SUPERDELEGATE SUPERSERIOUS
yeah, you cried and you cried.
Alright. Let's get something straight once and for
all.
Hillary Clinton can not possibly win the Democratic nomination without the support of a whole lot of (so-called) Super Delegates. That is true. Of course, it's also true that Barack Obama can not possibly win the Democratic nomination without the support of a whole lot of those same (so-called) Super Delegates.
Now. I hate the whole idea of Super Delegates -- for truth in advertising, they should be called UnDemocratic Delegates -- almost as much as I hate the proportional delegate assignment that's gotten us to the point where we have to worry about who people like Sophie Masloff decide to vote for anyway. But the rules are the rules, and these are the rules by which a typically long-winded, short-sighted Democratic Party has agreed to play. And so play by them we must.
Which means, of course, that these (so-called) Super Delegates, the gurglings from beneath Nancy Pelosi's death mask not withstanding, are free to vote their conscience. You know, just like everyone else in the country. They don't have to worry about which candidate won the popular vote in their state, or which candidate is winning the popular vote overall, or even which candidate would, while delivering pretty speeches or dodging incoming sniper fire, be the best person to answer John McCain's phone calls at 3am. They just have to vote for the candidate they think, for whatever wise or foolish reasons they decide, would make the Democrats' best presidential candidate.
In other words, they get to do what every other voter who's come before them gets to do: size up the candidates and, based on their own personal whims and instincts and prejudices, make a gloriously informed, or deliriously uninformed, choice.
Which means, in the end, that all this talk about subverting democracy and risking a backlash and repudiating the will of the people is just so much horse -- er, donkey -- manure. No one told the people of New Hampshire that they had to vote for Barack Obama, lest they subvert Democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people in Iowa who had already voted. No one told the people in South Carolina that they had to vote for Hillary Clinton, lest they subvert democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people in New Hampshire who had already voted. And no one, the audacity of hope and temerity of faith be damned, is telling the people of Pennsylvania that they must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won in Ohio, or that they must vote for Barack Obama because he's still winning the popular vote overall, lest they subvert democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people and make either Bob Casey or Ed Rendell cry.
The much-ballyhooed (so-called) Super Delegates will, like all the caucusers and all the voters in all the states so far, finally have their chance to cast their votes and deliver their support. And to suggest that they must allow those votes to be swayed or influenced or dictated, in some or any considerable way, by the votes that happen to have been cast before theirs, is as great a subversion of democracy, and as great a repudiation of the will of those individual people, as you are ever likely to find.
After all, what could possibly be less Democratic -- or more anti-American -- than telling people that their own votes must necessarily be decided by someone else's?
Hillary Clinton can not possibly win the Democratic nomination without the support of a whole lot of (so-called) Super Delegates. That is true. Of course, it's also true that Barack Obama can not possibly win the Democratic nomination without the support of a whole lot of those same (so-called) Super Delegates.
Now. I hate the whole idea of Super Delegates -- for truth in advertising, they should be called UnDemocratic Delegates -- almost as much as I hate the proportional delegate assignment that's gotten us to the point where we have to worry about who people like Sophie Masloff decide to vote for anyway. But the rules are the rules, and these are the rules by which a typically long-winded, short-sighted Democratic Party has agreed to play. And so play by them we must.
Which means, of course, that these (so-called) Super Delegates, the gurglings from beneath Nancy Pelosi's death mask not withstanding, are free to vote their conscience. You know, just like everyone else in the country. They don't have to worry about which candidate won the popular vote in their state, or which candidate is winning the popular vote overall, or even which candidate would, while delivering pretty speeches or dodging incoming sniper fire, be the best person to answer John McCain's phone calls at 3am. They just have to vote for the candidate they think, for whatever wise or foolish reasons they decide, would make the Democrats' best presidential candidate.
In other words, they get to do what every other voter who's come before them gets to do: size up the candidates and, based on their own personal whims and instincts and prejudices, make a gloriously informed, or deliriously uninformed, choice.
Which means, in the end, that all this talk about subverting democracy and risking a backlash and repudiating the will of the people is just so much horse -- er, donkey -- manure. No one told the people of New Hampshire that they had to vote for Barack Obama, lest they subvert Democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people in Iowa who had already voted. No one told the people in South Carolina that they had to vote for Hillary Clinton, lest they subvert democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people in New Hampshire who had already voted. And no one, the audacity of hope and temerity of faith be damned, is telling the people of Pennsylvania that they must vote for Hillary Clinton because she won in Ohio, or that they must vote for Barack Obama because he's still winning the popular vote overall, lest they subvert democracy and risk a backlash and repudiate the will of the people and make either Bob Casey or Ed Rendell cry.
The much-ballyhooed (so-called) Super Delegates will, like all the caucusers and all the voters in all the states so far, finally have their chance to cast their votes and deliver their support. And to suggest that they must allow those votes to be swayed or influenced or dictated, in some or any considerable way, by the votes that happen to have been cast before theirs, is as great a subversion of democracy, and as great a repudiation of the will of those individual people, as you are ever likely to find.
After all, what could possibly be less Democratic -- or more anti-American -- than telling people that their own votes must necessarily be decided by someone else's?
Posted: Mon - April 7, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM