Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Primaries, DNC, Hillary

Somehow this mess is getting transferred onto the DNC. This is patently unfair and untrue. Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences of their legislatures conducting illegitimate Primaries before they scheduled them. The Republican legislatures did so and the State Parties went along. The DNC had one hammer to use, the threatened one, they used it.

To think that the DNC wanted this outcome is craziness, these are important states in an election and very important to a Democrat in November. The alternative for DNC is to allow states to do as they please with the Democratic Primary. It is not the Michigan Primary, it is the Democratic Primary in Michigan. (or Florida) It is DNC's election. If states were allowed to simply keep queuing to the front, we'd have Primaries starting on Inauguration Day. It might be nice for a President to have a couple days work first. In reality, candidates deserve some time to put together the mechanisms required and get a feel for what is going on electorally, not to mention some respite for the electorate.

Now, the DNC has other recognized methods of selecting candidate than the state financed and scheduled Primary. There is a deadline for selecting delegates for the convention and it would take time to organize and get DNC approval for an alternate method, time is running out. Enter Hillary.

DNC is not going to seat delegates based on the MI & FL votes now cast. They cannot, both in face of rules and in face of fairness to candidates who have followed the rules. Hillary may think she has some power over DNC, but she's barking up a tree she shouldn't be. This is the machinery of the Democratic Party, candidates don't pay for it, it is run by people who care enough about Democratic politics to make it a large portion of their lives. Hillary has so far won some delegates, whom she controls, and she has her "super delegate" as a Senator. That doesn't run DNC. Wolfson may be a big dog over at DLC but he isn't spit in DNC. She now is handing "hope" to voters in MI & FL that she has no power to bring about, effectively stalling any corrective measures those states could take. False hope undermining real action - sounds a lot like her accusations of Obama.

If this is the political acumen that makes her the candidate "ready on the first day" I'll take a first year poli-sci major. If there was any doubt in people's minds that she'd stoop to low levels to win, this ought to take care of it. She'll use magic words like disenfranchisement the same way BushCo uses words to mean something they do not - Patriot Act, Homeland-anything. Tonight, in FL, "I will do everything I can to make sure that not only are FL's delegates seated but that they are in the winning column..." "...I can..." is the money in this near lie, she has no power to do squat. I haven't liked Hillary's politics and opposed her on that basis, I now oppose her as a liar and a cheat. She has now claimed some kind of victory, it is now a resounding vote, it means a ... bunch? For someone who didn't campaign in Florida, there sure were a bunch of her campaign signs...

I will not vote for one of the ****s that the Republicans have in their field in November, I won't. But this woman will put an extreme stress on my Democratic loyalties. Oregon and a handful of others will keep me in the fold in that event, but I will tell you - that is a narrow margin. If you do not understand how alienating this last move of hers is to me, you have to understand that I worked my butt off for Kerry and I had real problems with him. If that's the choice, I'll mark her box and that is exactly the extent of it. Look at my bio if you don't think that's serious alienation.

I had sufficient problems with WJ Clinton, but small change for where I'm at with his wife. If you are a Democrat and vote for this person versus the other choices I have no idea why you claim that (D). If it is about feminism, let me ask if that is how you want professional women perceived? As only able to compete by playing to gender, poor me, and cheating? The offending words and strategy are hers, not the right wing noise machine or political rivals in the race, hers.

If this sounds like a rant, that is probably because it is, I am furious to be branded with the same (D) as someone who acts like this.

6 comments:

Steve Culley said...

Look on the bright side Chuck, McCain won Florida and Rudy will surely endorse him. That means the dems could have an open borders anti gun republican to run against which means they won't have to get in that fight. If Hillary gets the nomination I'll meet you down town and we can get drunk.

t.a. said...

one more reason she'll find it hard to get the delegates seated: Howard Dean. just how much is he going to bend to her will? about -- zero? Billary were the prime movers against him in 2004, and then in 2005 when he became DNC chair. their DLC pals also hate Dean, more so since it turns out he's almost always right about things and they are almost always wrong.

FL & MI will, though, get to seat their delegates -- after the nomination is secure. then it won't matter, and everyone will relent in preparation for the general election. but they won't get to help decide the nominee.

which is most unfair for the voters.

mbraymen said...

I would like Senator Clinton's campaign and her supports to reconsider the long (and short) term effects of some of the stances I have observed this year. Coming out against college students participating in the Iowa after polling showed they tended to support Senator Obama). Coming out against the Nevada caucus locations on the Vegas strip after the culinary workers union endorsed Senator Obama. Coming out for seating Michigan delegates after winning in that state. The first two particularly bother me. Don't we want people participate and help elect Democrats?

On the MI and FL delegate situation, just because there are no delegates doesn't mean the voters haven't had a role in the nomination process. In fact, I'll claim that it is likely that when all is said and done the voters in MI and FL will have had more effect on the nomination than SD and MT. And that aint fair either. Of course the point of the nomination process isn't supposed to be fairness, it's to select a candidate.

Kevin said...

I agree that it's unfair of Billary to blame the DNC. But it's also unfair to the other 48 states to have Iowa and New Hampshire enshrined the way that they have been.

This "Super Tuesday" crap is even worse, IMO. It further waters down the influence of individual states as well as playing right into the $$$$ campaign funding problems we already have.

I don't see it being any better for our Republic to choose Presidents based on who can raise the most money than to choose our Presidents based on what the people in a tiny handful of states want.

There has to be a better way of doing this!

Chuck Butcher said...

so much to choose from, well Steve, that leaves the issue open then doesn't it?

Oh yeah, TA, I'd like to find someone less ready on day one if this the best.

Mike,
It will be worthwhile to see if her double dealing costs her in which case MI/FL will have had outsized results.

Kevin,
One reason for the small states first idea is to force retail politics to occur and to give small dollar campaigns someplace to start. Those states don't determine squat, they can cull if a candidate is doing that badly. SupidTuesday is a bad idea, too big in area and effect in one fell swoop and too close to the small states. I don't care about IA & NH holding 1st, but the following 2 small states should be rotated. SuperTue should be smaller, maybe 4 states at a time evenly spaced through.

Zak J. said...

I have long taken my Republican friends to task for not calling W. out on the carpet when he betrayed his oath of office. With the disingenuous attempt to re-write the rules AFTER the voting in MI and FL we have the clearest indication of what kind of person Clinton is and what kind of president she'd be--just like the one we're about to get rid of next January.

I cannot fathom why any Democrat can still support her and I intend to raise this issue with every Hillary partisan I meet between now and the Oregon primary. Hillary must not be the Democratic nominee because then our only choices for president will be about parisanship, not character or competence, since neither McCain nor Romney have any claim to honesty either. It's a sad day all around.

Hillary supporters, how can you possibly condone this and remain angry with W. and Rove? It would seem tactics don't bother you as long as the affiliations are correct. I prefer not to write my leaders such a blank check.