It's Time to Lobby Our Superdelegates

IT IS TIME.

It is time to get off the sidelines and implore our respective superdelegates to either drop their previous endorsements of Hillary Clinton or to openly commit to Barack Obama.  The following is the text of a letter I am sending to my Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell in Washington State who both endorsed Clinton before our caucuses showed overwhelming support for Obama.  

Please feel free to plagiarize as you wish, but in any case do consider writing your own representatives this week and letting them know that we will not stand for the voters' stated preference to be overturned by party insiders.

Dear Senators,

PLEASE CONSIDER REVOKING YOUR ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON.

Please consider the wishes of your constituents, and the best interests of the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole when casting your vote as Superdelegate to the Democratic convention this August.

Senator Clinton has shown herself to be a candidate whose tactics are not worthy of your support.  Examples of her behavior and that of her campaign include, but are not limited to:

--Campaign strategist Mark Penn invoking the past "cocaine" use by Barack Obama when young,

--Bill Clinton inflaming racial tensions when invoking Jesse Jackson  in dismissing the results out of the South Carolina Primary,

--Her insistence on seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan in opposition to the rules she herself agreed to before the primary season began,

--Her and her surrogates’ insistence that winning the nomination via the superdelegate vote in spite of the voters’ wishes would be somehow acceptable,

--Her recent implication that John McCain would be a better president than fellow democrat Barack Obama, and

--Her constant and unrelenting use of smears, lies, and fearmongering in order to campaign against Obama in recent contests, in the very spirit of Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

We as voters have to decide what kind of nation we want to live in.  Are we going to openly support a candidate who disrespects the ideals of democracy and fair play in order to win at all costs?  Are we going to tolerate outright racebaiting and fearmongering against one of our own?  Are we going to nominate a candidate who has shown herself to be have as little conscience as the Republicans in office just because of party loyalty?

Myself and many millions of others are going to say NO, we want our country and especially our political party to be better than that.  Barack Obama has given us a golden opportunity to BETTER ourselves, our party, and our nation, and I strongly encourage you to join us in achieving this worthy goal.

Sincerely,

oscarsmom
Seattle, WA

•  they had better watch it

  I think a lot of hillary supporting delegates are going to be primaried if they don't watch it..  and primaried badly

  This is really a danger for those in heavily black districts

  by Capt Morgan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:07:31 AM PDT

•  If that 50 superdelegate

  thing is true, it is time to see them. After Clinton's campaign said Obama is Ken Starr, I want to see mass defections.

  by indiemcemopants on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM PDT

  •  There have been conflicting reports

    If they are true, I can see them waiting til after next Tuesday.  They can then point out that Obama was able to make up for any delegates Hillary won this week and thus she is obviously not going to be able to gain traction.

    That said, I think there is time to work on her--I don't expect her to drop out immediately, but I think it's very possible she may not make it to PA.

    by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

•  Disagree - superdelegates are "at large"

  and have several things to weigh in their decisions.  Depending on where they're from and what position they hold, they may ultimately decide to go with: 1) the candidate with the most total "hard" delegates, 2) the candidate who won their state, 3) the candidate who won their district, 4) the candidate whose program is closest to the party platform.  Remember, they are also there to create that platform which will be the overlying "promise" the party makes to America as to what they will accomplish if given the power (White House and strong enough majority in Congress).  They have more people they are responsible to than the fans of a particular candidate.

  by bfitzinAR on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:12:22 AM PDT

  •  IMO all these considerations

    point to Obama, but you're forgetting the main one: what will happen if they overturn the popular vote for the first potential black president?  We lose the black vote in November PLUS, which means we lose the GE.

    One thing you can count on is for politicians to be selfish.  There will be a fair number of Hillary votes, but I think chances they will hand it to her against the will of the voters slim to none.

    by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM PDT

  •  She sent the letter to her own senators

    That seems more than fair to me. I don't see how you can disagree with this.

    by discocarp on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:30:06 AM PDT

    •  I don't disagree with her sending to her

      own senators stating her own choice.  Especially if Obama carried her state.  I disagree that all senators, reps, governors, etc should be sent her letter to vote for Obama, because depending on the state/district, they may have other concerns - and other people to answer to.  If the superdelegates from AR (where I live) were to switch to Obama, I'm going to be more than pissed, since Clinton carried AR quite handily.  On the other hand, in TX, I can easily see the senators (if they'd been Dems) going for Clinton, since she won the popular vote in the state, but each Dem rep going for whoever won their district.  What I object to is the attitude that it's OK for Obama people to try and influence superdelegates to vote for him, but not for Clinton people to do the same for her.  There are 2 things I think the superdelegates should be looking at.  One is did this candidate win my district/state.  The other is does this candidates plans reflect what I want the Party platform to be.  If there's a conflict, it's up to them to determine which is the deciding factor.

      by bfitzinAR on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM PDT

  •  It's about the tactics

    I'd say the argument oscarsmom is making is that Hillary's campaign tactics are not good for the party, and should be taken into consideration when the superdelegates (especially those who are elected officials) are deciding for whom they should vote. I don't think oscarsmom is saying they are beholden to their constituents entirely (although, as elected officials, one's constituents certainly must be a consideration if one is a savvy politician at all).

    As a fellow WA stater I had no problem with people like Sens Murray & Cantwell throwing their support behind Clinton, but when they continue to support her after witnessing the destructive nature of her campaign tactics I question their loyalty to the party. It seems to me their loyalties lie not with the party, but with the Clintons, for whatever reason.  

    Ultimately superdelegates do have the right to make the decision they feel is best, but we as constituents have the right to point out the errors that we see in their judgement and hold them accountable for those errors. People's decisions do not come without consequences, even superdelegates'.

    by larmos on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM PDT

    •  Great points!

      Thanks for your comment :)

      by oscarsmom on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM PDT

    •  I didn't want to go into this, just keep it

      a discussion of what the superdelegates should be using as criteria to determine which way to vote.  I will go no further into this than to say that many things Clinton has been accused of saying have been taken out of context.  (And that if you think this is "dirty fighting" and "out of Karl Rove's playbook" you haven't been paying attention to what the Rs have been doing the last 10 or so elections.)

      by bfitzinAR on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM PDT

•  I don't think either of your addressees ...

  ... will agree with the premises of any of the points you raise in support of your conclusion.

  You might try them on the WA DNC members, though.

  by RonK Seattle on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:44:11 PM PDT