As I browse through the blogs and various sites I normally visit in the morning and the horrible cable news shows I find my self watching I keep reading and hearing reactions to the Politico Story about Hillary's chances or lack there for winning the nomination.
The Clinton supporter's have started to come out and speak against this story and the assertions being made therein.
Let me say that I am Democrat first and an Obama supporter second. If by some miracle Hillary over takes him in the popular vote and the the delegate vote count I will support her nomination but if she wins it through super delagates I can't be anymore supportive than I was of Bush winning in 2000 due to the electoral college. Will I vote for her? Yes. Will I like it? No.
With comments like these I found on TPM:
I have to say that I disagree with your entry stating that Clinton supporters have thrown in the towel and accepted that Barack Obama will be the nominee. Let me be clear, we will never back down until the fat lady sings. And that performance, which will be for the better, will be on the convention room floor. It will be an all out brawl!
We're not backing down! The fight has just begun!!!! Pennsylvania is around the corner and a large victory is excepted. Polls in West Virginia also strongly favor her. Polls in North Carolina that have favored Obama are now virtually tied. There will be big surprises in North Carolina.
It's not over. And I might also point out how inaccurate the Politico article that you quoted/linked to really is. If the superdelegates support Clinton there will be "a backlash of historic proportions"!?!? THEY WOULD BE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE CREATED FOR, JOSH. The superdelegates weren't created to add fluff to the popular vote, but to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can't. They're there for the same reason the electoral college is. For example, picking a glorified motivational speaker over an experienced leader (good example, eh?). The SD's are there to put the better qualified and more electable candidate in charge. And in poll after poll, that's Hillary.
and this
I won't get upset about Hillary being called a loser. Why? Because I already have plan B figured out.
I got really emotional about it before I realized that I would vote McCain and a straight top to bottom GOP lineup if Hillary isn't the nominee and leave the party if Florida isn't counted.
Its not about winning anymore. Its about whether the Democratic party and its anti democracy is worth defending or if the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in decade is a better use of my vote.
Obama has done the following
- Sat idly by as Jessy Jackson Jr called Hillary a racist and Wright likened what Bill Clinton did to Monica to how he treated Black people.
- Acted to avoid democracy both in caucuses and in Florida and Michigan
- Threatened the party both in terms of his voters not voting and in terms of his supporters often threatened rioting in Colorado if the rules are followed where super delegates vote as they please or with the majority vote not as the pledged delegates which are mostly determined by caucuses.
- Called anyone a racist who challenged his 2 years on the national scene as not being enough experience for commander in chief
- Minimized the connections with Rezko while refusing to answer questions about what appears to be a $600,000 bribe that likely comes directly from a Saddam loyalist.
- Claimed that his Independent and GOP voters are better than Hillary's Democrats.
In a revolution words don't matter. Actions matter. I am at peace with my voting actions come general election.
I wonder if these Clinton supporters feel the same way about Super Delegates as the Electoral College. Now I understand that both of these systems are "the rules" and that following the "rules" is a good thing. However, are these rules democratic? I think the electoral college is a giant piece of undemocratic dung. It was crafted so the masses (aka the people) wouldn't screw things up for the people who mattered. Kind of like how super delegates are designed to keep the masses from screwing things up for the states that matter. I will have to ask Mark Penn if I got that one right.
I wonder if these same people who are talking about following the rules in the sense that we must let the Super Delegates decide feel the same way about following the rules and not counting the election in two states where the rules were broken by the state parties and by their candidate. Looking at at least one of those comments I will say no.
I am a Democrat. I wont pull the lever for McCain. Hell, an ocelot could come into the convention, unite the party, and get the nomination instead of either Hillary and Barack and I would still vote for a Dem over a Republican. I wouldnt be happy and I probably wouldn't canvas or phone bank for that ocelot but in the voting both I would complete the arrow for Mr./Mrs. Wild Ocelot.
Still though, I would like to know where these people who want the rules (super delegates) to take the election from the majority felt when the rules (electoral college) took the election away from the majority in 2000.
I assume I will get some hate. But I don't hate. I only question.