The primary is over. We have our candidate. Why are we still debating this?
Senator Obama leads both in pledged delegates and in popular vote. Senator Clinton cannot catch up in either count. Even counting Florida and Michigan leaves her short if we count Michigan's "uncommitted" for Obama, as we should in that case.
Senator Clinton has argued that the superdelegates could help her make up for what she lacks in pledged delegates. Technically, she is correct. They could do that. But that simply cannot be allowed.
If Senator Obama has more popular votes, more states, and more pledged delegates and yet the superdelegates award the nomination to Senator Clinton that will be a repeat of the same "resolution" we saw in the 2000 theft. The pledged delegates take the role of the Electoral College, and the supers will be the Supreme Court-- handing victory to the person who did not win.
The fact that she has come in a close second should matter just as much as the fact the Bush came in a close second in 2000. That is: not at all. If the superdelegates are going to act like the Supreme Court did and simply hand the victory to the person who lost, then why on Earth did we have a primary in the first place? Why spend millions of dollars in each state, why expend so many person-hours in effort staffing primary elections, why ask people to come out and stand in line at the polls, why take up so much news media resources to report on the results... when we're going to throw it all out and simply arbitrarily designate a winner irrespective of the vote totals?
If Senator Clinton were to somehow overtake Senator Obama in popular vote that would at least give her argument some weight, but she can't without taking the ridiculous position that we should count Florida and Michigan for her and yet insist Senator Obama has no votes from the entire state of Michigan. Paradoxically, Clinton has also argued that Michigan was "campaigned" by Obama when his supporters were told to vote "uncommitted" on their ballots. She is trying to have it both ways in Michigan-- counting her votes for herself in the popular tally and yet insisting Obama's "uncommitted" votes which his campaign urged supporters to vote somehow do not count toward his popular vote total. If she is going to claim that "uncommitted" counts toward Obama, then she has to count "uncommitted" for Obama. And then he still has his popular vote lead even counting those two states.
I was radicalized by the 2000 theft. I was just a lefty before that. I voted and donated, but that was about the extent of my involvement. I was horrified that the presidency was stolen, in the cold light of day, and we allowed it to happen. I've hardly stopped demonstrating and organizing and speaking out since. It is simply unacceptable that the Democratic Party would do the same thing to us to resolve this presidential primary. I won't make empty threats and say that I will refuse to vote for her if this happens; I'm a Democrat down to my bones. I will simply say we cannot allow it to happen. It is absolutely, finally, resoundingly, maddeningly unacceptable for our own Democratic Party to do it to ourselves.
I do not make this case as an Obama partisan. I love Senator Clinton, and think she deserves more respect than she is shown by the left and by online activists. I even named my daughter, Megan Hillary Iglar-Mobley, after her-- born one day after New Hampshire's primary, the first state's presidential primary won by a woman. I voted for neither candidate in the primary, no one in fact since Illinois would not allow me to write in Al Gore's name on my ballot.
No, I'm making this case as a Democrat. We have to honor the will of the people, and the people have chosen Obama. He was not who I would have picked, but as I am a Democrat he is now my candidate too.
If you agree with this sentiment, I ask you to share it with other Democratic activists you know. And consider signing the online petitions:
http://democracyforamerica.com/...
http://pol.moveon.org/...