A lot's taken place, there is a ton of news today and you've no doubt got a lot on your mind as the Democratic Finale concludes. Obama v. McCain, Clinton's next moves, the Vice Presidency...hey remember the national conventions?
Also, Ted at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion posted an insightful blog entry today about the state of the Democratic Party and the history that this nomination represents. Worth a read.
Your thread, your thoughts. Let's have at it...
Now that we've seen the process unfold, this subject will no doubt require thought, conversation and examination in the near future. Ideally, we won't need to test this issue until the 2016 primaries after Barack Obama has concluded eight glorious years as President. But still, let's strike while the iron is hot and look into this now.
Any proposed rule change must be voted on by DNC members, and as you know we are all Superdelegates (and contrary to the New York Times reporting, it's DNC members - not members of Congress - who represent the largest well of Supers at a tad over 50%). And keep in mind that the idea of Superdelegates is not unique to the Democratic Party, the Republicans have them as well.
We'll probably see a commission put together to examine the process. The commission will probably cover the topic of the early states nominating window again as well the overall presidential calendar.
Which ways should the Party deal with the issue of Superdelegates?
Some ideas to get us started:
The last idea will probably be the most popular, but also the least likely to occur. That said, let's have at it...I know you've got thoughts on the subject.
(One in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).
During the course of this election, we've seen the candidates take
shots at each other, the blogs rough-up the Superdelegates, and the
media go after everyone in order to generate material to feed the
24-hour news cycle. It takes a thick skin to work in politics, as people get beat up (figuratively speaking) everyday in this business. It's a rough and tumble profession.
In the end, most of it is not personal - it's just politics. Same goes with supporting candidates for public office. Supporting one candidate does not always mean you are wholly opposed to the other (especially in a primary race).
In May, Marie Cocco wrote an opinion in the Washington Post entitled Misogyny I Won't Miss, which goes over a list of unfortunate remarks made about Senator Clinton over the past year. It also notes that Clinton was subject to sexism in this campaign, and essentially claims that it had something to do with the Senator's eventual loss of the nomination.
Just as I sincerely hope that people don't buy into the notion that most people who voted against Obama did so because he is black, I really hope we don't get carried away with the notion that other people voted against Clinton because she is a woman.
A couple of LA Times opinion pieces have made valiant attempts to bring some reason to this notion: Jonathan Chiat wrote that though he doesn't support Senator Clinton, that people should also remember that it's not personal. Rosa Brooks wrote that it's wrong to assume it's a woman's duty to support Hillary Clinton.
And though it should be obvious, it seems that we need to point out that not supporting Senator Clinton does not make Obama supporters chauvinist, sexist, or superior. It does not mean that Obama supporters have made a choice that is any less cerebral, emotional or calculated.
Supporting a different candidate simply boils down to a difference of opinion, a difference in vision. Maybe a different form of inspiration.
In the end we're all Democrats. By and large we all want the same things and subscribe to the same principles.
Five months to the day from the first Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, Senator Obama claims the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.
I am getting emails from people who are saying that they will vote Republican in the fall because the Democrats have taken away 50% of the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan. This might be a good time for a reminder.
Last November, the Republican National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of 50% of their RNC convention delegates for scheduling primaries which busted Party rules.
Not only do these states have fewer votes, they actually have fewer delegates in the hall. In effect, the RNC penalty is worse than the DNC one.
To see the actual penalty, read the "Call for the 2008 Republican National Convention" here. The Florida penalty is on page 35, the Michigan penalty is on page 38.
You can also read about the penalty here, here and here. And here.
Oh and here, too.
I'm just sayin'.
Just received the following email:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 3, 2008
Statement from the Clinton Campaign
"The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."
This is actually normal, as most candidates do not concede on election night. Typically, a candidate will use the occasion to thank supporters and mark accomplishments of the electoral fight put forth during the campaign season. Usually, candidates concede the next morning.
In this election season, few candidates withdrew on election night - John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani did not withdraw on the night of nominating contests but rather a short time afterwards.
Because if it's Tuesday, it must be election day!
We are finally here. End of the road. No more primaries. Zip, zilch, nada.
I'm on the road so won't be able to post most much today. But I'll offer this: while every other state was jockeying to move its primaries up last year, South Dakota and some of the other recently held primaries actually received bonus delegates for scheduling late primaries. The risk in doing that is that the states would have been irrelevant if the race was over early. But I guess good things come to those who wait!
Myth #9: Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot because he was trailing in the polls, or because he didn't want to compete, or for some other reason.
Fact: Senator Obama, along with John Edwards and Bill Richardson, took his name off the ballot in order to uphold a pledge he made to not campaign in states which were breaking DNC rules.
Senator Clinton took the same pledge, but declined to reinforce the pledge and did not remove her name.
Tomorrow is June 3rd, which marks a significant milestone in this campaign season.
Seeing as the Iowa Caucuses were on January 3rd, the general election is on November 4th, then June 3rd marks the precise halfway point in this election process. On Tuesday, we will have exactly five months behind us, with five more months to go.
So not only does Tuesday host the last two primary elections of this campaign, it puts into context that we've had a crazy election year and we're only halfway through it.
Recent Comments