View Story | 313 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
detroitist - chronicling the life and times of the city that God intended.
by Woodwards Friend on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM PDT
"They've got power and money, but what we've got is the American people."
I've said it before and I'll say it again, one candidate is Pro-Democracy... the other, not so much.
John McCain: Crash Test Dummy
by kubla000 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
And retain power over the Party in the hands of a few "Stewards".
This was fought against, long ago, but they lost.
The problem TODAY is that so many Democrats, even elected ones, have been steam-rolled, roughshodded, and threatened in the past by the Clinton Machine and it's surrogate Outside-the-Party Orgs. They want NOTHING to do with another Clinton Presidency and continued Party nightmare, and lept at the first viable option that came along.
The only good that may come of this is the burtsing of the fantasies held by many Progressives about exactly who, and what, the Clinton's really are.
And the recriminations and finger-pointing after our November losses better give us the chance to return this Party to THE PEOPLE, where it belongs...
by IndianaDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:58:09 AM PDT
Superdelegates were designed to make sure Congressmen and other party bigwigs were able to participate in the Conventions without having to compete against us regular folk for delegate spots.
In other words, superdelegates were designed to make sure these dudes could keep getting drunk and laid at these relics known as "national conventions".
There's really no higher purpose.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:02:26 AM PDT
Superdelegates' origins: The origin of the superdelegates was a Democratic commission, headed by then-North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt in 1982.
Worried that liberal party activists and outsiders were taking control, the Hunt commission changed the rules so that 14 percent -- later expanded to 20 percent -- of the delegates would be seasoned party leaders.
http://www.newsobserver.com/...
They wanted to MAKE SURE that they never ended up with another "populist".
by IndianaDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:07:38 AM PDT
said SHE created the super-delegate system.
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM PDT
Does anyone else here the contradiction?
those super delegates who have not made up their minds or who have decided to remain neutral until all the votes have been cast should resist the pressure to abort the process.
Oh, but by the way, I've already made up my mind and done what I can to abort the process:
I have made my own personal judgment, and that is that Senator Clinton is the better qualified,
And while pro-Clinton delegates won't change, pro-Obama delegates may change their mind.
Others have made a different choice, and may yet make a different choice.
And then of course he wheels out the old tired, illogical arguments:
Should caucuses, in which citizens who wish to express their choice are obliged to either show up at an appointed hour and sit in a room for up to several hours or not show up at all, be regarded as reflecting the popular will as much as primaries, where voters whose lives do not permit them to spend three hours in a locked room at the end of a workday can simply go into their local elementary school, vote and leave--like voters across the country do on the first Tuesday in November?
... as if, if the tables were turned, he wouldn't be defending the caucuses to the death...
Should the results in states that have rarely if ever voted Democratic in a presidential election over the last half century be accorded the same weight as the results in large states that form the heart of the Democratic base, and which the Democratic presidential nominee must carry in order to win the White House?
As if those non-traditional states weren't the key to success against McCain, or as if any Democrat could lose the traditional states...
Should primaries in which voters who are not in fact members of the Democratic party voted in significant numbers be given the same standing for the purpose of choosing the Democratic party nominee as those in which only Democrats voted?
Yeah, it's a bad idea to let non-Democrats choose, but it's your establishment that did that, and it's Obama who is playing by those rules and winning. That's gotta hurt, but your pain isn't the issue here. Fairness is.
---
But the thing that Obama really has to watch out for is how Clinton operatives are working the backrooms to switch pledged delegates. I hope his campaign is on that issue... it could bite.
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on."
by Miles on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:54 AM PDT
"By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it--"
"But of course we insider elites know best what is 'in the interests of the country.'" What could mere unwashed masses who have never spent time as party insiders know?
We elites have an obligation not to let the idiot masses get in the way of what we know is best!
We can't have too much unvarnished democracy you know! A little bit taken in moderation is all right. But, the outsiders should actually DECIDE anything! That's the job for us smart, sophisticated elites!
So, go back to you regularly schedule programs, we have things well under control!
by Cugel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:09:00 AM PDT
but I have a feeling the desire to get drunk and get laid was the real reason.
In any case, the bottom line is that superdelegates are anti-democratic, elitist relics that should not interfere with the will of the voters.
I'm heartened by recent national polls showing Obama with a clear edge. That should help the supers, hopefully...
by jakester on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM PDT
...didn't need the excuse of a national convention to get some strange.
Earthbound but aspiring...
by barrel of laughs on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM PDT
that every question raised in this primary process tends to favor Clinton isn't it?
Caucuses democratic? Open primaries reasonable? Pay attention to red states?
This giant douche knew about the rules of the game well ahead of time. None of the nomination process contests are new or untried. They have been used FOR YEARS!
Thank you for ignoring the voters. Values of the Democratic party indeed.
by masterxi43 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:03:06 AM PDT
the super-delegates need to be done away with.
No matter how cynical I get, it's impossible to keep up.
by Flippant on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM PDT
-- if you chase it all the way to its logical conclusion. To the bitter end.
Why put all this energy and expense and emotional investment into primaries and caucuses at all? Hell, who needs it?
Let's have a gang of party elders sitting in solemn conclave - (that's smoke-filled rooms to you) - and pick a winner. That's not the endgame...it's the only game.
The splurge is working!
by gotgat54 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:59 AM PDT
The Founding Fathers did all they could to keep the candidate selection powers in the hands of a small capable circle. Jefferson would vomit in anger if he saw how we are letting just anybody pick the candidate.
Do not rejoice in Hitler's defeat, for though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again. Bertolt Brecht
by Marcion on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM PDT
That's how the property-owning Founding Fathers saw themselves. And 'small capable circle' and other such constructs in the original constitution were ways to concentrate their privilege, and keep it from the grasping hands of the rabble.
Of course they had the loftiest and noblest intentions; but constitutional ways to subvert the popular will were there just in case 'we, the people' went rampaging, and had to be protected from their worst instincts.
So the original Constitution was elegantly penned in a bygone era by a bunch of gentleman-farmers and plantation aristocrats playing at being enlightened philosopher-kings, little dreaming that one day it would have to work in a society consisting of millions upon millions descended from the losers, refugees, malcontents, criminals, rebels, outcasts and riff-raff of four continents
by gotgat54 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM PDT
There does need to be a voice in the party for the people who are its backbone. You spend your life and career helping the party, and you definitely should have a say in who it chooses as its presidential nominee.
That said, saying that those people should ignore the desires of the grassroots, like this letter does, is ridiculous. It just leads to candidates that (like Hillary) spend more time courting the machine than trying to win over voters, to the point that they become the candidates of the machine. That is most certainly not what the Dems are all about.
(It's also certainly not about the "only states that Clinton won matter" nonsense he's trying to push, and I'm surprised that he would so quickly discredit himself.)
Expect more of this from those posing as "wise party elders." Don't buy into it, but expect it.
For more, see Shadow of the Hegemon- a liberal voice since 2002.
by Demosthenes2002 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM PDT
This one in particular is so insulting and so lacking in nuance that it can only be counter-productive.
A few more letters like this should help undecided superdelegates figure out exactly what the Clinton campaign is all about.
Yowza!
by thisniss on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:33:38 AM PDT
If someone says with a straight face that MI's chinese ballot represented "the will of the people" while caucus states don't, you can pretty much ignore everything else. They're not making an honest case, but just presenting sophistry.
FL, I can live with, even if Clinton didn't exactly play that one square (she didn't have rallies, just fundraisers with thousands of attendees and local press). But MI was just a travesty, and anyone who says otherwise is just a Hillary shill.
by APoxOnBoth on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM PDT
"President McCain" if this goes on much longer.
"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, (insert act) is outrageous!" - McSpokesperson
by Muzikal203 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:21:57 AM PDT
Steve Grossman is wrong here, and I couldn't disagree with him more, but to call this respected party leader a "giant douche" is simply disrespectful. He's worked for the Democratic Party for a long time and I believe he has the best interests of the Party in mind, despite the face that I think he's wrong.
And let's be real here: the nomination process is ridiculous. It's not particularly fair. A fair system wouldn't value the votes in New Hampshire or Iowa more than those elsewhere; it wouldn't award delegates so backwardsly as to let Obama lose Nevada and then take more delegates. I'm a fervent Obama support and frequent campaign volunteer, and I do think he is winning and should win the nomination, but that doesn't mean the nomination contest is perfect. It's not.
Let's not get blinded by partisanship and say things that are foolish and not particularly factual.
You can chain me, torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind. -Gandhi
by New England Liberal Elitist on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM PDT
and respectable argument, I can't help but wonder if you wish your username were something different just for today. :)
by I on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM PDT
that values the votes more -- it's a media that plays up who's in the lead, and an attitude that if you don't support "the winner" that you're a "loser". (An attitude that I've seen numerous times around here, BTW.)
The only way the system can be made more fair is for the national party to step in and establish one set of rules for all states to follow -- and as we've seen from MI and FL, that would be like herding cats on a national scale.
"Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher
by Cali Scribe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:58:32 AM PDT
He basically said my vote doesn't matter. I live in a small blue state so my vote to support my candidate means nothing?
He is saying that millions of votes shouldn't factor into the decision of the superdelegates to pick a candidate.
If this is his idea of democracy and the one superdelegates support why doesn't 4/5 of the country stay home during the primaries and we just do whatever NY/CA/OH/PA/MI/FL do?
by masterxi43 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:18:20 AM PDT
And as I am not a voter from one of those states, I am getting the message from the Clinton camp loud and clear. My vote does not matter. Fortunately, my state has not yet held its meaningless primary, so there's no chance that I will be tempted to waste my meaningless vote on her. I sincerely hope that other meaningless voters in other meaningless small states feel the same way.
by thisniss on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM PDT
I think he wants everything to factor in, but factor in based on his particular system of preferences, and he wants the other superdelegates to have the same latitude. If they don't have that latitude to value results based on their own experience, then why have superdelegates at all? Which raises a good question, why the hell do we still have superdelegates? This was set up in 1982 and immedieately gave us Mondale and Dukakis. Not a great track record.
by Marcion on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:40:28 AM PDT
do what they want and make decisions based on whatever they think is the best criteria.
But we do get to hold them accountable for these decisions and how they end up writing off millions of voters.
He can make his argument, and I can hope that his position as a superdelegate is not an issue in future elections.
by masterxi43 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:47:51 AM PDT
And never planned for anything beyond Super-Tuesday.
After all, thier Outside-The-Party Orgs had "Bought and Paid for" the Party, and all that was left would be her coronation when the MAchine delivered it!
BUT...
So many Democrats, even elected ones, have been steam-rolled, roughshodded, and threatened in the past by the Clinton Machine and it's surrogate Outside-the-Party Orgs.
They want NOTHING to do with another Clinton Presidency and continued Party nightmare, and lept at the first viable option that came along.
OOPSY!
by IndianaDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:29:05 AM PDT
Funny how every announced mode of decision making favors HRC, whereas any that favor Obama are "trivial".
Someone finding HRC battle tested gets to argue that she should be picked despite losing the battle to some other dude.....and anyone who thinks that winning more delegates is important is "trivializing" the process.
"For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.
by Inland on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM PDT
and Grossman's spin doesn't change that rule. ;-)
by thisniss on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM PDT
This is from Steve Grossman in 2003. Pay special attention to the end:
"Having served proudly as National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I was disappointed by recent statements by the Democratic Leadership Council that disparaged Governor Howard Dean's record of fiscal discipline and social compassion. I was particularly distressed because DLC leaders chose to label tens of thousands of grassroots Democrats who are energized by Governor Dean's message as elitist.
"It is crucial that the Democratic Party have a frank and open discussion about the future direction of this party. It is a discussion in which Governor Dean continues to play a leadership role. The DLC should remember that such a discussion must include all members of the party, especially citizens who work hard at the grassroots to promote their candidates and their values, not because they're elitist, but because they share the Democratic Party's—and Howard Dean''—vision for a better America.
"It is a vision that includes fiscal responsibility, access to health care for all Americans, a strong foreign policy that promotes multilateral cooperation, a bold, forward-thinking energy policy, environmental protection, tolerance, and economic opportunity for all citizens. It's a vision that is proudly Democratic and proudly American. It’s the right vision for the future of our country.
"The DLC should remember that creating needless conflict is not leadership. There are countless Americans across the country who are inspired by Governor Dean's message and his optimistic vision for America. The DLC would do well to listen to those Americans instead of attempting to dismiss them."
Subverting the dominant paradigm every chance I get. And I get a lot of chances.
by Casey Morris on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:17:51 AM PDT
from "vote for the candidate that makes you think and hope" to "vote for my wife, even if she doesn't make you hopeful because she's my wife"
by Muzikal203 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:49 AM PDT
Only a Clinton supporter could come up with some twisted authoritarian rationale like this.
The candidate with the most pledged delegates should win. Period.
Here's my version of stewardship: As a committeeman, I am also an elected Democrat. If Clinton's surrogates steal this nomination, I'll resign my post and re-register as an independent because the party that I've belonged to all my life will no longer represent me.
There has to be an invisible sun / That gives us hope when the whole day's done -Police
by rightiswrong on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM PDT
We have a system of both PLEDGED, and BRIBED Delegates.
Until we stand up and actually DO something about it, we remain sheep to the Machines...
by IndianaDemocrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 313 comments