Daily Kos

Throwing down the gauntlet: Time for superdelegates to be held accountable

by gladkov

Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM PDT

About less than 2 months ago I was an Edwards supporter. Then he dropped out. I was open to Hillary or Barack. To be honest, some Obama supporters on this site, with their claims they would "vote McCain over Hillary" frankly almost drove me to the Hillary camp. But I listened and learned.

For every overzealous Obama supporter here who threatened to "vote McCain over Hillary" there were also a number of top-quality diaries which made me like Barack, come to agree he was the better candidate. When his supporters called me on the eve of the Connecticut primary, they answered every question I had and I chose to vote for Barack.

However, I maintained I would vote for the winner because it is about the Supreme Court, the environment, our civil liberties and many other issues. Although I came to believe that Barack was 1000 times better than Hillary, I still saw Hillary as 1000 times better than McCain, and I still do. Despite all that has happened, I will be voting for the Democrat.

However, in less than 8 weeks, I have gone from open to Hillary to a white glowing hatred, seeing the tactics they are willing to use to win. It has become clear to me that she could tear the party apart to achieve her goals and is somehow foolish enough to believe that Limbaugh and Oliely would suddenly fawn over her and not have a huge ulterior motive.  But the worst part came when Obama was clearly the winner, she could not catch up and could only win by cheating. That is truly dispicable.

But the thing is, she is not acting alone. She has her enablers in the form of the superdelegates behind her. Look, I have zero problem with someone supporting Hillary when this was still a contest. But I have a big problem with the folks who are continuing to stand behind her when it is clear she cannot mathematically win and will be behind in popular vote and delegates. And I have a colossaly HUGE problem with the folks who are throwing their support behind her NOW when she cannot win, guaranteeing or at least encouraging more strife in the party, more alienation, thereby lessening our chances of winning and weakening the party. These are the people who damage our party through their own selfishness: They are supporting a candidate which now cannot win, with any reasonable metric.
I think it is slowly becoming time to let these people know we will hold them accountable for their actions. Who are some of these people:

Sen. Bill Nelson (FL)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL)
Rep. Corrine Brown (FL)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (FL)
DNC Raul Martinez (FL)
DNC Chuck Mohlke (FL)
DNC Ken Curtis (FL)

Gov. Jennifer Granholm (MI)
Hon. John Cherry (MI)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Rep. Sander Levin (MI)
DNC Joel Ferguson (MI)
Rep. Dale Kildee (MI)
Rep. John Dingell (MI)

How many of us worked our asses off for Granholm in the last close election or have helped Stabenow? How many Floridians held their nose to help Bill Nelson of Florida because he was still better, slightly, than a Republican? Or how about Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was made popular by Democrats in Florida, only to later tell us she would not fight to put more Florida Democrats in the House?

What is worse, these are the people who can orchestrate the big Florida and Michigan coup d'etat if Hillary pushes it that far. Instead of standing up and being responsible, they remain behind a candidate who cannot win out of political alliances, the hell with the future of the party. I think they need to know we will hold them accountable.

Or there are more, like for instance,

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA) - Who lives in my parents' district in CA. Big defender of the Iraq war and the Bush admin, barely came through without a primary challenge.  If she continues with this charade, I think she should know there are consequences.

or how about

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) - One of the top targets by the GOP in 2010, perhaps even challenged by Schwarzenegger. I get emails weekly asking me for help. Yet is she helping us?

and then there are the really, really bad folks like those who are endorsing Hillary NOW. In  a post PA environment, when the pain and the destruction to the party can only be prolonged, these people continue even today of their endorsements of a candidate which cannot win by the popular vote, which cannot win by delegate count, which has lost more contests than won.

I want to stress again, it is not about the choice to endorse Hillary initially. It is continuing to do so as the destruction to the party continues. It is endorsing even now when she cannot win without cheating.
It is particularly the Florida and Michigan endorsers who could enable her coup d'etat.

I for one think it is time to throw down the gauntlet to these people: their actions will have consequences. They continue a charade of supporting a candidate who cannot win as the damages grow greater every day. I think they should know they will be held accountable for their choices.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, superdelegates. Florida, Michigan (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 36 comments

  •  I'm sorry but (0+ / 0-)

    The only one with damages growing daily is Obama. Perhaps his supers should start migrating over to Hillary en masse.

    by palpatine316 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:27:07 PM PDT

  •  It's amazing to me. (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone who blindly ignores the lies coming from the HRC campaign, who blindly thinks that staying with a preacher (actually staying with an amazing congregation) is the same as staying with a lieing creep of a husband is worse; who actually believe that she is not horribly hated by half the population in this country for whatever reasons is delusional.  I'm sick of it.  As a lawyer, I will vote for her if she steals this election, but I will never give her money or fly to Ohio, like I did for Barack, or make calls.  Forget it.  I will ONLY vote for her to protect the Supreme Court.  Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts must be stopped.  But I also believe that Wright will pass and the supers are going to give this to the right person -- Barack.  She is only hurting us.  She has absolutely no chance by the numbers (thank goodness).  

    Also, as a NYC resident, after she officially looses this primary election, I will work for any decent dem to take her out of the Senate.  Staying in this election and playing dirty like she and Bill have is killing her chances of any future in dem politics.  That, and money in this election, are the only things that may get her and Bill to finally admit that they have lost.  So give as much as you can.  I certainly have.  I'm so sick of this crap.

    Impeachment! Indictment! Incarceration!

    by followyourbliss on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM PDT

    •  Just ignore this idiot follow, I for one (0+ / 0-)

      have strong convictions and I will not vote for that beast HRC, I shall vote for Nader if she steals the nom.

      by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:46:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I also need to say that I am a die hard, (0+ / 0-)

      hippie loving, leftist hard core, 49 year old white woman who never really liked Bill.  I remember the 90s.  They were not that good.  Bill lost the Senate.  Bill lost the House.  Lets never forget what triangulation really is.  It's disenfranchisment of blacks.  It's disenfranchisment of poor people.  It is only politics for aggrandizement (oh, please Kos, get us a spell check function -- my dislecsia is painful).  It is panderism at its worst.  That's what Billary stands for.  Barack is the anti-triangulator.  He is the anti-disenfranchisor (is that a word?).  This campaign is about us.  Not the corporatists.  We must stop them or facsism is truly established in this country and we are truly doomed.

      Impeachment! Indictment! Incarceration!

      by followyourbliss on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  hey follow I am (0+ / 0-)

        an old hippie too. White female and over fifty and supporter of Barack. I remember the constant lies and drama for eight long Clinton years in the WH. What a dumb ass for having had voted for Bill both times...
        But since I am older and wiser, cant get me to vote for another Clinton.

        by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:13:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You were not a dumbass (0+ / 0-)

          Look, Bill was still 1000 times better than Poppy Bush. We don't have this magical world of Bill vs. Al Gore, it was Bill following a series of evil Republicans. Do not forget that. I think BC had a good presidency. But that was then, that is now.

          by gladkov on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:15:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I find it soooo much easier (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    barnowl, gladkov, followyourbliss

    When I ignore the trolling Clintonista's. They are brain dead and their only purpose is to make ridiculous statements and remarks. These are the people that are blinded with ignorance, and think that there is going to be a miracle happen for HRC. But in the mean time since they have their heads up their asses, they can not see the destruction that HRC is doing to the Dem Party and how much she does not give a shit about the American people and only cares about herself.

    Gladkov I think you are 150% right and will start with calls and emails to these SDS all of us should.

    by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:44:09 PM PDT

  •  No can do (0+ / 0-)

    until they see how the Wright fiasco shakes out. I just heard on MSNBC that Wright has already booked 2 more speaking engagements - 1 this month, and another next month.

    This isn't over yet.

    by phoenixdreamz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM PDT

  •  Be of good cheer ye true believers (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    gladkov, followyourbliss

    According to realclearpolitics, Obama has cut the lead in supers to 17 and thereby incresed his total delegate count to 1737 (I think the magic number is 288 now)

    It may be that in victory she found defeat.  The tactics she is using to win the primaries seem to be turning off the supers (like the Indiana former head of the DNC and former Clinton ally).  

    We are close so keep the faith

    "You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

    by Sardaukar on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:49:29 PM PDT

  •  Votebama . . . or the bunny gets it! eom. (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

    by raatzie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:50:53 PM PDT

  •  Mathematically win (0+ / 0-)

    I am not a Clinton fan, but Hillary certainly can mathematically win. As Dean said on MTP all delegate votes count and the supers are all free agents. Hillary just needs to convince a super majority of the remaining available supers to commit to her. It is unlikely that Obama can clinch the nomination from elected delegates alone, so the supers will pick the candidate. According to Dr. Dean they can pick the candidate they believe can best represent the party in the GE and are not bound by the results of the primaries.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM PDT

    •  Yes that's all true but.. (0+ / 0-)

      The only reasonable criteria for the SD's to act on should be delegates, popular vote, contests won..otherwise, it becomes ridiculous...no Hillary supporter yet can show me reasonable criteria on why all of the above should be overlooked and the nomination handed to her...just by definition, if she was the darling of all Democrats, she'd have won by a landslide now. The fact she is behind in a campaign which was tailor-made for her speaks to her problems.
      SD's can indeed decide based on a coin toss if they want, but it is not forward looking, not productive for the party. I need a DAMN good reason to override things like delegates and popular vote. No one has provided such reasons.

      by gladkov on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't (0+ / 0-)

        I certainly can't give you a good reason, but the supers don't need a reason. They are free agents and can vote for their favorite.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But see that's the issue.. (0+ / 0-)

          It's a question of what RIGHT the SD's have and what is good for the party. I am convinced Hillary cannot win in November. I am convinced her taking the nomination will tear the party apart.
          It's kind of like saying: Look, I see a drowning man over there. Technically, it's my right to just walk away and say, "Not my problem" but the correct and proper thing would be to get him some help. The SD's can indeed make the selfish choice or they can work for the future of the party. Supporting HC now is a suicide pact.

          by gladkov on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:07:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

            However, under the rules Hillary can stay in as long as she wants and because she is a Clinton no one has any leverage. There is also no forcing mechanism to make the supers commit. So I think we are going to see this go at least through the end of June.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:15:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Glad you must also keep in mind that (0+ / 0-)

            The party heads will NOT just give it to her because if they do, then they lose the two most important constituencies they have now. they being the AA and now all the young voters that Barack has brought in....

            by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's done ... (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton does not have a prayer. Obama has seen the worst and has he lost one delegate? One?

      How many have switched over from Clinton to Obama?

      That alone should tell you which way the wind blows.

      If you don't believe me, feel free to get your hopes up.

      Obama for President '08

      by Bronxist on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:35:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not my concern (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Bronxist

        I know she cannot win in a fair race. What concerns me is:

        1. She continues to have just enough SD's, even some new ones supporting her. She doesn't stop in NC and IN. She continues to KY and WV. She gets larger victories there...she continues on to the end of the last primary..
        1. Then she pull out the FL and MI trick, brings about a huge fight at the convention because her SD's won't back down, we all lose
        1. She gets MI and FL Democrats so pissed off that they won't work hard for Barack

        I'm not worried she'll win legitimately, I'm worried she'll keep stretching it out, with more damage to the party every day.

        by gladkov on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:47:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am no Clinton fan (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Bronxist

        As I said I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, and while the odds are long, the supers will pick the candidate. Hillary will stay in until Obama has 2,025 delegates signed up and commited and there is no one in the Dem party that can change her mind. If she continues to do well in the remaining primaries it allows her to keep raising money.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:52:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It makes me absolutely wild (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      gladkov

      when people talk about the superdelegates being able to vote any way they want.  Yeah, it's true, but it is a stupid stupid rule.  That's the best thing you can say about it.  If they can do that, then it seriously undermines the whole democratic process of one person, one vote.  If my vote doesn't count, even in terms of the rules, then why get me all involved?  Why don't we QUIT THE STUPID FARCE OF WHAT WE LAUGHINGLY CALL A CAMPAIGN and allow the superdelegates to just huddle inside the Beltway and appoint whoever the hell they want to and LEAVE ME OUT OF IT.  I already feel marginalised enough in this society as an intelligent woman, so just go all the way and suspend any notion that my actions and opinions - MY LIFE - matters in this society.  If Clinton can manage to shift the majority of the super delegates - or any of the delegates - to her column and win that way, she will not only be the most hated politician in country - even if it just me out 300 million who hates her - but moreover, the voting process, the basis of our democracy - will finally be completely corrupted and rendered null and void.  The fact that Hillary contemplates even trying this move while at the same time screaming Michigan!  Florida!  should be enough to make her unelectable.  

      And while we're at, why would ANYONE give a goodgod damn about Jeremiah Wright in the first place and make HIm the basis of your voting choice? Are we all effing nuts?  

      It is no measure of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society. (Krishnamurti)

      by RadicalGardener on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I absolutely agree with you but (0+ / 0-)

        At the same time, SD's were created because of huge fights in the party in previous years such as 1968. They are considered the extra tip of the scale to push a nominee over the top. Take 1980 for example, Democrats knew that Jimmy Carter would likely lose. Thus, there was a heavy challenge against him by Ted Kennedy. What happens in the case that you know the candidate will lose - in the case of Carter, it meant 12 years of destructive Republican rule. Or let's say, for example, Lyndon Johnson had refused to step down, with bad health and everything else and he would have lost - this extra mechanism can be helpful.

        However, popular vote, delegates won, number of contests won are very, very important criteria of the will of the people. For these criteria to be overridden I need some very, very, very strong proof or a good reason why - for example, let's say Obama won the nomination but was then revealed to be a mass murderer, yet refused to give up the nomination. Or even proof that Hillary had vast support among Independents and many Republicans and Barack had none. But team Hillary has not come within 100 miles of proofing its case of why this emergency mechanism should be used in lieu of popular vote and delegate counts.

        by gladkov on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:26:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Permalink | 36 comments