"Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love." Chris Matthews"I am not the member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers
Back in the winter, back before a single vote was cast, the DNC announced that Michigan and Florida would be stripped of their delegates if they went ahead with their renegade primaries. I live in Illinois, and I heard that announcement. I was also aware that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards (he was still a factor) all supported this DNC ruling and agreed not to campaign in these states.
How was this Chicago Gal so well-informed about her party's politics? No, Commissioner Gordon didn't call me personally on a bright red phone. I read the paper and watched TV. I saw it in Newsweek and Time.
If I knew about all this before a single vote was cast, certainly the voters of Michigan and Florida had access to this same information. It undoubtedly received even more coverage in their local media. So here's why I'm confused:
1) If the good Dems in Michigan and Florida were all in favor of voting early in violation of DNC rules, and knew their votes effectively wouldn't count, but felt their rebellion was worth it, why are they upset now?
2) Or, if the good Dems in Michigan and Florida were NOT in favor of voting early in violation of DNC rules BECAUSE they knew they their votes wouldn't count, why didn't they do something back in 2007?
Here in Illinois, I know who my party's powerbrokers are. (Sometimes because they are being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald, but that's another post for another time.) If I knew I was losing my role in the nominating process entirely, and I cared, I would have contacted Mayor Daley and Danny Davis and John Madigan and my senators … Dixon and what's his name? Oh yeah, Obama. And, while I was at it, I would have contacted Clinton and Edwards. (Trust me -- as a campaign worker and contributor to Senator John Kerry's 2004 campaign, they were contacting ME all the time.)
If the electorate doesn't read the papers, doesn't watch TV, doesn't read news magazines, and doesn't get involved, that's their choice. Ignoring what your representatives are doing on your behalf comes at a price. Pay it.
If the electorate does know that their rebellion will have negative ramifications and proceeds with it anyway, that's their choice. Civil disobedience has always come with penalties. Accept them.
So what happened yesterday seems entirely fair to me. More than fair, in fact, because the voters in Michigan and Florida are receiving greater representation than they were promised at the beginning of this process. But I'm happy about that, because Michigan especially can be a very blue state and I want Barack Obama to win in November.
In all, this messy process makes me glad to be a Democrat. It was televised in all it's noisy
glory. Our inner workings were on display, and that's always a good thing.
Yesterday told me a great deal about our candidates. One was willing to live with the ramifications of his agreement regarding these states. One chose to don her Norma Rae facade and fight the consequences of what she agreed to.
The candidate I find most interesting is John Edwards. No, not because of the shiny hair and blue eyes that are set off so nicely when he wears blue ties. Fortunately he didn't appear anywhere yesterday to distract me from the subject at hand with his physicality.
John Edwards had the greatest claim to those "hardworking white Americans" (a phrase Hillary coined that I hate) that the NY Senator won over after he dropped out. If he had stayed in, kept campaigning, I have no doubt many of those good ol' boys would have stayed with the millworkers son, siphoning votes from Hillary. Edwards would never have had enough votes to WIN, but he could have/would have accumulated enough delegates to remain a player all the way to convention in Denver.
Instead, he dropped out. Putting the interests of the party ahead of his own ambition (and no one has ever accused John Edwards of NOT being ambitious). He hoped that by suspending his campaign, the nominating process would go more smoothly, less divisively.
Alas, it didn't work out that way.
Hill is determined to get her lunatic fringe portion of her supporters to make it look like all women are upset. Its the power over party shell game
ReplyDeleteIf the good Dems in Michigan and Florida were all in favor of voting early in violation of DNC rules, and knew their votes effectively wouldn't count, but felt their rebellion was worth it, why are they upset now?
ReplyDeleteWell - *I* think they're "upset" because, its one thing to say those votes won't count; as you said, that's a price paid for 'rebelling' against the party-line...it's a whole other ball-o-wax when you say, "well, now we NEED to seat those deligates, and WE [the party] will "apportion" them as WE see fit, not as the actual votes are cast."
That might tend to sour some folks - especially those folks whose votes will be "apportioned" to the "other guy/gal"...
But, once again, I'm not in the party, so I'm prob'ly speakin' outta turn.
Mo, the angry Floridians I saw on TV yesterday were upset, no need for the quotes. And if what you say is true, their anger is misplaced. For it's not the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that says, in your words, now we need to seat those delegates. It's Hillary Clinton. And if you listen carefully to her, she's not even claiming a need for the delegates to be seated, she wants to be able to claim the greatest popular vote total. The only way for her to say that with a straight face is to include the Florida popular vote, even though SHE was one of the candidates who agreed at the beginning of the process that Florida wouldn't count.
ReplyDeleteIf I were an Obama supporting Florida Dem, I'd be just as upset that I followed the rules, I stayed away from the polls and now even one of my state's delegates is being apportioned to the other candidate. It cuts both ways. Especially since, unlike the GOP primaries, ours aren't winner take all, and if he, or Edwards, had actively campaigned in Florida he may well have won more than half of the delegates. So he's being penalized for following the rules. Doesn't makes sense.
The irony is, of course, it doesn't matter. Mathematically, the nomination is Obama's, with or without the delegates. As the Duck said, it's a shell game.
However, it's a shell game that has taken place publicly, and no Democrat can complain that about smoke-filled rooms or secret deals.
If I were an Obama supporting Florida Dem, I'd be just as upset that I followed the rules...It cuts both ways. So he's being penalized for following the rules. Doesn't makes sense
ReplyDeleteOh, I totally agree...I think its the SYSTEM that's the problem. (Maybe the Rep's have a good idea with the winner-takes-all system?? Would that have side-stepped this issue? I dunno).... (The quotes were only used because *I* think "upset" SHOULD be too benign a word to describe the feelings of those disenfranchized Democrats, whichever side of that isle they are on. Wasn't trying to be a smart-butt!)
I hear that now she's planning to sue the DNC?! The drama continues....
Don't you think, tho, that ALL voters should get to cast their vote while the voting process still MEANS something? (IOW, shouldn't EVERY state get a chance to cast their vote for Edwards if they wanted to, w/o waiting til its down to the wire, and there are only two candidates to choose from...shouldn't the entire party be given an opportunity to vote for the BEST candidate - in their veiw - instead of just who Iowa thinks should be on the ballot??
ReplyDelete(Strictly a sincere question, as I'm curious what you think - not trying to get on your bad side!! LoL)
Mo, I would be all for that if there was a real reason for it, and if it wasn't so divisive. Hillary Clinton CANNOT win, any more than Mike Huckabee can take anything away form McCain at this point. I feel she is exploiting the hopes of her supporters and causing unnecessary collateral damage to the party … and I can't see what her purpose is. I was a dedicated and sincere Clintonista in 1992 and 1996 and was open to her candidacy, but now I just want someone to make the Scary Couple go away.
ReplyDeleteThis nominating process is intentionally very fluid and flexible to accommodate the state of the party and our times. 4 years ago Senator Kerry surprised everyone by winning Iowa and NH (effectively eliminating the perceived frontrunner Howard Dean) and wrapping up the whole thing very early. This time -- well, you see what's going on this time. The Super Delegate system was introduced back when it Mondale vs. Hart and hasn't been used since. Till now.
The nice thing about this mess, though (and it IS a mess) is that it is so public and many unsavory, but real and often swept under the rug, issues like racism and sexism are being discussed. I believe the party is not only trying to win, but to be as inclusive to all the constituents as it can. I hope that someday, when I'm older and looking back on all this, I'll view it as a painful but necessary exercise in passing the torch from the Clintons and the Baby Boomers to a new generation of Dems, and when we finally addressed many of the problems inherent in the system.
PS I'd never be mad about discussing this with you. You're always polite and respectful and I appreciate your attitude TREMENDOUSLY.