I got an email from Chris Bowers (BlogPac) yesterday asking me to contact media outlets and demand that they report the delegate standings as two separate groups – pledged delegates and super delegates. Well I didn't fire off that email to CNN, but I did fire off this note to Bowers...
Seriously... with everything going on in this world you've got your panties in a bunch over how the media reports the delegate count? Our economy's going down the toilet - 47 million of us don't have access to healthcare services - our planet's overheating - millions go to bed hungry every night - people are losing their jobs - their homes...
And you're worried about how CNN reports on super delegates?
I also heard that Pelosi's said she doesn’t want the DNC to seat the delegates from FL & MI and she was implying that super delegates should have to follow the lead of the voters in their state.
One question for David Axelrod... So does this mean that Kennedy & Kerry have to vote for Hillary now?
While Clyburn said he'd prefer superdelegates not announce their support until much later in the nominating process, he said he also doesn't agree with superdelegates shifting support from one candidate to another based on how their constituents vote in a primary or caucus.
Clyburn said superdelegates are not in place simply to mirror the popular vote. "I don't think people are really thinking through what they're saying," he said.
"Nobody is going to have 2,000 votes when this is over," Clyburn said. "The superdelegates are there to provide the rest of those votes. That's why we were supposed to be unpledged."
Like it or not, the superdelegates will play a role in choosing our nominee this year. Take a look at this video clip of John King and Anderson Cooper as they explain the delegate math...
Supers have one vote - just like the pledged delegates. They're party activists who've paid their dues over the years, and if they choose to throw in with a candidate then that’s their call – not Nancy’s or David Axelrod’s.
The superdelegates have been part of the process for 20 or 30 years and in all that time, no one’s had a problem with the way things are done. Nobody’s tried to dictate to them just who they should vote for at the convention. Until now that is. As soon as BO thinks that challenging the system might work to his advantage, he makes a big-ass stink about it. Suddenly, this process that’s been working fine for all these years is broken – suddenly it needs to be "fixed."
Am I the only one who’s thinking this sounds just like his first run for the IL Senate? If memory serves, he turned up downtown with a bunch of lawyers to challenge every signature on his primary opponent’s petitions until he knocked enough off to keep her out of the race. He didn’t want a serious challenge then, and he’s trying to game the system to his advantage now.
Maybe I missed something here – but if you can tell me how this relates to all that hope and change he’s always talking about – if you can tell me how this is going to bring our party together and create unity in DC overall, well then I’m all ears.
Look I don’t care who they’re pledged to – the superdelegates have the right to choose their candidate - period. It shouldn't come down to who won their state. Don’t agree with me? Ask David Axelrod – he said the same thing a few days ago when he was asked whether Kerry & Kennedy should throw in with Hillary now that she's won their state.
Look if they're going to start screwing around with how superdelegates fit into the equation then maybe we should demand that Florida & Michigan's delegates count. The Democrats who voted in those primaries should not be disenfranchised and the Democratic party in each state have already been punished: No candidate visits. No media exposure. No ads. No campaign offices in either state. No bounce or momentum for their candidate. It's time to seat the delegates.
Or is disenfranchising millions of Democrats in states we’ll need come the general election more of that hope and change Obama’s been talking about?
With respect to the seating of the MI and FL delegates, the following facts cannot be reasonably disputed:
FIVE states were in violation of the DNC rules for moving their primary/caucus to a date earlier than that provided for by said rules: IA, NH, SC, FL, and MI.
The rules committee elected to penalize only TWO states out of those five.
The basis for this decision (conspiracy theories aside), was to give primacy to the remaining three states based solely on tradition and political expediency, not by reference to the express written rules of the DNC (the objective "controlling law" in this case).
In deciding upon a penalty, the rules committee elected to impose the most severe sanction possible, rather than the 50% penalty clearly favored, but not mandated, by the rules (and, by way of comparison, the penalty favored and actually imposed by the RNC with respect to its own "rogue" states). Further, this sanction was imposed without consideration of less draconian penalties that may have preserved some degree of voter representation for those states at the convention.
Clearly, the rules committee could exercise "discretion" in deciding whether to exclude FL and MI delegates. This point is not in contention. The relevant question is whether the rules committee ABUSED that discretion. Based on the undisputed facts set forth above, an objective observer would have to conclude that the committee abused its discretion in this instance.
Hillary played by the rules...
She didn't campaign in either state while Obama bought ad time on stations that went into northern Florida. And while the other guys were pushing an organized effort to have people vote "uncommitted" in Michigan, she worked on her campaign in other states.
Nobody dropped off the ballot in Florida – they were all represented and could have gotten votes yet Hillary won there with ease. I’m guessing if Obama had actually won the state there’d be no problem with the DNC seating those delegates.
Hmmm... this selective disenfranchisement must be more of that hope and change he’s always talking about.
As for Michigan, Hillary didn't remove her name from the Michigan ballot while the guys did. She kept the long view in mind rather than pander to Iowa. It's not her fault her opponents blew it up there.
One more thought on all this - if BO's camp is so concerned about fixing the system, then maybe we should only count the votes of DEMOCRATS in these primaries. Take Republican and Independent voters out of the equation and allocate the delegates accordingly.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong here but we are doing all this in order to pick the Democratic Party nominee for President - right?
Just a thought.
Oh – and that number noted in my title tonight...
That’s the new magic number when you include the MI & FL delegates in the total. Whoever earns the support of 2208 delegates has this thing nailed down.
