The absurdity of hypocrisy (not Obama's fault Texas is unfair)
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM PDT
I'd like to go on the record to say that, personally, I don't give a rat's furry ass about the "will of the people". I think that it's wise for a political party to set up its nominating rules in order to best reflect the will of the people, but I also recognize that in a complex, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, federal republic such as ours, sometimes that is not 100% possible.
What I care about is playing FAIR, and abiding by the rules.
Barack Obama lost the popular vote in Nevada and won more pledged delegates. The same appears to be very possible to happen in Texas.
Whose fault is that?
I haven't spent much time researching the reasons in Nevada, but I'm going to guess that it was because of either the Nevada state legislature, or the Nevada state Democratic Party.
In Texas, it's quite clear that this situation was set up by the GOP controlled legislature in a racially motivated attempt to gerrymander districts to prevent more than a couple of token blacks from being elected to the state legislature. Is this a fair way to set up the primary/caucuses in Texas? No, it probably is not. But those are the rules of the game, and they're not going to change at this point, so bitching and moaning about it just because the rules tend to favor one candidate (because he has secured support in a certain demographic that the other candidate THOUGHT she had locked up six months ago) is not worth anything at this point, not even sympathy.
You will NOT hear me, I promise you, never ever, saying that the Superdelegates should be BOUND to vote in any way. They should NOT be forced to vote with their constiuents. They should NOT be forced to vote with the majority. They should be free agents to cast their votes in any way they see fit based on whatever factors they consider to be the most important to them. THEY WOULD BE WISE to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates and/or the greater popular vote and/or the best chance to win the general election in the fall against the GOP nominee. I think it would be a HORRIBLE destrcutive tragedy for the Democratic Party if the superdelegates were to cast their votes to thwart all three of the previously named criteria, but THOSE ARE THE RULES OF GAME, and we all knew them going in.
Finally, let's talk about Michigan and Florida. The state parties in those states knew the rules of the game a year ago. They chose to break those rules and move their primaries ahead in the calendar. The DNC acted within its rights to strip them of their delegates for breaking those rules. In fact, the DNC warned them ahead of their decisions that this would be the consequence of the breaking the rules. Everyone knew the rules of the game.
All of the candidates agreed to not campaign in those two states. All of the candidates except Clinton choose to remove their names from the ballot in Michigan.
Everyone knew the rules of the game, but Hillary knew that as the frontrunner, and the most recognizable name, the "establishment candidate" if you will, she would have the advantage in any state where campaigning was outlawed. She was already way ahead, and everyone else was playing catch-up. So of course, she "won" both of those contests by wide margins, meaningless as those states were, and meaningless as everyone else treated them. In this case, the rules worked to her advantage, so by keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan, she played the game to win. Was it a bit sketchy? Perhaps, but this is politics, folks. Grow some hair down there.
Now, this is where everything changes.
Hillary can take her "moral victories" or "PR victories" in Michigan and Florida and be happy about them, but those delegates SHOULD NOT be seated at the convention. THAT would be CHANGING THE RULES in the middle of the game. Obama and Edwards and others could have contested those primaries, but they saw it as a waste of time and money because they knew the delegates would not count.
What the Clinton campaign is attempting to do here is the equivalent of taking a pre-season football game, an exhibition game, and after the game is already over, have it be counted as a regular season game. This is wrong and it CAN NOT stand.
Whose fault is that?
It is not the fault of the state parties, or the state legislatures, or the DNC in this case of "unfairness". It is SQUARELY the fault of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. There is a HUGE difference between the rules being unfair and the PLAYER ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE RULES.
Unfair rules should be addressed by the "rules committee" during the off-season. Everyone threw in their ante with the deal. One player is not happy with the cards she was dealt.
Permalink | 2 comments