Clinton doesn't care. In fact, she is actively bragging about how much support she has among the "super delegates." And to make matters worse, she is now actively campaigning to have the delegates of Florida and Michigan be seated with full voting rights at the Convention even though she signed a pledge not to campaign in those states after the Democratic party "punished" them for moving up their primary dates (which was also undemocratic). If she wins that fight, it will mean that two state's delegates where Obama did not campaign, one where he was not even on the ballot, may be given to her even though she agreed they shouldn't count in the beginning. Her "victory" rally in Florida was a shit show considering her pledge not to campaign there.
Everyone should be outraged about this rigged system, and work tirelessly to expose it as a major flaw (among many) in our so-called "democracy." The time is now to demand that the will of the people be upheld and the next president is not decided by a group of party insiders. It's heartbreaking that so many people with good intentions, so many people who marched against the war, and who call themselves "progressive," have compromised their values so much as to vote for someone who has repeatedly supported the war, voted to keep cluster bombs a reality, voted for the patriot act, and is essentially giving a big "fuck you" to democracy by openly saying she would be happy to win the nomination with the votes of "super delegates" instead of the American people.
When Obama's religious followers see this unfold I have a feeling their "hope" will turn into anger and frustration. If that happens we'll be mourning a McCain presidency. But party leader Howard Dean says he "won't allow that to happen." He wants the two candidates to make a deal before they fight over "super delegates" at the convention. While a "deal" may help signify party unity how good is another "deal" for democracy? Dean should be proposing that we scrap the "super delegates." Another possibility is that all the delegates at the convention will take a vote to agree that the "super delegates" no longer count. That is unlikely due to long established relationship the Clintons have formed with the party insiders that make up the "super delegates," but it may just be Obama's last "hope."
Below is a news clip about "super delegates" featuring North Hampton-ite Rachel Maddow, the only lesbian progressive commentator on TV.
4 comments:
well,
Luckily I'm for Hillary anyway.
woohoo! Go Hillary!
This is precisly why Hillary should win, she knows how to play the game to get things done. As opposed to Obama taking his oath and then being stonewalled at every turn for the forst 2-3 years.
Again, Hillary can land running.
Obama can't. But he sure is inspiring when he talks. I guess all Hillary needs is Obama's speach writer. Then we can all have the warm, fuzzy feeling inside and ALSO know she won't just be talking about change, she'll be producing it.
CLINTON/OBAMA '08
As a socialist I don't believe in the entire system or put much hope into any of the capitalist choices for president (other than Kucinich).
That said, I want to point out that on the experience argument Obama has served 11 years in elected office as opposed to Clinton's 7.
I don't see any clear evidence that she would be better at "getting things done" than Obama, or that she is more experienced. Obama "got a lot done" in Illinois as a government official and as a community organizer.
While Obama was becoming a young activist Clinton was a college Republican. While she was voting for the war and cluster bombs, he was speaking out against them.
It's going to be hard for Obama supporters to unite with Clinton supporters if Clinton's people do not come out against the superdelegate system.
Mark I do believe I need to disagree with you on putting the superdelegate issue and Florida, Michigan issue in the same undemocratic hat. Yes having almost 800 superdelegates is way to many and hurts democracy but Obama is playing the superdelegate game just as is Clinton.
Also just because someone makes a pledge not to campaign somewhere does not mean the person is saying those states should not count. It is not right to try and make that connection. Also anyone running for President regardless of party affiliation or even an independent candidate will need one if not both of those states in order to win the general election and should be actively involved in supporting those people's right to vote.
I would be just as upset if the superdelegates went for Obama if the two were ina tie.
I would like to see the superdelegates vote as a whole go with the person who got the most elected delegates.
For michigan and florida - wat I meant was those states should not have been punished and they should have been in play. Now, they should do a cauacus or re-vote there so that it is fair considering they pledged not to campaign there before.
Post a Comment