While I remain officially neutral in the Democratic presidential nomination race, I have been accused lately of writing nice things about Barack Obama, and not doing the same for Hillary Clinton. To tell the truth, I had been formulating an article in my mind on this subject, but I hadn't gotten very far.
Riding to my rescue was one of Huffington Post's own commenters, who not only suggested I write a pro-Hillary article, but also outlined what I should say in it. I thought the idea had merit, but instead of just swiping his idea and writing my own words around it, I offered him the opportunity to write it himself.
I don't do this very often, I should note. This is only the second time in over a year and a half I have "loaned out" my soapbox here. The first time was an article called "Rules Democrats Should Use To Take Back Congress" which is as valid today as when it was written, over a year ago. So without further ado, here is a companion piece to last week's "How Obama Could Wrap It Up" column, written by Joshua L. Eisenstein, Ph.D.
How Hillary Could Win Fair (And Lock Up The General Election Too!)
"This is about fairness." That was the first sentence of Mr. Weigant's post "How Obama Could Wrap It Up," making the case for re-votes in Florida and Michigan. The value we place on fairness goes back millennia, even to the time of King Solomon. George Washington rejected political parties altogether and only served two terms, because he understood how valuable it is to be fair. When you think about it, fairness may be the greatest bedrock American value, on which every woman and man must agree. It is a principle that goes beyond politics, and touches the core of who we as a society want ourselves to be.
Back to King Solomon for a moment: the story of his offer to "split" a baby teaches us that the real mother is the one who really cares, the one who is willing to give up what is most precious to her rather than see it destroyed. As a result, Solomon realizes she must be the real mother, and that the child is hers. Currently there is a very sharp sword that is in danger of splitting the Democratic Party. One side of the blade is the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan, and the other is the potential for "super-delegates" to overrule the majority of voting states.
On one side, Hillary Clinton seems to want her "wins" in Florida and Michigan counted exactly as they were voted. However, there was no campaign in either state. In Michigan, Hillary was the only major candidate whose name was even on the ballot. That is not fair. Meanwhile, Obama wants to stick to the party rules, even though it would effectively disenfranchise both states. Here in Florida, we Democrats are a little touchy when it comes to our votes not being counted. That is not fair either.
On the other side of the blade, super-delegates could change the outcome of the Democratic primary. Hillary currently has a commanding lead in this department. So, if Obama were to end up with a slight edge in delegates chosen by the voters, Hillary's support among party "leaders" could in effect reverse the decision of the voters. This would not be fair, would leave half the party feeling cheated, and could cost the general election. Nor is it fair for Obama supporters to decry the party rules on this issue while supporting them on the first.
It's a close race, and both campaigns are lobbying hard for every advantage they can get. Howard Dean, in his infinite wisdom, has drawn his double-edged blade and seems fully prepared to allow the nomination process and its unfair "rules" to cut the party in half. But Hillary Clinton can change that. If on the issue of delegates Hillary could deal from a position of what is fair instead of what's in her immediate self-interest, it could put her on the moral high ground that Barack seems to have monopolized thus far, and allow her to win the nomination outright, with the full support of her party behind her.
Now, Hillary Clinton is a great candidate and a great politician, not to mention a great woman, but somehow she has never been able to shake the right-wing depiction of her as the wicked queen from Snow White. I'm not foolish enough to believe that insanity, but speaking as someone who voted for Obama (for what little good it did here in Florida), her campaign is missing something. She has proven that she is willing to fight and win for the people she cares about, but her campaign has no higher theme that you can put your finger on, no person, place or deeper concept that seems more important to her than winning. If she is willing to act the part, fairness can be Hillary's theme, her identity and her ticket to the White House. The Democratic presidential nomination is a very big, very important baby, and Hillary now has an opportunity to show everyone that it is hers.
Hillary and Bill, who are masters at brokering political deals, can sheath both edges of the party rules by engineering a compromise on Michigan, Florida and the super-delegates. In secret if necessary, in public if possible, they can present Howard Dean with a proposal to meet everyone's concerns, under the mantra of "fairness above all." In this deal, Michigan and Florida would both get to re-do their votes this summer, with full primaries (not caucuses), funded by the party. This might seem costly in the short-term, but it is the fairest option, giving both candidates adequate time to campaign in the two states, and the most voters a chance to vote.
In exchange, Hillary would agree to ask her super-delegates to vote for whoever gets the majority of pledged delegates, even if that person is not her. This may seem self-sacrificing, but it's actually a bold move in a campaign that has been somewhat stagnant lately. If the idea and the public impetus to accomplish this deal comes from Hillary's camp, it will give her the power of principle that she has been missing, and the legitimacy to counter any claims by detractors in the Obama camp (or elsewhere) that she will "do anything to win." Plus, she will once again publicly prove herself to be a competent leader who solves difficult problems.
This approach would benefit Hillary fourfold:
First, the two major divisions in the Democratic primary would be solved, and she would get the bulk of the credit for solving them. You can practically hear Bill Clinton saying, "Barack talks a lot about bringing people together to find common ground, but I think Hillary is the best at actually making it happen."
Second, Hillary would get a bump at the polls in other states, and possibly even do better the second time around in Florida and Michigan than she did the first. Taking a stand on principle, even though it might potentially hurt her chances to win, would tip many voters who like both but can't decide. Ironically, such a bump could tip the balance and make certain that she wins outright.
Third, Hillary would gain the high-minded theme of fairness and wisdom that her campaign has been missing. This would energize her supporters, dominate news cycles, and destroy one of the worst criticisms of her - that she doesn't care about anything more than her ambition. Her status as a leader by example could rise immensely.
Finally, when the general election comes, both she and the Democratic Party would look pristine. Having done the right thing even at the cost of her own advantage, she could gain an even greater advantage, not just for herself but for the entire party. Having paid good money to protect voters' rights, the party would get great press for stepping up and fixing things. And they would owe their good fortune to Hillary.
In summary, standing up for fairness could prove many of Hillary's detractors dead wrong. She could no longer be cast as the wicked queen, but as the real mother from King Solomon's court, who loves the country enough that she would rather give it to someone else than see it destroyed. This could heal the party, lead the nation, and provide a much-needed boost to her own campaign. Barack, having cast himself as a man of principle, would lose the nomination 100% fairly, and have no choice but to follow Clinton's lead. This mutual sense of integrity would result in a strong coalition of both of their supporters. With a fresh new campaign theme and the whole party behind her, Hillary Clinton would become president by a landslide and give a whole new meaning to "fairest" of them all.
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Thanks, Mr. Weigant, for sharing your column with a guest.
i think this is a fantastic idea and i wish someone would bring it to her. i'm not a fan of senator clinton, but if she did this i would seriously consider voting for her. based on her performance in the campaign thus far, there is no way i could possibly vote for her. the recent shake up in her campaign makes it very obvious that she has serious issues as an executive, and it does not bode well for her potential performace as the commander-in-chief.
"An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason." - C.S. Lewis
People seem to be able to tell us how the system came about, the intentions to safeguard this from happening, or that from happening, but no one seems to be able to explain to me exactly why some 21 year old fellow American citizen's vote counts more than mine.
No, I get it, the cause of the system, but no one has successfully justified it. No one.
No one.
[New York Times, 11-Nov-2000]
"I have thought about this for a long time," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. "I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed."
She said she wanted "to be on the side of the democratic process working," and so would support the effort to establish direct presidential elections.
"I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E2D81538F932A25752C1A9669C8B63
I just did a search for bills sponsored/co-sponsored by Senator Clinton to see if any dealt with the Electoral College.
In her 7 years as the Junior Senator from New York, she has not sponsored one piece of legislation to that would alter the Electoral College process of electing a President.
Jason -
I just did a search for bills sponsored/co-sponsored by Senator Clinton to see if any dealt with the Electoral College.
In her 7 years as the Junior Senator from New York, she has not sponsored one piece of legislation to that would alter the Electoral College process of electing a President.
(adding this now at 1:12 am)
In that exact article you provide the link to on the NY Times - "She pledged to be a co-sponsor of legislation that would provide for the direct election of the president and vice president."
Is this an example of "All hat and no cattle" she talked about in El Paso Tuesday night?
Equating the issues of FL and MI and the superdelegates is not logical.
They are seperate, unrelated, distinct.
Obama didn't do anything to disenfranchise voters in FL or MI... it was the state party leaders.
If voters are upset, don't look to the candidates or the DNC... the decision was made closer to home, and as far as I know, people in other states have no say in who got those jobs. FL and MI, you hired em, you fire em. Turning back the clock to fix your own mistakes while blaming others, and then complaining about fairness is a JOKE.
Would it be fair to count the votes as they stand now? Maybe for Michigan and Florida - but what about all of the other states that followed the rules. If rules are ignored for these 2 states - then the rules will mean nothing in 2012 and the whole nomination process will see even more states jumping the gun, moving around and trying to "gain" relevance.
The rules stated - do not put your election before February 5th. The results of those contests shouldn't be allowed.
The rules stated - superdelegates matter. Obama supporters have no position to ask for the scuttling of superdelegates.
The whole nomination process does need to be reviewed and revamped. But the rules for this election were already agreed upon and have been in play ... let's not change the rules in the middle of the process. Let's sit down after this election and bring a process (which was devised pre-cable, pre-internet) to the people that is contemporary and flexible for the future.
BTW - should it be decided these states may hold new contests (whether primary or caucus) - it should be on those state party's dimes. Not the National Committee. Again - they were the ones that broke the rules - they need to pay their fine to make amends.
I completely agree that all things should be fair (Lord, I wish all things were fair in this world).
And should Hillary even OFFER this opportunity - it would help her cause greatly. It would show the want of fairness in the process: Hold a new contest and whatever way the votes go, the votes go. I would definitely hold a higher regard for her would she come forth with this position.
I also believe that Barack could do the same by saying - "look, though I was not on the ballot in Michigan, let those votes count in Michigan and Florida. Let those votes count. And let those superdelegates vote as they want. It is their choice - not mine."
The problem is - these decisions aren't in either of their hands. It's not really in Dean's hands. In the case of the elections held in those states - It's in the hands of the state Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan. In the case of superdelegates - it's in the DNC's rules and credentials committees.
The state Democratic parties were told what would occur should they break the rules. They went forward, anyway. They broke the rules full knowing they wouldn't be counted. In Michigan, the Democratic Party has legislative control and still they broke the rules. In Florida - they don't - however, if you look at their votes cast on this issue - you will see that they overwhelmingly backed this election date move. They weren't unwilling participants. They were active in their support of this move.
Everyone is directing their anger and frustration at the wrong people. The state parties are to blame. If you are miffed that your state won't be seated at the convention (or in the case of Republicans - only half of your delegates) - then you need to direct your anger and your resolve to the people who broke the rules - your state party. Not the national committees, not the chairpersons, not the candidates - the state parties.
(CONTINUED - SORRY - I'M KNOWN TO BE LONG WINDED)
I'm in Pennsylvania, too, and I agree with you. Clinton will not win here. All the old stories equating central Pennsylvania to Alabam are all too true but this year it's different. Obama will carry this state from border to border.
Whatever the result, the nomination would then be given to Al Gore.
And what would be the moral lesson of this fable? Damned if I know, but Mike Huckabee probably would.
Which is exactly why it will not happen.
Because we're not.
Rescind, reject, I don't know what the proper verb is, all I know is the system is un-democratic, elitist, and all the tears in the world shed by any proponent of said system are wasted. If you truly care about this country, you will not partake of such inequitable practices.
Hillary seems desperate now, calculating each and every delegate vote and superdelegate vote, soliciting them on the phone, trying to pry the nomination from her opponents grasp. This election is an important one, Ms. Clinton, and trying to manipulate the electorate with such meticulous fervor is reminiscent of the tactics pachyderms across the aisle.
You want to be loved by the people, stop trying to pander to them. Stop trying to be something you're not, weeping for the cameras at just the right moment. We don't want a puppet.
Both candidates should rescind their super delegate status regardless. Not as a ploy, but because its the right thing to do. And Ms. Clinton, instead of this ceaseless calculation mentality, remove the targeting scope, and rely on the power of the force for a change to blow up the death star. We want to see true faith, not in yourself, or your husband, but in the American people. Thats the difference between you and Mr. Obama. He trusts us, you don't.
Obama showed up. And though the Reid Repub-lites rolled over for Bush again, Obama did not roll.
This is the decider for me. I will take the vote I had wanted to cast for Edwards and give it to Obama, instead.
Bytheway, I'm in Pennsylvania. Clinton will not win here.