Although I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama for President, as I voted for him in the Ohio primary and donated modest amounts of money and campaign work to him, I feel the need to make my case to fellow Obama supporters for the legitimacy of Clinton's apparent tactic of obtaining the Democratic nomination through the support of superdelegates. Afterwards, I'll share my reasons for supporting Obama for the nomination. More after the jump.
The "dirty little secret" about our political system is that it is not a true democracy. I'm not merely referring to the fact that we do not hold elections for every proposed piece of legislation, which would obviously be impossible to construct and maintain. I'm referring to the fact that we do not select our governing representatives in a thoroughly democratic manner. Examples of this fact abound. The Senate accords more weight to citizens of states with low population than those of high population, by awarding exactly two to every state. Districts for the House of Representatives are gerrymandered to the benefit of the party controlling the state government, and to the detriment of demographics opposing them. And to the horror of most readers of this website, the structure of the electoral college permits the election as Head of State of the loser of the popular vote. Unsurprisingly, similar undemocratic rules exist in the nominating process of the major political parties. In fact, it is only a recent historical development for the people to have any say at all in who are the major party nominees.
The current system of Democratic superdelegates at the nomination, free of the constraints of the voters, has been in place for decades. Everyone entering the race was well aware of this system, including Obama. From my perspective, entering the race precludes someone from challenging the straightforward application of well-publicized rules pre-existing individual races. This is especially the case for those who have employed "undemocratic" tactics themselves to pre-empt or supercede the will of the majority. Barack Obama was originally elected to the state senate by successfully challenging the ballot access of his primary opponent in a heavily Democratic district, an incumbent who decided at the last minute to run for re-election rather than run for Congress. Under a pure democracy, any reasonable requests for ballot access would be granted. The Obama campaign, and many supporters, claim to have won Nevada and Texas by virtue of the fact that they won more delegates from the state. However, if the standard is to uphold the will of the voters, then it should legitimately be Clinton to garner more delegates in those states, since she won the popular vote. I have no problem personally with Obama working within the established rules to obtain the nomination by any possible means. However, it is disingenuous to employ such "undemocratic" campaign tactics and then turn around and cry foul when your opponent employs existing rules against you in order to win.
I have been quite puzzled by Clinton lately in her hinting at challenging the results of the Texas Caucus. Yes, she is highly likely to lose them, but in our current delegate situation it is unlikely to alter her predicament that much. On the other hand, allowing them to stand would actually help illustrate the point she has been making about the caucus system. Here we have a clear example of a state where Obama has a clear caucus victory, and Clinton has a clear primary victory. It lends credence to the idea that Clinton would have done much better in the caucus states had they held primaries instead. It is entirely possible that Clinton would have the small lead that Obama currently enjoys, in this scenario. It is simply impossible to determine one way or the other, and to suggest otherwise is pure speculation. Now, I'm not criticizing Obama for cleaning up on the caucuses; in fact, as an Obama supporter I emphatically applaud it. I just point out that Obama is employing less than purely democratic campaign tactics to obtain an advantage, much as Clinton would be doing by attempting to sway the superdelegates.
Many of my fellow Obama supporters have declared their unwillingness to support Clinton for President in November, in the event that she obtains the nomination by the superdelegates. I must dissent from this patently emotional stance. Presidential elections should be about the good of the country, not about personalities. The publicly-expressed political views of Hillary Clinton and John McCain should make liberals and progressives instantly express preference for Clinton. This country has suffered for seven long years under foolhardy policy and incompetent, corrupt leadership. Just think of how much of a better place the world would be today had Al Gore become President in 2001. Think of the hundreds of thousands of people who are dead today, that would still be alive had Gore been President. McCain is virtually campaigning as a "competent third Bush term." If you choose to use the November general election as a protest to the resolution of the Democratic nomination, keep in mind that you will be protesting the system that selected Clinton, not Clinton herself. More significantly, you will contribute to enabling the Republicans to continue the current disastrous direction of the country. Personally, I will be voting for the Democrat in the general election.
One may ask if there is anything Clinton could do to dissuade me from supporting her should she win the Democratic nomination. Actually, there is. In the event that Clinton obtains the nomination by poaching from Obama's pledged delegates, then I agree that it would be time for a rebellion within the Democratic ranks. Then, Clinton would be working outside the rules to steal the nomination. Some may point out that nothing requires pledged delegates to vote as they've promised, but I would argue that while pledged delegates may possess the power to change their vote, they lack the right to do so. The nominating process is constructed with the understanding that pledged delegates will vote as they'd promised to do. It is comparable in many ways to the concept of jury nullification.
To avert charges that I am a Hillaryite posing as an Obama supporter, allow me to explain my reasons for favoring Obama in the election. It really comes down to issues (one in particular), in spite of the fact that it appears quaint today to vote on this basis. Perhaps it is this reason why I lack the passionate zeal against Clinton that many Obama supporters possess. I've been a staunch opponent of invading Iraq since 2002. Invading a sovereign nation that has not attacked you violates the United Nations Charter, which through our assent to are legally bound by. Anyone in Congress voting for the war is guilty of complicity in this war crime, which includes Hillary Clinton. By speaking out against this invasion in a public forum, Barack Obama demonstrated courageous leadership at a time when an enraged public was crying out for revenge. Clinton failed this test. In light of the fact that otherwise the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minute, I see no reason that this major difference should not have determined my vote and support. So while I'm firmly in the Obama camp, at this point I intend to vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee.