In a recent post, "My Father the Superdelegate, and Why There's Nothing to Fear," Donnie Fowler attempts to reassure us that when the superdelegates, most of whom "have spent the majority of their lives serving the Democratic Party," choose the Democratic nominee, they will choose, from their "perspective and wisdom," the very nominee we ought to have. "Not to worry," he says.
I'm not the only one, I expect, who will not be so easily reassured. I expect, in fact, that Fowler's post has had the unintended effect of increasing both the number of worriers and the intensity of their worry. Why?
The Democratic leadership has failed. The ratings for Congress are lower than Bush's and I've finally come, with great anger and sorrow, to agree that they ought to be. Bush is what he is: a criminal, a disaster. Many oppose him and his policies, his thuggish administration, and his venal, stupid rubber-stamp party. In fact, those in opposition (apparently a majority now) thought they were part of an opposition party. They voted for that party in the midterm elections in 2006 and they won! But despite the retaking of the House and the Senate by the opposition party, there is no real opposition, just a handful of heroes and increasingly anguished howling on the blogs. Impeachment is not only off the table, but the committee investigations that would almost certainly turn up so many smoking guns that we would be rid of this smirking pestilence have apparently all been stalled or stopped. Subpoena power! Remember when you thought that would matter? Senators Schumer and Feinstein voted to allow Mukasey's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee, so that he could be confirmed by a Democratically-controlled Senate, to theirs and its eternal shame. Mukasey had testified that Bush has the power to choose which laws he will follow and which laws he will ignore. If you had to define fascism in one sentence, you could hardly do better.
Many of us supported Kucinich, then Edwards, and now Obama in the hope not only that the greedy, mean-spirited corporatism of the right and center could be halted or reversed and that the illegal, ignorant, mismanaged war would be swiftly brought to an end, but also (and most important) that the American people, so ignorant of the Constitution and the meaning of democracy, so badly frightened by the chickenhawk demagogues and the collaborationist press, could be pulled back from the lazy, easy slide into fascism.
Mr. Fowler speaks of the lifelong commitment of these failed leaders to "the Democratic Party and its ideals." What ideals? Raising the minimum wage? Supporting public television? Voting to "authorize" George W. Bush to make war on Iraq whenever he, the unitary Decider, deemed it good strategery? Voting for the FISA extension? Voting to fund the war? Condemning the war for its botched execution ("too little, too late"), instead of denouncing it as morally and criminally wrong from the beginning? Voting for Telecom immunity? Refusing to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors, or even to investigate them? Voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, so Bush and Cheney and shock-and-awe will be ready the next time Iranian speedboats threaten our warships?
Many of us were hoping, in these primaries, to make an end run around our party's failed leadership and vote for a nominee very different from whatever candidate might, for whatever reason, receive their collective imprimatur. We think it is essential to have a progressive nominee to contest the national election with the tax-cut endless-war Republican nominee. Essential. That's what we're voting for. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the establishment corporate centrist leaders have a different plan, a different candidate, and they are arrogantly certain that we will go along with their choice (what else can we do?), so that whatever else changes it will still be, one way or another, "business as usual" in Washington, and they will all get to move up to the really good places at the same old trough, while the Republican kine begin their 4 (or 8 or 16, hooray!) lean years. They are sure that the Democratic and independent voters now galvanized and having such a good old time in the long circus of the primaries, voting for this one and that one, caucusing, watching the debates, listening to the pundits, arguing at the water-cooler, wearing buttons and sporting bumper-stickers, all those happy warriors will follow the lead of the leaders, when they have to, when the choice is between the selected super-nominee, a nominal Democrat, and the nominal Republican.
Some of us won't.
One Hundred Years in Iraq! Go For It!
The party that gets US into the mess will get US out, or destroy US in the process.
But that's just the way it's meant to be.
Why? I called him out on his conflict of interest -- he did NOT disclose in his post he had worked in the Clinton administration, though it IS in his HuffBio.
Sheesh.
Sorry, but I will not vote for Clinton. The DLC and the Clintons are slowly eroding the party. After eight more years there will be nothing left.
I'm not enjoying these fake primaries, but it is my responsibility to vote dem this 2008.
Find and support the Read Dems for your local races.
McCain has promised us more wars.
John (bomb 'em all) Bolton has been put out there as a possible Sec. Of State for McCain.
McCain's #1 advisor is Henry (The War Criminal Extraordinaire) Kissinger.
Do you really want the GOP to install another radical extremist to the Supreme Court? I know I don't.
Barack Obama 2008!
Also note the Mr. "Trust My Daddy" HIMSELF worked in the Clinton administration.
Not that there's anything wrong with that at all -- but he could have and SHOULD have disclosed that in his post.
"incumbent party leaders and elected officials."
The same DLC.ORG dems who lied to us about ending the war.
It's just more DLC.ORG bull. In 1980 when they brought the "party insider delegates" back, they picked Mondale over Hart.
The incumbent dems will go to Hillary, probably. Hillary has been the chair for the DLC, Obama has been trying to distance himself from them.
Some of us won't."
MANY of us won't.
MANY will just stay home.
MANY see how this two party thingie works.
MANY are NOT AMUSED....
"Back in the USSR, Back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are babe
To be BACK, BACK, BACK in the USSR"
Nancy of the Dancing Eyes - get ready dear.
You haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
(And I really really want to know - WHO IS THEIR 'SUGAR DADDY' - who DO they owe fealty and loyalty to?)
A new Progressive party might be very appealing to a lot of dissatisfied dems (after they stay home or vote for another party's candidate this November).
Also, this worries me:
The Three Co-Chairs of the DNC Delegate Credentials Committee All Served in Clinton Administration
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/036
It's about the Democratic primary. Remember the Democrats? The party of the people?
WE have a system. WE will honor the system.
And those who are worried about it?
I don't really get it. Why?
Think your guy won't be able to convince the Super Delegates?
Why the fear?
Perhaps you've noticed he's been pretty insulting to Democrats?
Hmmmmmm*
I've noticed it. Maybe he SHOULD worry.
Yeah, I'm not getting the hand-wringing here. Keep the rules the same. The superdelegates can back whoever they want. Ideally, the voters decide the nominee, but this year it's likely the voters will be deadlocked, and that each remaining candidate will have less than 2,025 delegates. So this year, the superdelegates' choice will mean more.
This strikes me as yet another example of the Democrats being spineless.
reference: http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegates-give-hillary-lead-on.html
I'm not sure why Democrats are now thinking of not following their own rules.
This goes beyond the fact that the Democratic candidate will be a better fit for me than the Republican candidate on policy. This is about whether or not we are going to have a representative form of government in this country or an oligarchy.
Now the super delegates need to set this right for working people who did not get a chance to vote in a primary. If the Democratic Party, that I love, is going to keep the working class members, the super delegates need to help us. Out of the two candidates left standing, Hillary represents the working class. Do it to keep the party, that I love, together.
--- What the hell are you talking about? My neighbors and fellow caucus mates are as hard working as anyone else. How dare you! Elites & pacifists? Try average people struggling to make ends meet in this f'cked economy. We are the working class and I resent your line of BS. We spent those couple of hours caucusing AFTER the day's work ended.
"Now the super delegates need to set this right for working people who did not get a chance to vote in a primary."
--- Those who vote(d) in primaries have(had) MORE of a chance to vote as the polls are open morning, afternoon, and evening. NOT SO for caucuses.
Either you're extremely ill-informed, or you're a Hillary propagandist. Which is it?
And since Clinton's race-baiting ghettoization of Obama consolidated his African American vote nationwide, but only consolidated the white vote for Clinton (and too a much lesser degree) in the Deep South, now you want to complain that Obama's overwhelming support in virtually all-white states is due to white "elites and pacifists"? Obama won the white vote in Cali and the majority of white Californians are not "elites." Cross-over Obamacan Repubs are no more "elite" than Reagan Democrats.
How can you possibly justify a call for superdelegates to go potentially against the will of those who VOTED, and argue that such defiance is a defense of the popular will? It's you who is defending elitism by encouraging superdelegates to exercise free will in Clinton's favor even if it's counter to the voting.