Barack Obama's Integrity

I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary because I buy the argument that experience counts, even if that experience only amounts to being at the table to listen to the conversations. Senator Clinton is clearly a smart lady, and I have no doubt she learned a lot in the eight years her husband was in office. That combined with her years in the Senate gives me moderate confidence that she's got the ability to get things done.

However, I --and tens of millions of other Americans-- am intrigued by Senator Obama's message and the prospects for a new presidential approach and, dare I say it, a paradigm shift in our political culture. In addition, I was very disappointed with Sen. Clinton's 'redacted' schedule, as the entire 'I'll share selected facts' game smacks of the hubris that has characterized the current administration. I'm not sure how another eight years of doing a lousy job at lying to the public about -- among other things -- lying to the public helps anyone's confidence in our government.

But that's all been said before.

The point of this piece is to make the claim that, in my humble opinion, Sen. Obama has no choice but to support a re-vote, in whatever manifestation, in Michigan and Florida. Why? Because, as I see it, his entire position about why he should be elected president can be reduced to one word: 'integrity.' And I believe that his outrageous claim to that totally-unreachable mantle, at least as it applies to contemporary politicians, has some validity. Consequently, I believe him when he says he's not sure how his race speech plays politically. But as a United States Senator, a man whose legal background gives him a thorough appreciation for the ideals of our Constitution and the role of the people, I do not understand how he can do anything and everything in his power to prevent the disenfranchisement of millions of voters.

I understand why he wouldn't want to; it's likely that this won't benefit him at all. But that's the man I want to run my country: the man who has the courage to do what's best for all of us, and not to compromise because it provides him with some short-term gain.

Show me the man that will risk losing the election because he won't compromise his values, and I'll show you the man that deserves the right to be called the President of the United States of America.

Do it, Senator. You'll get my vote. And quite frankly, I think it plays well. And, much more importantly, I think it's the man you are, or at least, the man we want you to be.

Comments

[mabs0]

What are you talking about? I fail to see how not supporting a re-vote is proof of lack of integrity. Voting is not good for the sake of voting. If it were so, than there would be no difference between the elections in Russia, Cuba, and China to those over here. Voting only means something when certain practical, legal and fairness conditions are met. The fact that the legislatures of the two states have found no way to support a re-vote should tell you something. Florida pronounced against it and Michigan just dropped it. There would be too many complications if they proceeded with a re-vote and probably they would be locked in endless court battles disputing the fairness of the process because they don't have time to prepare. Pushing for a primary in these states, under these conditions, is irresponsible, if not desperate, to say the least. Obama is not opposing it but is not pushing for it either because there are those issues at play, which I happen to find reasonable.

[nazardesign]

At this point, it doesn't seem to matter who wants what if the states' own elected officials can't approve a redo. It's not as if they are all sitting there waiting for Obama to tell them it's OK. I hope they aren't anyway. That would be ridiculous.

[hhkeller]

Florida and Michigan residents should count only as 3/5 persons.
Dare they vote early.

[Sumocat]

Shouldn't people have the right to disenfranchise themselves? The Dem leaders in both MI and FL held their primaries early knowing that it would result in losing their delegates. They assumed Hillary would sweep the vote on name-recognition, so no harm would come. But now that the race is close, they realize they screwed the pooch. That's not anyone's problem but their own.

[ThePrisoner]

You sound like a fifth grader who just lost a gamecalling out another kid on the playground: "Come on you chicken, best out of three." Politics ain't beanbag. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates and will have an insurmountable lead in popular vote if there are no revotes in MI and FL. Deal with it.

[JAJ2007]

Would it be OK with you if he came to an agreement to seat the current delegates? A re-vote is tremendously costly for the party and for the candidates - money they should be spending on defeating John McCain in November. Not to mention that these states already voted - why should they get a second chance when noone else does?

How about this solution?

Florida:
- Seat the delegation as is, with Clinton, Obama and Edwards delegates (Edwards' delegates will end up w/ whoever he endorses)
- DO NOT seat Florida's super delegates. This "punishes" the Florida party for breaking the DNC rules by having their primary out of order. (yes yes, I know, the republicans made them do it - but I have seen many blogs pointing out that the FL democrats didn't lift a finger to stop it.)

Michigan:
- Seat the delegation as is: Clinton gets her delegates, Obama gets "Uncommitted" (yes I know this isn't fair to Edwards.)
- Again DO NOT seat Michigan's super delegates. Again - punish the party insiders.

This solution doesn't "disenfranchise" the regular voters, but still "punishes" the states who didn't play by the rules. Clinton should love this solution because she nets more delegates out of these states than Obama. Obama should love this solution because I believe Clinton has more of these states super delegates than he does. The party should love this idea because they save money for the General Election.

I don't think Obama's been objecting to a plan to seat the current delegations in some way that would be fair to both the candidates - he's been objecting to a re-vote on a variety of grounds, one of which is money, another of which is that Democrats and Independents who crossed over to vote in the Republican primary in MI (because his name wasn't on the ballot) won't be able to vote in the "revote"

[juevosrancheros]

Malcolm,
If you're going to take the position that Obama should support a re-vote in FL and MI, I'd like to hear you also address those factors that seem to make a re-vote a bad idea according to officials in both states, i.e., it's logistically, financially impossible, damaging to local elections in MI already scheduled, unfair to many democratic voters in MI who chose to vote in the republican primary that would count, and so on.
Making it seem like the re-vote depends somehow on Obama's support - as if there were any chance at all that the re-votes would take place in any case - seems to me like scapegoating ... and in bad faith, to boot.

[malcolmfriedberg]

Thanks for your comment.

I wasn't trying to make the point that a re-vote depended on Sen. Obama's support, and I certainly wasn't trying to scapegoat him. My apologies if my post came off that way.

I'm not saying that he should or should not support a re-vote, like its a question of his ethics. In fact, practically it makes sense for him not to support it. I simply think that given how he has chosen to present himself, a position that I charaterize as 'I'm the guy with integrity,' that supporting a re-vote is consistent with that position. And, more importantly, we haven't seen a politician with integrity for quite some time, and boy wouldn't that be refreshing.

[1dogs2]

You didn't answer the specific questions juevos put to you. How is supporting a re-vote consistent with 'I'm the guy with integrity' when it would be nothing more than dishonest grandstanding and pandering unless and until the issues juevos put to you have satisfactory answers?

[malcolmfriedberg]

Juevos' point, as I understand it, is that there may be valid reasons why a re-vote is a bad idea.

What did I say that could be interpreted as me giving you MY opinion about a re-vote? I make no claims about whether a re-vote is a good or bad thing.

My point is that, based on what I have heard Obama say, a re-vote is consistent with his position as the 'integrity' guy. If he thinks a re-vote is a bad idea (for the reasons juevos gives or for other reasons), then I'd like to hear that explanation.

[memoryaid]

A re-vote would be a waste of money, time, and a huge legal hassle, and would not impact the race at all. Just pretend they scheduled something for June 4th. It won't ever get to that anyway.

Even if re-votes happened, Clinton would net a max of 20 dels from MI and 30 from FL, and that wouldn't be enough to change anything. Why waste money on two campaigns and a re-vote?

[kimbiaje]

As an Obama supporter, I agree that he should advocate for a revote.

[frustratedinohio]

I've always thought integrity meant that your actions matched your words. Well words mean nothing to Obama. He's a public speaker. Someone else either writes his stuff or he steals it. Wright's words meant nothing to him either. So yes he can prevent these states from voting.

[TinaFreeman]

I think it is more complicated than that. Obama knows a revote won't hurt him...he may lose by a small margin but not enough to take away his lead.

First, this is up to the states...not Obama. Both states violated party rules and knew the consequences. Now neither state has been able to come up with a solution that they can agree on, or pay for. In Florida, a new primary is not possible because 15 counties do not have voting machines...they are transitioning to a new system. Caucuses or mail-in's have never been done, and they are skeptical. I live in Florida, by the way.

Obama has stated repeatedly he will support whatever solution the DNC agrees to, along with the states. It would be absurd to count the original vote, where many didn't vote because they were told it would not count (I didn't), and where Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

The states violated the rules and if there is to be a revote, they need to orchestrate and pay for it. The DNC could allow more time. But in any case, it is not Obama's decision to make.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

When it comes to Michigan and Florida, Barack Obama is put in a difficult position:

Any re-vote would clearly be a favor for Senator Clinton, an extra chance for her to get back in the race. She wants a do-over, and what she wants, she gets. It's been pointed out many times how her tune has changed over the months concerning these two states. Before her campaign was in trouble, Clinton was more than happy to say the votes wouldn't count and she would abide by the DNC's rules. Now she speaks nobly of disenfranchisement, democracy, legitimacy.

It's all just a political game.

Still, Obama *is* a politician. And if he becomes the nominee without Florida and Michigan, it might appear to some (i.e. those with an opposing agenda) that he took a short-cut to the nomination. This isn't fair to Obama, who simply played by the rules. His campaign has raised plenty of money, his message would resonate in those two states, and he has nothing to fear. But elections are based as much on rules as votes.

Senator Clinton is taunting Obama, daring him to agree to a re-vote on her terms. She's riling up her supporters, using every line of argument she can think of-- anything to get back in the game.

And she's counting on the voters not to think this through too carefully. If Michigan and Florida were so important, why wasn't she fighting for their "voting rights" last year? Please don't consider that.

But why did she agree to a plan she later was against?

Actually, that reminds me a bit of a certain vote she made in October 2002.

[Squirtapotamus]

What has "Integrity" is to follow the agreed upon rules instead of arguing that the rules are unfair halfway into the game.

It is not Obama's fault that Michigan and Florida decided to violate the agreed upon rules. They knew going in that they would face penalities if they moved their date. Now they whine (actually, it's not the party officials of the states so much as it's Hillary and her supporters) about being "disenfranchised". Well no, they all get to vote in the general election so even this assertion is false.

Regarding "Experience". Would you elect to have the wife of an accomplished surgeon perform heart bypass surgery on you? Of course not. Your argument about Hillary's experience is specious.

[elderly]

Who is being disenfranchised here?

Are the people of the state of Washington being disenfranchised? How about the people in all of the other states that do not have primaries.

You can couch your argument in political terms. However, integrity has nothing to do with it anymore than participating in a primary process that does not afford a vote to all eligible voters in the U.S. lessens one's level of integrity.

[Trace8089]

I agree whole-heartedly. He should step up and reach an agreement on re-votes. If, he wins the nomination after the re-vote of Florida and Michigan. Obama has my vote. If, Obama and his supporters continue to block re-votes I'll stay home. So far all I've seen is a two faced liar. On camera, Obama wants to settle Florida and Michigan while off screen his supporters are killing the re-vote effort.

[getitrighthistime]

Sorry Malcolm,
The time to get weepy about Michigan and Florida has passed. When ALL of the candidates decided their votes would not count that was the time you and others should have been speaking up. This is not about Obama. Its disengenous for you to be faulting Obama for a decision HRC and the rest of the democratic field weighed in on.

Clearly this is a partisan rant, otherwise we'd have seen you stand up for the disenfranchised before their elections.

[malcolmfriedberg]

You missed the point.

I like the guy, and he think he has the potential to be a great president. I really do. But if his position is "I've got integrity," then he should step up and support a re-vote becasue that's the right thing to do. Why is it the right thing to do? Because he stands for a new kind of politics, and I think that doing everything in his power to get FL/MI votes counted is consistent with his argument.

It's not a question of goading him into supporting it. In fact, I think he'd probably benefit from a re-vote.

And what did I say that could reasonably be construed as "faulting" Obama for HRC's decision?

[rikoriki]

No, YOU missed the point. Where do you get off begging the question, vis., that integrity equates to re-vote? You have not bothered to support that contention. It can be argued with at least equal (and IMO greater ) validity that integrity requires that the agreement that all parties swore to in advance of the primaries be honored, rather than modified after the fact. The issue of "disenfranchisement" was not an issue to the parties before the agreement. It is an artificial abstraction made up solely to garner more delegates The real lack of integrity is in the notion that the rules can be changed after an election has already taken place because you don't like the results.