:
A federal judge in Michigan has just ruled that a minor part of Michigan’s primary law is unconstitutional. That ruling says that either everyone is entitled to see voter records (not just the two major parties), or no one is. It’s a correct ruling, but totally irrelevant to the question of whether, and how, Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates should be seated at the National Convention. (Background here; more reports on the ruling here, here; blogs sane and otherwise here, here, here, here, here.)
Yet within minutes, the Clinton campaign issued a press release calling again for Michigan’s current delegates to be seated (even though Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot), or for a revote (which, with the Michigan Legislature on recess, is now an impossibility).
Let’s be clear: it bites that Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up. It bites that the Democratic National Committee – including fervent Clinton supporter and advisor Harold Ickes – decided unanimously to disenfranchise their voters as a result. But none of that is Barack Obama’s fault.
Now may we all please go back to copying and faxing Sen. Clinton copies of our (redacted) tax returns, to encourage her to make her own 2000 through 2006 returns public the way Obama has?
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Showing posts with label convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label convention. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
It's Not "Still Up In The Air", It's Just Strung Out...
UPDATE, MARCH 24: While Clinton campaigns in Pennsylvania and Obama takes a well-earned rest day, both of their campaigns continue to trade press releases keeping the heat on each other -- and John McCain campaigns in California, a state Democrats should be able to win in November, without a clear Democratic frontrunner to contest him and ensure that those indispensable 55 electoral votes stay in the Democratic column. It's agonizing: individual ego may well cost Democrats the White House -- and enable a Republican to replace at least one or two of the three remaining Democrats on the Supreme Court with Republicans, making the Court 7-2 or even 8-1 Republican. Women supporting Hillary Clinton should think hard about the impact her extending her losing campaign all the way to August may have on women's rights, because it's not just the White House that's at stake.
UPDATE, MARCH 20: No matter how well Hillary Clinton does in Pennsylvania, it's increasingly clear that she can't mathematically win the popular vote, and will need to rely on "Superdelegates" overriding the will of the voters. Not good for the Party or the country, as discussed below...
ORIGINAL POST: It's not "still up in the air", as a CNN piece says; it's just strung out now, probably all the way to August, to the party's detriment and McCain's gain. In the past, Clinton's campaign itself has said repeatedly that it's not about the number of states, it's about the number of delegates -- and given how close the margins were yesterday, plus the fact that Obama may actually have WON Texas when the primary and caucus votes are combined (!), Clinton probably gained only four net delegates, not enough to cut deeply into Obama's roughly 100-delegate lead.
So the math hasn't changed, just the P.R. spin. And the only way the nomination is "up in the air", mathematically, is that there still is a possibility that Clinton will be able to broker the convention and receive the nomination even though Obama will win both the popular vote and the majority of "pledged" delegates chosen by the popular vote. (In a press conference today, Clinton's campaign manager said flat out that that's fine by him -- the popular vote doesn't matter and if they can get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated, or sway the "superdelegates" whose votes are equivalent to roughly 10,000 real voters', they'll consider that fair. Do you agree?)
UPDATE, MARCH 13: Readers shouldn't be fooled by Clinton's current pretense that all she wants is Florida and Michigan's voters to be heard. That isn't what she's said in the past, it isn't what she's said in her press releases or press briefings, and it isn't even what she's saying now, if you read carefully enough. What I wrote above, and immediately below, still hold true: Obama wants either the rules followed as-is or a real re-election held, and Clinton only wants those options that give her an unfair edge -- which is why she still calls the Michigan election "fair" even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. And don't trust the MainStream Media (MSM) to tell the whole truth -- they can't fit nuance into soundbites!
UPDATE, MARCH 6: Clinton's campaign has repeatedly said that there's no need for Florida or Michigan -- which were disqualified by the Democratic Party by the DNC, with Clinton's assent, in which the candidates all pledged not to campaign, and in which, in one case (Michigan), Obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot -- to hold valid votes or caucuses. No -- Clinton wants those two states' delegations (even Michigan's) seated at the national convention WITHOUT fair votes. Why? Because those states' skewed primaries resulted in Clinton racking up big "wins" (of course -- how hard can it be, for instance, when your opponent's name isn't even on the ballot?). I've listened in on the press conferences, and they're not even trying to hide it. FURTHER UPDATE: Just one example of Clinton campaign's about-face here.
What everyone (but Clinton) wants, of course, is for both states to hold legitimate primaries or caucuses, decide for real which candidate they prefer, and take their rightful place at the national convention. One job of true patriots is to fight for this to happen, against those who would rather benefit from a rigged system than actually abide by the will of the people. There is, happily, some hope -- far from certain, but hope, according to a CNN piece -- of the establishment "machine" losing and the right thing actually being done. I'll have an action plan (including contact info for the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee members and other power brokers who will make the final decision) up here in a few days, so please bookmark and check back. Thanks!
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
UPDATE, MARCH 20: No matter how well Hillary Clinton does in Pennsylvania, it's increasingly clear that she can't mathematically win the popular vote, and will need to rely on "Superdelegates" overriding the will of the voters. Not good for the Party or the country, as discussed below...
ORIGINAL POST: It's not "still up in the air", as a CNN piece says; it's just strung out now, probably all the way to August, to the party's detriment and McCain's gain. In the past, Clinton's campaign itself has said repeatedly that it's not about the number of states, it's about the number of delegates -- and given how close the margins were yesterday, plus the fact that Obama may actually have WON Texas when the primary and caucus votes are combined (!), Clinton probably gained only four net delegates, not enough to cut deeply into Obama's roughly 100-delegate lead.
So the math hasn't changed, just the P.R. spin. And the only way the nomination is "up in the air", mathematically, is that there still is a possibility that Clinton will be able to broker the convention and receive the nomination even though Obama will win both the popular vote and the majority of "pledged" delegates chosen by the popular vote. (In a press conference today, Clinton's campaign manager said flat out that that's fine by him -- the popular vote doesn't matter and if they can get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated, or sway the "superdelegates" whose votes are equivalent to roughly 10,000 real voters', they'll consider that fair. Do you agree?)
UPDATE, MARCH 13: Readers shouldn't be fooled by Clinton's current pretense that all she wants is Florida and Michigan's voters to be heard. That isn't what she's said in the past, it isn't what she's said in her press releases or press briefings, and it isn't even what she's saying now, if you read carefully enough. What I wrote above, and immediately below, still hold true: Obama wants either the rules followed as-is or a real re-election held, and Clinton only wants those options that give her an unfair edge -- which is why she still calls the Michigan election "fair" even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. And don't trust the MainStream Media (MSM) to tell the whole truth -- they can't fit nuance into soundbites!
UPDATE, MARCH 6: Clinton's campaign has repeatedly said that there's no need for Florida or Michigan -- which were disqualified by the Democratic Party by the DNC, with Clinton's assent, in which the candidates all pledged not to campaign, and in which, in one case (Michigan), Obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot -- to hold valid votes or caucuses. No -- Clinton wants those two states' delegations (even Michigan's) seated at the national convention WITHOUT fair votes. Why? Because those states' skewed primaries resulted in Clinton racking up big "wins" (of course -- how hard can it be, for instance, when your opponent's name isn't even on the ballot?). I've listened in on the press conferences, and they're not even trying to hide it. FURTHER UPDATE: Just one example of Clinton campaign's about-face here.
What everyone (but Clinton) wants, of course, is for both states to hold legitimate primaries or caucuses, decide for real which candidate they prefer, and take their rightful place at the national convention. One job of true patriots is to fight for this to happen, against those who would rather benefit from a rigged system than actually abide by the will of the people. There is, happily, some hope -- far from certain, but hope, according to a CNN piece -- of the establishment "machine" losing and the right thing actually being done. I'll have an action plan (including contact info for the Democratic National Committee Rules Committee members and other power brokers who will make the final decision) up here in a few days, so please bookmark and check back. Thanks!
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Thursday, February 14, 2008
SuperDelegates and the Anti-democratic Perquisites of Power
UPDATE, Feb. 19: Hey -- bloggers make a difference? I'll bet Thomas Paine's pamphlets had some impact on the creation of our democracy, too. So pay attention, and please participate. (CNN overview of "supers" here.)
UPDATE: Feb. 15: USA Today and CNN on the Michigan and Florida delegates problem; Wall Street Journal on yet another reason Obama would be the better candidate.]
UPDATE: FEB. 14: Happy Valentine's Day from Sen. Clinton: with her campaign floundering, and losing both the popular vote and the specific constituencies (women, Latinos) she had considered her "firewall", she's now pushing for the flawed Michigan and Florida results to be included in the delegate vote tally.
This follows her earlier, but not well-publicized, statement defending the superdelegate system on the grounds that her inside-the-Beltway friends have better "knowledge of the candidates" than we voters do, and calling Obama's proposal (that the "supers" simply vote the way their constituents voted) "really contrary" to the way things are supposed to work.
Put the two positions together -- that we should count the two states that intentionally broke the rules and which even Hillary originally agreed should be disqualified (but where, unlike Obama or any other Democrat, she still campaigned), and that it's OK for a relatively small group of party insiders to override the popular vote -- and it's clear that Clinton has now officially abandoned any remaining pretense at (a) supporting small-d democracy, (b) playing by the rules, or (c) putting the Democratic Party's interests before her own drive for power. There's no question any more: she'll break the rules and shatter the party -- even have the nomination wind up being decided by the Supreme Court, a la Bush 2000 -- rather than even risk losing in a fair fight.
[Update, Feb. 14, 11:48 am Pacific: The Boston Globe has more damning detail about Clinton's outspoken disregard for the democratic process, and her self-serving flip-flop on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations:
The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.
But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.
"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.
"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.
"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," he added. ***
Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.
Clinton's even trying to reframe the issue by changing our language; her campaign no longer refers to "superdelegates" (a term so well accepted that it draws 2.75 million Google hits), but will start calling them "automatic delegates" (which both downplays the fact that each of them has a vote worth 10,000 of ours, and implies that they don't actually have a choice who to support). Orwell would be proud. So would Joe Stalin, and especially Karl Rove.
So considering all this, ask yourself: does Clinton sound like an agent of change, or an establishment politician committed to winning at all costs, even if it means ignoring both the will of the voters and the rules she herself helped put into place?
David Sirota, writing today for the Huffington Post, echoes my analysis of what this means:
So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons. Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty -- not even to the founding principles of democracy.
At least the mainstream press -- here, here, here, here -- is finally catching on to what a big deal this is, though they're still focusing on the Superdelegates and less on the equally important -- and more deceptive -- issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations without pushing them to hold new caucuses or primaries that allow all candidates to compete and all voters to participate. The original post below explains why this news today is so significant, and why it puts Hillary Clinton in such a poor light. (Meanwhile, you can sign petitions here and here, and contribute to Obama here.)
ORIGINAL POST, Feb. 9:
After checking out CNN's primary watch page late last night, I pretty much know what I'm going to be doing for the next six months:
Yesterday there were three Democratic primaries/caucuses: Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana. Obama won all three states overwhelmingly: 68-31% in Washington, 68-32% in Nebraska, 57-36% in Louisiana. He also won the more complex race for delegates in those states: 35-14 in Washington, 16-8 in Nebraska, 23-15 in Louisiana. (All figures are as of midnight last night, with between 96% and 99% of precincts in all three states reporting.)
So Obama gained 74 or so democratically-elected, "promised" delegates yesterday, and Clinton gained only 37 of such delegates. And since (depending on who was counting) the candidates were either neck-and-neck or Obama had a slight lead in the "promised" delegate count heading into today's primaries, he should have about a 40-delegate lead overall, right?
Wrong. Here's CNN's leaderboard as of about midnight Saturday, after substantially all the day's results were in:
Look closely: according to CNN, Obama has 908 democratically elected candidates to Clinton's 877 -- a 31-delegate lead -- but Clinton is still over 70 delegates ahead overall, even after getting her tail whupped today, because she's won the loyalty of (read: campaigned and done favors for, made huge campaign donations to, and shared Bill's donor Rolodex with) 223 party insiders called "superdelegates", while the less-well-connected Obama has only lined up 131!
(UPDATE, FEB. 12: After Maine last Sunday and with the "Potomac primaries" underway today, Obama is continuing his winning streak, but the situation still hasn't changed. CNN reports: In total delegates, Clinton tops Obama 1,148 to 1,121, according to CNN estimates. The breakdown paints a slightly different picture, as Obama leads 986 to 924 in pledged delegates, and Clinton is winning among superdelegates 224 to 135. Does this sound democratic to you, or does it sound like a system designed to ensure that only "establishment", business-as-usual pols can be elected?)
Gain a sweeping victory in elected delegates and yet wind up farther behind because while you were diligently campaigning, your opponent was (much more fruitfully) bribing or twisting insiders' arms. It's our current DLC, Centrist, Clintonian, Democratic (but not democratic) party in a nutshell. And while Obama is asking the superdelegates to simply vote the same way as their states or districts -- a fair solution -- Clinton is defending the superdelegate system, supposedly because the "supers" know the candidates personally and therefore can make better decisions about them than we mere citizens can! It's hard to imagine a less democratic position for a "Democrat" to take: that the aristocrats in the House of Lords quite properly can override us commoners who don't know what we're doing when we vote.
Wait, it gets worse: there's also the Michigan/Florida question. When those states moved their primaries earlier in the calendar without the DNC's permission, the party told them that if they persisted their delegates wouldn't count. They persisted. Clinton sneak-campaigned in both states by making sure her name was on the ballot then buying regional TV ads that would air both in contested states and in the disqualified states. Clinton, unopposed, won big in both states. And now the DNC says, firmly, that those delegates won't be seated -- unless the party decides otherwise at the convention itself. Big loophole, that: two huge, influential states' delegations show up and demand to be seated, it's all the news will cover, it threatens to overshadow the party's message on the issues, and you don't think they'll cave in and seat them? Especially if Obama wins the popular vote, but admitting Michigan and Florida will swing the popular vote the other way and make it look like Hillary actually won?
Yeah, right. The ongoing impeachment proceedings of Bush and Cheney illustrate the degree to which the current Democratic Party leadership -- with, I hope, the exception of Howard Dean -- stands firmly for truth, justice, fair elections and the American Way.
I'm trying to remember the last time the people voted for one candidate, but the other candidate manipulated a small group of power brokers to gain the Presidency anyway. The whole situation just seems really familiar. Just give me a sec. Was it... was it... Bush-Gore 2000, where Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the five Supreme Court votes that really mattered?
So that's what we're coming down to: We The People vote for one candidate, power brokers pick the other, power brokers win. And it doesn't matter which well-connected candidate is pulling the strings, because both parties will roll over for the people with power.
It's offensive. It's undemocratic, and unDemocratic. If the superdelegates don't do the right thing and align themselves with the popular vote, there may be -- there should be -- uncontrollable protests at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August, a la Chicago 1968.
If Clinton wins the nomination unfairly, without huge protests from the roots, then regardless of the outcome of the general election it'll be a good time to check New Zealand's immigration rules. There's great mountain climbing there, the fly fishing is tremendous, the political system is only a little bit rigged -- and it's half a planet away from the former United States of America. But let's not lose faith. Instead, let's work to make sure that doesn't happen, because America's worth fighting for.
That's why I know what I'll be doing for the next sixth months: still doing my climbing on Mt. Hood, my fishing in the Deschutes and McKenzie -- and working to un-rig the Democratic Party's rigged and unfair primary system.
P.S. Feb. 12: Paul Abrams at HuffPo has a good idea for resolving the superdelegate controversy, and holds out hope for Florida and Michigan as well. Fingers crossed. And the Democratic Party is considering revamping its primary process -- but only after November, which is sensible but does us no good now. Meanwhile, though, Hillary still seems to have the lead overall despite falling farther and farther behind with primary voters. A little sunshine and a little progress shouldn't lull us into complacency...
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
UPDATE: Feb. 15: USA Today and CNN on the Michigan and Florida delegates problem; Wall Street Journal on yet another reason Obama would be the better candidate.]
UPDATE: FEB. 14: Happy Valentine's Day from Sen. Clinton: with her campaign floundering, and losing both the popular vote and the specific constituencies (women, Latinos) she had considered her "firewall", she's now pushing for the flawed Michigan and Florida results to be included in the delegate vote tally.
This follows her earlier, but not well-publicized, statement defending the superdelegate system on the grounds that her inside-the-Beltway friends have better "knowledge of the candidates" than we voters do, and calling Obama's proposal (that the "supers" simply vote the way their constituents voted) "really contrary" to the way things are supposed to work.
Put the two positions together -- that we should count the two states that intentionally broke the rules and which even Hillary originally agreed should be disqualified (but where, unlike Obama or any other Democrat, she still campaigned), and that it's OK for a relatively small group of party insiders to override the popular vote -- and it's clear that Clinton has now officially abandoned any remaining pretense at (a) supporting small-d democracy, (b) playing by the rules, or (c) putting the Democratic Party's interests before her own drive for power. There's no question any more: she'll break the rules and shatter the party -- even have the nomination wind up being decided by the Supreme Court, a la Bush 2000 -- rather than even risk losing in a fair fight.
[Update, Feb. 14, 11:48 am Pacific: The Boston Globe has more damning detail about Clinton's outspoken disregard for the democratic process, and her self-serving flip-flop on seating the Florida and Michigan delegations:
The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.
But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.
"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.
"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.
"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period," he added. ***
Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.
Clinton's even trying to reframe the issue by changing our language; her campaign no longer refers to "superdelegates" (a term so well accepted that it draws 2.75 million Google hits), but will start calling them "automatic delegates" (which both downplays the fact that each of them has a vote worth 10,000 of ours, and implies that they don't actually have a choice who to support). Orwell would be proud. So would Joe Stalin, and especially Karl Rove.
So considering all this, ask yourself: does Clinton sound like an agent of change, or an establishment politician committed to winning at all costs, even if it means ignoring both the will of the voters and the rules she herself helped put into place?
David Sirota, writing today for the Huffington Post, echoes my analysis of what this means:
So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons. Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty -- not even to the founding principles of democracy.
At least the mainstream press -- here, here, here, here -- is finally catching on to what a big deal this is, though they're still focusing on the Superdelegates and less on the equally important -- and more deceptive -- issue of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations without pushing them to hold new caucuses or primaries that allow all candidates to compete and all voters to participate. The original post below explains why this news today is so significant, and why it puts Hillary Clinton in such a poor light. (Meanwhile, you can sign petitions here and here, and contribute to Obama here.)
ORIGINAL POST, Feb. 9:
After checking out CNN's primary watch page late last night, I pretty much know what I'm going to be doing for the next six months:
Yesterday there were three Democratic primaries/caucuses: Washington, Nebraska and Louisiana. Obama won all three states overwhelmingly: 68-31% in Washington, 68-32% in Nebraska, 57-36% in Louisiana. He also won the more complex race for delegates in those states: 35-14 in Washington, 16-8 in Nebraska, 23-15 in Louisiana. (All figures are as of midnight last night, with between 96% and 99% of precincts in all three states reporting.)
So Obama gained 74 or so democratically-elected, "promised" delegates yesterday, and Clinton gained only 37 of such delegates. And since (depending on who was counting) the candidates were either neck-and-neck or Obama had a slight lead in the "promised" delegate count heading into today's primaries, he should have about a 40-delegate lead overall, right?
Wrong. Here's CNN's leaderboard as of about midnight Saturday, after substantially all the day's results were in:
Look closely: according to CNN, Obama has 908 democratically elected candidates to Clinton's 877 -- a 31-delegate lead -- but Clinton is still over 70 delegates ahead overall, even after getting her tail whupped today, because she's won the loyalty of (read: campaigned and done favors for, made huge campaign donations to, and shared Bill's donor Rolodex with) 223 party insiders called "superdelegates", while the less-well-connected Obama has only lined up 131!
(UPDATE, FEB. 12: After Maine last Sunday and with the "Potomac primaries" underway today, Obama is continuing his winning streak, but the situation still hasn't changed. CNN reports: In total delegates, Clinton tops Obama 1,148 to 1,121, according to CNN estimates. The breakdown paints a slightly different picture, as Obama leads 986 to 924 in pledged delegates, and Clinton is winning among superdelegates 224 to 135. Does this sound democratic to you, or does it sound like a system designed to ensure that only "establishment", business-as-usual pols can be elected?)
Gain a sweeping victory in elected delegates and yet wind up farther behind because while you were diligently campaigning, your opponent was (much more fruitfully) bribing or twisting insiders' arms. It's our current DLC, Centrist, Clintonian, Democratic (but not democratic) party in a nutshell. And while Obama is asking the superdelegates to simply vote the same way as their states or districts -- a fair solution -- Clinton is defending the superdelegate system, supposedly because the "supers" know the candidates personally and therefore can make better decisions about them than we mere citizens can! It's hard to imagine a less democratic position for a "Democrat" to take: that the aristocrats in the House of Lords quite properly can override us commoners who don't know what we're doing when we vote.
Wait, it gets worse: there's also the Michigan/Florida question. When those states moved their primaries earlier in the calendar without the DNC's permission, the party told them that if they persisted their delegates wouldn't count. They persisted. Clinton sneak-campaigned in both states by making sure her name was on the ballot then buying regional TV ads that would air both in contested states and in the disqualified states. Clinton, unopposed, won big in both states. And now the DNC says, firmly, that those delegates won't be seated -- unless the party decides otherwise at the convention itself. Big loophole, that: two huge, influential states' delegations show up and demand to be seated, it's all the news will cover, it threatens to overshadow the party's message on the issues, and you don't think they'll cave in and seat them? Especially if Obama wins the popular vote, but admitting Michigan and Florida will swing the popular vote the other way and make it look like Hillary actually won?
Yeah, right. The ongoing impeachment proceedings of Bush and Cheney illustrate the degree to which the current Democratic Party leadership -- with, I hope, the exception of Howard Dean -- stands firmly for truth, justice, fair elections and the American Way.
I'm trying to remember the last time the people voted for one candidate, but the other candidate manipulated a small group of power brokers to gain the Presidency anyway. The whole situation just seems really familiar. Just give me a sec. Was it... was it... Bush-Gore 2000, where Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the five Supreme Court votes that really mattered?
So that's what we're coming down to: We The People vote for one candidate, power brokers pick the other, power brokers win. And it doesn't matter which well-connected candidate is pulling the strings, because both parties will roll over for the people with power.
It's offensive. It's undemocratic, and unDemocratic. If the superdelegates don't do the right thing and align themselves with the popular vote, there may be -- there should be -- uncontrollable protests at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August, a la Chicago 1968.
If Clinton wins the nomination unfairly, without huge protests from the roots, then regardless of the outcome of the general election it'll be a good time to check New Zealand's immigration rules. There's great mountain climbing there, the fly fishing is tremendous, the political system is only a little bit rigged -- and it's half a planet away from the former United States of America. But let's not lose faith. Instead, let's work to make sure that doesn't happen, because America's worth fighting for.
That's why I know what I'll be doing for the next sixth months: still doing my climbing on Mt. Hood, my fishing in the Deschutes and McKenzie -- and working to un-rig the Democratic Party's rigged and unfair primary system.
P.S. Feb. 12: Paul Abrams at HuffPo has a good idea for resolving the superdelegate controversy, and holds out hope for Florida and Michigan as well. Fingers crossed. And the Democratic Party is considering revamping its primary process -- but only after November, which is sensible but does us no good now. Meanwhile, though, Hillary still seems to have the lead overall despite falling farther and farther behind with primary voters. A little sunshine and a little progress shouldn't lull us into complacency...
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)