A couple of days ago I received another petition in my email. Over the years that George W. Bush has lived in Our White House I have receive petitions to impeach him and Cheney, to stop the war, to stop the illegal wiretapping, to force him to do something about New Orleans, the environment, energy, to return our Constitutional rights but never, even during our darkest hours when Republicans took election after election and evidence of fraud was rampant, have I been asked to sign a petition changing the way primaries are run by their parties, not even after the Florida Fiasco - until now.
Democracy for America is suddenly concerned that about 900 superdelegates might change the outcome of 20 million Democrats who have already voted because "super-delegates are a contingent of almost 900 elected officials, party insiders, and current DNC members and they aren't required to follow the voters." Being registered with neither party (Independent) I considered this ironic since "party insiders" have been telling me who to vote for all my voting life.
I have been locked out of the choosing process because of caucuses and primaries closed to all except party members. There are only 16 states with open primaries that allows any registered citizen to vote in their state’s election. Eleven primaries have varying rules about who can and can not participate in their primaries; not a few of those specify that to do so I must join their party while others set deadlines for registering with their party before I am allowed to participate in choosing a candidate. Fair Vote.org has a nice little chart explaining the hodgepodge of rules for this basic democratic right to choose a president. So why should I care about what Democrat and Republican superdelegates do when I will have no more choice of a candidate receiving his/her party nomination if every last one of them disappeared.
This circus preceding our elections is not exactly the process envisioned by those who wrote the Constitution. Our ratifying members of our Constitution made no provision for political parties, although they detailed the election process. But even before the ink from the last John Hancock was dry, the factions that almost kept the Constitution from being ratified began a battle for political power. A little synopsis of our history shows that from 1796 to 1828, these opposing factions continued the debate of whether we needed a strong central government (Federalists) or whether the states should be allowed to keep more autonomy (Anti-Federalists). But as the needs of the country changed for voters, political factions came and went until they devolved into the party system we have today - two powerful factions who refuse to compromise with each other fighting a war for supremacy; not for the needs of the voters.
It’s hard to compare what we have today to any civilized election process envisioned by the creators of our country. It’s more like a brawl among fraternities over who’s "the best" frat member than an assessment of who’s the best person to lead our country.
All 50 states are a disorganized mess of voter restrictions. 23 state have closed primaries and only 16 are considered "open" primaries and 11 states have a hodgepodge of restrictions ranging from Illinois' "must vote in primary of same part as the last primary" but this provision is loosely enforced and a voter can vote if they change party affiliation "at the polls or caucus" to New Jersey’s convoluted "Registered Democrats and Republicans can only vote for their own party in the primary. Any NJ voter who has never on a previous occasion voted in a NJ primary election may declare a party affiliation at the poll. Independents may also decide which party to vote for." and every thing in between.
We could certainly benefit from a national election on the same day which gives a primary vote to every registered citizen regardless of party affiliation. Wouldn’t hurt to make it easier for 3rd parties to be included either. Since this pre-election process is not outlined in our Constitution, there’s nothing to stop the political parties from just allowing all their candidates to participate in one big elimination round.
So plucking out the superdelegate factor to worry about this election year when the guy we’ve been trying to get rid of for 8 years keeps shoving out mandates as fast as he can write them makes one ponder this sudden concern over the the possibility that our votes might not count considering that it has been a long standing practice since the new millennium.
No one has ever worried about those superdelegates before and they certainly won’t have any impact upon a Republican candidate so why is it suddenly such a serious matter? Democracy for America, or any other organization concerned with voter disenfranchisement, has not spoken out or petitioned to give back Florida and Michigan delegates that would also change the outcome of "millions of Democrats who have already voted". Perhaps it slipped their notice that the Republican legislature in Florida moved up their state’s primary and that the two parties "punished" the voters by taking away their delegates. Republicans, the culprits, only took half away but the Democratic party stripped them all. I consider this disenfranchisement of millions of voters a far more serious breach of voting rights than the 900 superdelegates who have been included in the Democratic party process for lo these many years.
The states of Florida and Michigan represent both ends of the primary scale. Florida has a closed primary while Michigan has an open primary. You could say that primaries are the votes of the people, while caucuses, like Alaska's closed caucuses, are the votes of the party loyal. And outsiders have to jump through a few hoops in order to have the ability to impact another party’s sanctum. So these superdelegates tend to be the VIPs on the party list and this sudden concern over their participation seems to indicate that some of these superdelegates aren’t planning to vote the way the party expects them to vote.
We have previously been told that the superdelegates can decide who wins and who loses so perhaps that’s what happened in 2004 when the People’s candidate, Howard Dean, was pushed aside for Senator John Kerry. But no one was petitioning to have them removed until Senator Hillary Clinton started receiving more pledged superdelegates than Senator Obama. With the upcoming delegate rich elections in Texas (228) and Ohio (162) supporting Senator Clinton in double digits; plus her pledged number of superdelgates; Senator Obama, media's golden boy, could easily lose his already defined place as "winner".
Whose count is the true count
And I have some worries about whose adding up these delegate totals. First, different news sites report different delegate counts but they all agree on the "winner". MSNBC is reporting 1,116 for Senator Obama and only 985 for Senator Clinton; however, if you add the delegates she won from Florida (185) and Michigan (128) it gives her total 1,298 and shows a 182 delegate gap between the two candidates but when you add the disenfranchised voters and the pledged superdelegates for Senator Clinton (224 as of February 11, 2008) and Senator Obama (135 as of February 11, 2008) there is an even larger delegate gap of 271. Including these, the total delegates for Senator Clinton stands at 1,522; for Senator Obama 1,251.
The National Delegate Count gives Senator Obama 1,276 delegates and Senator Clinton 1,220. Just by adding the Florida and Michigan disenfranchised votes to her total she stands at 1,533 making Senator Obama actually 256 delegates behind her. For days the media has floated the idea that the superdelegates pledged to Senator Clinton are "backing away" from her and many blogs are reporting that "Hillary can’t win".
Well, I guess not if we keep removing delegates and superdelegates!
The latest mainstream news articles are admitting that Senator Clinton has a double digit lead in both Texas and Ohio but somehow winning those two delegate rich states isn’t important in the quest for the Convention nomination as reports also say that the Obama camp is already busy focusing on strategy to campaign against McCain. I can’t help recall that George W. Bush was busy picking out his cabinet before the final votes were tallied, too. Is this latest effort to rid the Democratic party of superdelegates in the 11th hour really about "respect [for] the 20 million Democrats who have already voted and the millions more who will vote before the convention" or party bias against one candidate?
Most independent voters are independent because they have questions they want answers to before they vote and like to make up their own minds about those answers. In this particular pre-election primary cycle, we Independents have taken a lot of abuse for asking questions about the background of one particular candidate who is very open about his racial background but vague about his religious upbringing. Since I am a firm believer in separation of Church and State, the only religious concern I have is Huckabee’s wanting to rewriting our Constitution to create a State religion, not whether Senator Obama spent his childhood in a Muslim home.
But we all remember GWB and his long relationship with "Kenny boy" Lay, of ENRON fame, that was never fully explored, don’t we? After the last decade under Bush leadership we all say accountability is high on our list of priorities for supporting any candidate. So why don’t we seem to be concerned over Senator Obama’s 20 year association with a fellow called Tony Rezko? A business/personal relationship that began about the same time Senator Obama moved to Chicago and now needs clarification because Rezko has just been indicted on charges of extortion.
It is an oxymoron that both Republicans and Democrats can tar Senator Clinton with the brush of Ken Starr’s 8 year investigation into an old Arkansas real estate deal while showing no concern for the same kind of activity taking place in Chicago with Obama and friend Rezko. I can just imagine what would happen to Senator Clinton if even a rumor surfaced about her involvement with a potential criminal...oh, that’s right, it did. Well, at least we have a template on how to investigate Senator Obama’s associate with Rezko, don’t we?
Is There A Double Standard for Candidates
I think I detect a hint of bias here that goes beyond Obama obsession. I’m just not sure what the bias represents. It certainly isn’t because we have gotten beyond prejudice where "minorities" are concerned in this country. All we need to do is check out the immigration position of the candidates.
A synopsis of the Obama position says that he would secure U. S. borders by deploying more border agents and more advanced technology, requiring employers to verify workers’ immigration status, lowing immigration fees to encourage legal entry and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants."
The Clinton position called for tougher border controls, and building a fence along the Mexican border in conjunction with programs to help illegal immigrants in the country to become citizens.
Basically the same plan; however, what is missing from both plans is how to implement these programs without making citizens of "Mexican" (immigrants from South and Central American and Cuba seem to be lumped into this category) heritage, some who have been in this country since the 1600s, second class citizens. Senator Obama has stressed "security" but many Hispanic voters are wary of being caught up in a wave of "security" right out McCarthyism. Considering what implementing "security" did to our bill of Rights we can certainly understand their reluctance to trust a candidate that doesn't seem to know that there are Mexican citizens crossing the border and Mexican descendants who came with the territory we annexed more than a century ago.
They want to know, and so should we, just how we plan to separate "illegals" from the population as these legal voters could, and have been, swept up in INS raids and deported because, as a U. S. citizen, we don’t have to carry papers confirming our citizenship and to require only Hispanics to do so makes the whole Hispanic population second class citizens. The very legal Hispanic voters seem to feel that Senator Clinton has more empathy for their plight than Senator Obama and thus she has a double digit lead over Senator Obama.
Although Senator Obama bills himself as a black candidate, he was actually born in Hawaii where someone with a biracial heritage certainly doesn’t stand out. Taking tourists out of the equation, white people would be in the minority there. However, growing up in Indonesia as the son of an American school teacher and an Indonesian stepfather and attending religious schools not of your faith would tend to make you feel "different". Not Southern "separate but equal" different, but culturally different.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, was part of a generation that was still struggling for equal rights in the schools, in colleges and on jobs. As a lawyer, she would not have received the same pay as her peers and would not be promoted as quickly because of the euphemistically called "glass ceiling". Although she was a working wife supplementing the family’s income for 12 years, she is better known for her performance as "First Lady" than her accomplishments in the field of children’s rights. And she has made history by becoming the first First Lady to be elected to the Senate and the first First Lady to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Senator Obama may be known for his oratory, but she proved her own eloquence when she observed in her February 5, 2008 speech
I want to thank all my friends and family, particularly my mother, who was born before women could vote, and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.
Now that’s a progressive leap in the culture of our country.
Senator Clinton’s mother was born into an era where women were second class citizens, with limited legal rights and subject to the dictates of their husbands and fathers. And like the Constitutional amendments giving equal citizenship rights to former slaves, equal rights for women were a long coming also. It was on the minds of women when our Constitution was being written and Abigal Adams admonished her husband, John, to "not forget the ladies"; however it would be more than 144 years before women received the right to vote; equal rights under law took even longer.
Since 1972, the Democratic party has had 7 female candidates for president; Shirley Chisholm, Patsy Mink. Bella Abzug, Ellen McCormack, Patricia Schroeder, Heather Harder and Hillary Clinton. Only Senator Clinton has made it this far in spite of facing the very same obstales her predecessors did. Considering her overwhelming support of the voters; in spite of a biased media and unrelenting personal attacks by both her opposition and Republicans, her delegate total says she will be the Democratic nominee. She could be our first female president. In real vote totals (those that include Florida and Michigan) she is 475 (MSNBC) or 472 (National Delegate Count) delegates away and winning Texas and Ohio would bring her within 82 or 85 votes of that magic 2025 number. Her 224 pledged superdelegates puts her over that 2025 number.
And now we see a worried Democratic party warning us that superdelegates might change the vote of We the People. I think the worry is that Senator Clinton just might have a chance to win nomination as the first female presidential candidate of any political party. And that it’s not about voter choice being changed; voter choice was changed when voters were disenfranchised - again - in Florida and Michigan only this time by their own party. It’s all about making sure the "right" party candidate wins and since her own party is so biased against her, this independent voter whose intentions were to vote for another candidate, has leaned more and more toward the party underdog because I’m beginning to feel that it’s prejudice rearing its ugly head, only not race but gender.
And I’m beginning to feel that if she made it to the Convention, those superdelegates could be most important in giving the nomination to someone other than her. The Democratic party is on the verge of losing my vote come November and I am not the only Independent on the edge because it’s hard to trust a party playing games with the votes of their own party’s members to manipulate who wins. We independent voters are all tilting in different directions (3rd party, Republican, set this one out), not because of the candidates they have chosen for us but because we’ve seen what happens when a party lacks integrity. We want no more elections like the ones that put Republicans in office in 00 and 04. We’ve had enough of that. And so have the disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan; those whose vote helped put Hillary Clinton in the winner’s circle even though their party doesn’t recognize them.