My Brother the Superdelegate and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President
My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.
So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.
I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.
After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.
The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.
Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete.
After the democracy-snubbing arrogance of the Bush years, the last thing Democrats should be doing is wavering on our democratic principles on these issues. No super-power granted to superdelegates. And no backroom fudging on Florida and Michigan. Are you listening, bro?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Your candidate Obama is the candidate of a party machine, the chicago democratic party machine they are responsible for everything he has achieved in his political career so far. He so likes to refer back to his time as a community organizer but if anybody really digs into what he was really about they will find that he was really about building political connections, and I hope that all of this will come out before we all end up with their control of the Whitehouse, and get another disaster like the one that Illinois has turned into. Our country will be worse off than it is now by far.
Your assertions are PAST history, he is now owned by the ultra-rich elite eastern liberals led by Ziggy Brzezinski, Obama Advisor and Former National Security Advisor for JIMMY CARTER, who was the first PRESIDENT put in the White House by their power in the media and their BILLIONS. It was Ziggy Brzezinski and David Rockerfeller in 1976 that took a total unknown peanut farmer from Georgia and made him a household name. Now Ziggy brings the old crew to promote Obama, who they took from unknown to Rock Star with their media power and connections. The problem is the Ziggy always finds weak and indecisive men that are just so happy for their promotion and will accept their control in deciding who will fill jobs.
How about a short history lesson for you Ari, lets look back 40 years to when Dick Nixon won office. Since that time TWO DEMS have been elected PRESIDENT. The first was CARTER, pushed by the big money although he was weak, indecisive and unknowledgeable. His 4 years were a total disaster, leadership was weak or none, the country fell into a malaise, then the Iranian Hostage situation that Carter/ziggy Brzezinski mishandled with one failed rescue and nothing else for 444 Days until a angry America drove them from power. Carter was responsible for the REAGAN REVOLUTION and 12 years of REPUBLICAN CONTROL. Now we come to the next DEM ELECTED PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 40 YEARS, BILL CLINTON. Clinton had a few bumps along the way but was in office for 8 years, good leadership and the country was doing great, everyone was working, best economic time I had ever seen in my lifetime. So now you all want another weak and indecisive unknowledgeable man in the White House? as the DECIDER? Elect Barack Obama and I predict 4 years in the White House and then the next 16 years wandering in the political wilderness wondering what the hell happened.
So what should the superdelegates do if there seems to be a genuine tie coming into the convention? How should the superdelegates determine and vote with "the will of the people" if they choose to do so?
Florida and Michigain deserve a delegate selectin in which all candidates are able to fully campaign there. Anything else is less than democratic.
I am not against the superdelegates having a voice. But obviously the superdelegates need to use their authority responsibly. But that does not mees simply rubber-stamping the primaries.
The super-delegates will have something not available to most primary voters. They will have the knowledge of who the Republican Nominee will be and they will have the knowledge of how the campaign has been going up to that point in time. They will have the ability to answer the following question: Who is best able to beat McCain in the key states that will be needed to win in November.
As long as the superdelegates stay focused on the answer to that question they deserve the support of the Democratic Party. The Democrats should not be interested in a well-principled loss in November. This election is too important.
This time the super delegates have a very important task. They must heal the party and get Obama and Clinton to work together no matter which one is chosen. Super delegates have a vested interest in seeing that this will happen because a united party will pull help other candidates win.
Frankly, the two of them belong on the same ticket since they have energized so many voters. We want to hear them ask a crowd in October, "What do you want?" and we want to hear the crowd roar, "CHANGE."
JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE
OF OUR VOTE
NOT AT WORK!!!
That's why this whole contest is such a farce. It's not real. It's a PRIMARY. You're gonna vote and it won't matter in the end. The system is designed to keep guys like Dr. Dean and BHO from getting the nomination. It's designed to give it to the establishment's pre-ordained candidate. However, since several states decided to move the primaries forward, it threw the system into a cocked hat, and opened the door for BHO, which to his credit, he has adeptly roundhouse-kicked wide open.
Must be a real mind-f**k if you live in Michigan or Florida. Pair that with the use of "Uber-delegates" and you're going to get a very ugly result for this party. "Party" is not the word I would use to describe what's gonna happen in Denver. Although, at least it'll be better t.v. than JFKerry's "reporting for duty". The whole shabang is gonna go from "American Idol", as it is now, to "Big Brother" as soon as the arena doors close.
Frankly, the part that makes me more upset is the open primary format. Why are we letting Repugnican's and waffling Indies vote in our party's primary? It's fine for the general election, but why is it fine when you're picking a candidate for your party? I say close the voting to party members only. This will challenge people (especially the ridiculousness of the theory of Independents) to choose their stripe and defend it. This is the choice for MY PARTY'S NOMINEE. This is not some folly that an independent who can wear the cloak of anonymity with impunity should be allowed to engage in. And why Repugnicans are allowed at all is beyond me. You wanna vote for my party's candidate? Stand and deliver and declare yourself a member of my party. Come on in - we have cookies.
Dr. Dean has some 'splainin' to do. We all want change so bad, why not look within?
The only ticket I'm voting for this November in one with Clinton's name on it
either prez or vp
If it is Obama, fine, but she better be there
#1 and # 2 should be on the ticket, otherwise the party will be fractured
no one in my household will vote for obama alone, and we are all democrats
I hope more super-delegates (or people related to these super-delegates) will speak out against what obviously would be a terrible civil-war-of-a situation. The Dems are so well positioned to win this fall, this is the only way we can screw this up! People will accept either Obama or Clinton so long as we all can agree whoever wins does so fairly. Don't split up the party!!!
I have written my Congreeman and both my Sentors, all of which are DEMs now supporting Hillary and urged them to support Obama. Obama carried my state by 2 to 1. The voters have spoken and our reps should respect our choice. If they pull anything, they will loose half their voters in Nov. The voters will be so angry, they won't show up and that will not only cost them the Presidency, but a lot of seats in Congress as well.
Anybody who tells you that there "isn't a dime's worth of difference" between the candidates, or that Hillary is just like McCain, is a tool (willing or blindly) of the right trying to get the voters to fight with each other instead of stopping an oppressive regime. It's called DIVIDE AND CONQUER. It's as old as history, used by the ruling class to retain their power or to get even more power than they have. We (freedom-loving sensible, sensitive people) will have to have a MANDATE, numbers beyond the usual Republican voting shenanigans, so that there can be no doubt in the prevailing wishes of the country. I feel partially responsible for my Green vote in 2000 - at the time, I said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore".
What a fool I was, and I will never make that mistake again.
I agree. It would be a travesty to seat Michigan and Florida, given they voted without the benefit of seeing the candidates campaign. Lets face it, one candidate was a relative unknown, the other the effective incumbent. We have seen what happens when the voters see a lot of the candidates, and it isn't the incumbent they choose.
As to the SDs, I think their responsibility is to do what is best, in their opinion, for the party. And that is to select the winner of the pledged delegate count. And if it is a tie they should select the person most likely to win, and most likely to keep the millions of new voters we've seen turn out enthused. Obama is the clear choice, and will be their choice. So all will be happy. Let's face it, at this point many of Hillary's backers tend to privately admit that Obama is the better candidate, and they can't wait to get this over with and get behind him.
Don't forget, Obama was not even on the ballot in MI.
This is such baloney..the people of Florda went to vote figuring they would be seated in August
Michigan is another story maybe
Oh yeah, Obama is not the clear choice
Never, never understimate how crooked and ruthless the Clintons can/will be if they think they're going to lose! To hell with democracy. And they know the levers well.
Using race? Try this one: At least two
columnists in the NYT lasttwo days have begun to scream about Obama's not being sufficienty Israel first. One asked .."does he feel Israel in his kiskas" (that's guts for the unyiddish). I mean, what happens if American taxpayers dont fork over major $$$$, if they refuse to bomb Iran, Watch for an ugly campaign arount that.
They don't how angry this country is...the war, the President, Wall Street, and who Americans are blaming. Watch for THAT.
Want to see ruthless? Google "Obama knows ballot"
what is so sacred about the "Will of the People" slab
of granite we now see engraved before every paused
eye-ball?? The will of the people is expressed in a democracy for those choices determined by law and constitution: namely, the presidential election when one
chooses from any, usually two, candidates on a legal ballot. How one gets there has never been any "will of the people" nor can we know the will of the people until they actually vote in an actual election.
Until then it is normal and sensible for people who know something about what wins and what the people will do to do something to make the choice a choice
that can win. We have done it for centuries--any set
of delegates who determines whether or not 2 or three
votes in a tie convention is our best asset--and they are more qualified and have more substance than 3000 people who show up in a caucus somewhere to haggle and vote about everything except what evidence is there to win with whom--so God spare us
from the Will of the People till it is informed.
Two of my favorite people--Jesus Christ and Socrates were killed by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, AND OLIVER CROMWELL MADE A THEIST DICTATORSHIP OUT OF THE WORLD'S FINEST PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY--NAMELY ENGLAND--IN THE NAME OF RELIGION AND WITH MORE ARROGANCE THAN ANY
POPE, WITHOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, EVER IMAGINED
IT IS ALL WORDS, AND PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW
WHAT IS IN THE WORDS, CANNOT FORM A WILL.
JAMES GORMAN IN NEAR DESPAIR
This is very cynical. The will of the people can be good--or bad. Factions can be evil. Your example is not appropriate. Read your history.
Geeze Loo Weez! What a bunch of babies. Reading these comments the GOP must be crackin' up laughin'
If everyone understood the rules going in and chose to go their own way, they can't cry when they are left out. THE END. PERIOD. the Superdelegates should vote according to the party rules. Closed case.
Super delegates… are they good or bad for democracy? Our democracy is only a work in progress. With the grand prize of incredible power, we can always count on the political parties, who took control of our government away from the electorate, to try to rig the game. For many decades, the parties relied on and took advantage of well over 50% of eligible voters’ belief in the “Just Ruler Principle” (Just Ruler says “I don’t care who the ruler is or how s/he gets there as long as s/he is just.” It is fundamental to explain why so many citizens of non-democratic countries aren’t enthusiastic about installing a democracy. Blend in data mining and a political party can identify and control its “base” and use its campaign funds to target a relatively small number of swing voters. The Republicans executed that strategy to perfection in 2000 and 2004.
But the unusually large turnout the midyear election of 2006 was repudiation of the Just Ruler Principle; thanks to the inept mistakes and abuses of power by the Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress. Many voters now realize that the system cannot be counted to produce a Just Ruler. Furthermore, the unprecedented turnout of this presidential campaign underscores how the Bush years have made the electorate abandon Just Ruler, with the consequence that the party leadership is having trouble controlling the outcome, i.e. McCain and Obama respectively. By god, we, the electorate, may actually be taking some control of the process away from the party hierarchy and we may be getting a little closer to the promise of democracy.
All you children out there saying you will not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination sound like Republicans. The old 'My Way or the HighWay' song.
Oh, whatzthematter? You didn't get your way so you're going to show everyone what (tiny bit of) power you have and take your bat and ball and go home. Shame on you. That's not how life works.
Grow Up!
Guess what! LIFE will not always cater to your tantrums. Ha! What a time you're going to have coming to terms with adulthood!
If you are childish enough to withhold your vote for a Democrat just because it is not YOUR Democrat then you will get what you deserve. John McCain!
Now, stamp your foot, stick out your lower lip and tell me how you are a responsible citizen if you don't vote because you didn't get your way!
I'm not going to vote for Hillary because she is a corporate tool. Period.
If it is a race between Hillary and John McCain, I will simply vote for the best democrat running, and that would be John McCain. No hard feelings about that.
BTW, I'm an independent, like what everyone seems to be talking about these days. So no hard feelings about criticicizing my party loyalty here, because I have none.
I'm hip! I think that is why she cannot find a message that resonants with us the voters. It's because she is a big, fat phony!!
I'll vote for experience.......whatever happens......figure it out
If Hillary can't win the votes it is her own damn fault. Not mine.
The best way to keep the spotlight on this issue is to put up a website that calls out those Congressional members and other Super Delegates (talk about a misnomer!) who have pledged allegiance to a candidate that is contrary to the choice of their constituency. Whether you favor Clinton or Obama, there's no way we should accept anything other than the people deciding the Democratic nominee.
Is Ari Emanuel, like his brother Rahm, an
ISRAELI Citizen? A dual loyalist/
That would help in decipering what they do and say.
The clear fact is that they seek to make some noise in the media, have some goal in mind. Rahm wrote a long piece on Bush last week, syndicated and run, of course by the MSM...
Just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they're a citizen of Israel if they're American.
Also they're are many citizens in this country who have citizenship in other countries.
So are you saying that Superdelegates Kerry and Kennedy should vote for Hillary because she won Mass? Didn't think so.
Let's face it the whole system is screwed up.
They don't want the votes from 2 huge and important states to count. That's insane.
What a system. If we where honest about it we'd be talking about how unfair the caucuses are.
Primaries reflect the will of the people of a state where as caucuses reflect a smaller demographic. The delegate counts of Caucuses don't even reflect the numbers. Pathetic.
Right. You can't have it both ways. No matter which canidiate the SD's favor they should vote according to the will of their districts. Where is Howard Dean in all this? As Part Chairman wWas it up to him to make sure stuff like this didn't happen? I think states should have been made to stick to their assigned dates to hold primaries/caucuses---period. Then all candidates would have had a fair shot at these two states. Now, everyone is going to have a different opinion as the way the votes should be treated. No ones going to be satisfied. What a mess!
The "death penalty" or threat of it was virtually the only tool Dean had to enforce YOUR wish that "states should have been made to stick to their assigned dates." These states refused to abide by party rules. They received ample warning, and were duly excluded from the convention. There really is no fixing it now. If they hold caucuses or primaries later there's nothing to prevent Republicans from crashing those caucuses and tainting the vote toward whomever they consider more vulnerable.
Florida and Michigan should be excluded. Period. But my bet is they won't be. I'm betting the DLC SD types will use them to tilt the nomination to Clinton without appearing to thwart the people's will.
If the way Bush evades, avoids, and brazenly violates the Constitution disgusts and angers you, you should understand why the machinations of Florida and Michigan's Democratic leadership to shape the outcome of the Democratic primary in clear violation of the rules of the Democratic Party are wrong and hurtful to our nation's ability to sustain our democracy throughout this, the 21st century.
If, on the other hand, you feel that Florida and Michigan should be allowed to flaunt Democratic Party rules at will because "that is what they want to do", then I doubt very much that you, in the crunch, differ in any significant degree from George Bush's approach to obeying the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Its just a goddamned piece of paper."
And any candidate that agrees with you is, like George Bush, another goddamned threat to Democracy.
I should add:
Most of the People of Florida and Michigan were fed a golden apple of "setting an example for the nation in the voting booth" that had a huge worm of a lie in it: Your states' Democratic Party "machines" weren't trying to put you in the position of indicating the candidate most beneficial to the will of the People to the nation - THEY WERE TRYING TO LOCK YOUR VOTE DOWN.
The smaller states' caucuses and primaries are nothing if not "lively"; much information about the candidates comes out during them, and you learn much about the candidates by the way they react to the slings and arrows of politics.
By scheduling Michigan's and Florida's primaries early, the "machine" that favors HRC could overwhelm the People of those states with the "Vote Hillary - she's Experienced" message and then LOCK DOWN their vote before the People themselves could gain the experience to make a wiser decision through watching the political process in the smaller states.
IMHO, the Democratic Party leadership in Florida and Michigan who were behind this rebellion against national Party rules should be cast out from the Party, and the People of Florida and Michigan should be given their rights back in the form of a new - and valid - Primary.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
