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
Any Democrat running for President understands the role of the Super Delegates before running. Trying to change the rules now is silly. Obama is a cry baby who not only wants to change the rules of the Dem Nat Committee but who also wants to disenfranchise voters in the two states the Democrats must win in order to get the Presidency. The candidates shouldn't have a say in who gets to vote and who doesn't, isn't this America? The Dem Nat Committee should be ashamed of itself doing to themselves what they accused the Republicans of doing in 2000.
How can Obama tell Florida and Michigan that their votes shouldn't count now (they voted for Clinton) and expect their vote in the fall?
When did Obama tell Fla and MI their votes don't count?
Good grief, repeatedly in the run up to the FL primary because he knew Hillary was going to win.
He referred to the votes as 'worthless' and call the FL primary a 'beauty contest.'
Guess he forgot that FL is the 4th most populous state with all those electoral college votes that he would need come November.
He also never bothered to thank the 600,000 or so people that voted for him there.
before FL and MI both Obama AND Clinton acknowledged what the Democratic party had ruled, namely that FL and MI votes would not count b/c they violated party rules by bumping up their primary dates. it's Clinton now who's going back on her word, trying to get those votes to count.
Let me see if i've got this straight: you want the voters to decide who should be the Democratic candidate - unless they are in Michigan or Florida, in which case you don't want them to have any say. How democratic is that?
Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Hillary will turn this into a battle between the DLC and the DNC - a civil rights rallying cry for disenfranchised voters as phony as her Florida Primary "Victory Celebration".
Of course everyone's campaign will take full advantage of the system despite violating their own ethics and morals because that is the standard. All politics is dirty and those that are good at it get the muddiest. It was stupid to let the system get this complicated in the first place because the rules will always be scrutinized and stretched by smart campaign managers and candidates. Just like in 2000, no matter what is done there will be a case for an appeal endlessly. This is one of the reasons for democracy; it saves our time and lets people that love this crap hash it out in a closed room for days.
The Republican controlled legislatures moved the primary dates and the Dems had no choice but to vote on those days as, in FL's case, the state refused to pay for a later primary.
And, the rules are stupid. Just to keep the cows in IA happy, two important swing and necessary states in the general election were disenfranchised.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Exactly. I'm from Florida and we had a free and fair election with HUGE turnout. Despite the Donna Brazile pro-Obama FASCISTS who decided to disenfranchise us.
Obama got CLOBBERED. Obama has gotten CLOBBERED in ALL of the HUGE states that are ESSENTIAL for any Democrat to win the November election.
Obama got CLOBBERED in California (#1), he got CLOBBERED in New York (#2), he got CLOBBERED in Florida (#4), he got CLOBBERED in Michigan, even tho its next door to his home state of Illinois.
In fact, about the ONLY big blue state that he has won is Illinois.
If he wins the nomination, the Democratic Party is dead meat. The Democrats don't have a PRAYER of winning without carrying the big blue states.
Plus, you have McCain running, who is MUCH more attractive to independents than Bush was. All in all, if Obama is nominated, the entire USA might turn red.
Look. It wasn't a REAL election, so NOBODY got clobbered. You can't CHANGE the rules after the game was played, yes, but that means that NOBODY got clobbered.
What a joke! Pro-Obama Fascists? Give me a break! Everyone understood that FL and MI would not have their delegates counted before primary season even started, because the DNC rules were broken! And are you honestly claiming that if Obama is the nominee all those true-blue states will all of a sudden turn red? Please!
You sound like you're still bitter about the bunk beds, Ari! Rahm may not be dictating which bunk bed you get, but I assume you have decided that he cannot be trusted as a SUPER delegate because Hillary Clinton gets the top bunk? I doubt his one single vote is going to make ANY difference anyway. If your point is that you don't trust SUPER delegates' votes, you are doing the exact same thing that you seem to be deriding him/other SUPER delegates for..you want his SUPER vote for your candidate. When Kennedy/Kerry give up their Massachusetts status, I might take the argument seriously! Rahm AS an elected official,"
Committed state delegates, based on popular vote "can" be the decisive factor, but primary delegates can always change their committment, regardless of the popular vote. That posturing will ultimately take place at the convention, if the vote/numbers are close. That % committed to other candidates may want to usurp the state's popular vote, supporting whomever they choose.. in worst case scenario, SUPER delegates are there to make sure we don't end up without a declared nominee. Contrary to popular urban-legend, they do not HAVE to vote with the primary delgates..
Yes, party politics inevitably play a part, to be sure, as one of them does want that "top bunk"..odd
The problem is that when there is no heat, there is no passion for reform. It's like that moment when you say to your other half or they say to you; 'let's argue this later" and both of you know it will only come up the next time you are screaming at each other but you let it go anyway. I can only hope that a few more people realize that the system is broken every time this is brought up and eventually there will be progress. That being said, I think your take on this was right on the money.
NOW is the time to debate this stupid dem primary system, because we are finally seeing it's function in detail. It's also a warning to the dem party super Mucky Mucks NOT to screw with the will of the voters.
Dems:
ONE DAY PRIMARY
ALL CANDIDATES IN ALL DEBATES
No Stupid Mucky Muck delegates.
It is a politburo who decides the leader. It is not a democracy. Look at the media. Things are not as they seem.
Well, not sure which is worse, the politburo or the media. Me thinks they are one in the same.
My guess is that Rahm's little brother is pro-Obama and suspect his brother to vote for Hillary.
If the superdelegate votes or Obama had won Florida, the Obamamites would be all for counting them.
And for the record, Floridians are citizens who want their votes counted. End of story.
If the Florida Democratic party wanted the Democrat party members in Florida to help pick their nominee, they would have made sure to follow their own rules. The citizens of Florida will ALL get to vote in the general election which is the only vote they actually have a US constitutional right to cast. Political parties are welcome to play dirty and be disrespectful of their own members right up until they have none. That is unless their members actually LIKE to play dirty...
He wrote this because Rahm told him to.
Superdelegates are not sinister: they are mostly elected officials. Meaning: people who were elected to decide laws. Meaning the voters' will is not being ignored. Furthermore, they will only come into play essentially as a tie-breaker; their roughly 20% stake is not big enough to thwart the will of the people if the will of the people is strong enough. Furthermore, these are the legislators that will have to work with this candidate (and, with luck, President) and it's not unreasonable in a tie-break situation that they have a say. And lastly, to argue that 'rules are rules' thus Florida and Michigan shouldn't could but in the same breath argue that Superdelegates shouldn't have a vote; well, in this cycle, rules are rules and Superdelegates count and by the rules are allowed to vote according to their will.
"Super delegates" = Incumbent Party Mucky Mucks.
Congress and the DNC, hell they even had Lieberman in there for a awhile.
So yes, the voters can be ignored.
You must work at the DNC.
The first "success" of the incumbent Mucky mucks system was the choice of Mondale of Hart.
Rahm supported Ind. Joe Lieberman over the Democratic candidate. Why wouldn't he support John McCain?
What kind of Democracy is it if super delegates are allowed to decide the nominee, sounds like what one would expect in democracy at the whim of a Dictator in Pakistan or Russia.
The only thing more unfair than Supreme Court handing George Bush the presidency by stopping recount of Florida vote would be for the so called Super delegates to hand over the nomination to either Clinton or not likely to Obama, it would be shameful for them to accept. But we all know that Clintons have no same and they will resort to any underhanded trick to win the nomination, by hook and crook. I do admire people like Ari Emanuel and Donna Brazil for their sense of fair play.
Americans are going to have to make a pact to respect whoever ends up in office no matter what happens in the next year because the permutations of possible perversions of the process are endless.
If a candidate is going to win the presidency, he or she would have to carry the big states, in the general election. In the primaries so far, Florida and Michigan are up for grabs. Illinois hs been deceided, New York, California, and New Jersey have been deceided, and Ohio Pennsylvania and Texas haven't voted yet. I'm not sure if I left any out but the states with the most electoral votes should go a long way in determining the nomination.
Let see Florida, Michigan, Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. So youre saying next primary lets just forget about the other 41 states and let those big states decide everything. Brilliant
I never said that but in an election those are must win states. I don't understand why people like you can't make a comment without sarcasm or insults.
Obama won in the caucus states Wyoming, Nebraska, Idaho and the deep south - red states. Hillary has won all the big blue states. Who do you think has the better chance to win in November? Let's get real here folks.
Superdelegates should not be allowed the play teh role of Super Voters with Super powers. They should refelect the will of the electorate. Under teh current rules, they cannot be forced to eb logical or fair, but the DNC should make it clear that Superdelegates are not expected to thwart the will of the people.
As Ari suggests, the Superdelegates should simply endorse the candidate by rubber-stamping the votes after the primary. Superdelegates left to their own devices are prone to use their vote to reward cronies, potential employers or the Establishment candidate. Any degree of protracted infighting will just hand the election to the Republicans. Then who wins?
Superdelegates (some only) are elected, but as representatives of a jurisdicti
Once upon a time, when few could read, news came via a crier, who rode into town on a horse with the "news of the day", already weeks old! Well, we read, write and otherwise communicate our POV just fine, these days. Who decided the arbitrary number of delegates needed for the nomination, anyway? Why isn't the direct vote of a majority the determining factor as to who gets our nomination? Very fishy! As to Michigan and Florida, the point of a campaign is to allow more candidates to make their positions better known to voters. If you willingly pass on campaigning and lose the vote, you can't complain. If you're willing to campaign, however, and are denied the chance, then it's just not fair.
Some voters, if they'd had the opportunity to hear all candidates, would have made different choices. Clinton's partisans might consider that she just as easily could get more, not fewer votes, than she has. The vote isn't representative of either state, so it should be redone. If that's financially impractical, then split the votes half and half in both states. That way, the state is represented, and neither candidate benefits over disputed votes. Regardless, we need to let the DNC know loud and clear that we won't stand for this! After 41 years, I will go Independent and write in my candidate, if this isn't fairly resolved!
As super Tuesday arrived, most of the candidates had quit already. Some choice! with only my least favorites remaining (of Dems). Any "Fake Independents" could still vote as Dems, thus skewing the vote whenever their November intent is a vote for Repigs. My voted choice won the state and also the popular vote of that day. I don't fit the MSM profiles; my question: can we afford to train another WH pResident of EITHER party?
I think your brother wants Obama out of the Senate because he covets Obama's Senate seat.
And I don't trust him in general.
Right on, Ari. I've forwarded a copy to my brother. He's merely a super brother but it'll ring true.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
