At the end, it is TRUTH the Nation wants!
Yes, at the end only TRUTH stands - for peace, for harmony, for hope, FOR ALL...
"Without truth I know not how man can live."
Now let's see how much TRUTH America wants...
Clinton stands for SELF, self-pity, self-absorption, narcissism, "me"-winning...
McCain stands for LOYALTY, his belief, his people, his ideals, "us"-winning...
Obama stands for TRUTH, intellectual truth, compassion truth, UNIVERSAL TRUTH, truth for all...
So be it that the youth sees HOPE in TRUTH...
"Live the change you want to see in the world."
"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed."
"A nation's culture resides in the hearts and in the soul of its people."
GO! OBAMA, TRUTH IS THE NATION, THE WORLD, THE HOPE!
Democrats' Prolonged Contest Raises Specter of Backroom Deal
On Super Tuesday, Howard Dean expressed his concern that carrying on the nominating fight to the Mile High city in late August would be a disaster for the Democratic party, stating that "if we don't [have a nominee by mid-March or April], then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention, that would not be good news for either party." I assume that by "either party" he means Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, because it would be great news for the Grand Old Party.
So, yesterday, with the results of Tuesday too close and the final delegate count too open to interpretation to produce any unequivocal winner, Dean found himself even closer to that dreaded scenario of a political cat's game. One wonders if Dean was (and still is) secretly hoping that one of the candidates either implodes or comes close to running the table. For the sake of the party, of course.
The idea of a brokered convention, or even the sort of deal-cutting session that Dean envisioned, is an nightmare scenario for the health of the party going into the general election. Ask any Obama or Clinton stalwart, and the notion that a back-room deal (even if both candidates are in that back room) could fairly and democratically pick the Democratic standard-bearer is likely to send them into conniptions. Just imagine what that would look like -- Dean playing the ostensibly neutral mediator while the Clinton and Obama teams silently stare each other down for a good half hour before storming out. No doubt, either candidate's constituency could more easily accept a general election candidate who "beat" their own candidate the old fashioned way, by racking up enough delegates to the point where the other has to graciously concede.
But what if the candidates really did have to sit down together in a calm, relaxed setting (I would suggest piping in some soothing ocean sounds over the speakers) and come to an arrangement for the betterment of the party? What would happen? The arguments on both sides aren't too hard to predict, and much of the discussion and leverage would depend on each candidate's performance in the upcoming caucuses and primaries. Without a public audience you probably (and mercifully) wouldn't hear quite the same amount of demagoguery about "experience," "change," and "vettedness."
Rather, there would (or at least should) be a greater discussion of objective indicators of who would make the best candidate for the party. For instance, arguments that Hillary Clinton is owed something by the party (or perhaps it would be Bill arguing that it is he who's owed), that her longer Senatorial service, or her age would militate in favor of choosing her are not the sort of dispassionate arguments that would be needed. Similarly, any arguments by Obama that the Clinton family has already had their time in the spotlight, that the nation is hunkering for the change that only he can bring, or that he is a uniter are too loaded and not quantifiable enough. Nor should the argument that "I won't accept the Vice Presidency" carry any water whatsoever. It's such an obstinate and selfish position that the candidate who actually makes that case should be made to go sit in a corner and think about what they just said.
Rather the types of arguments needed would be more objectively measurable. For two campaigns so heavily dependent on polling and metrics, this would seem a more judicious route to resolution. With these baselines in mind, here is a list of what would be a more proper set of criteria for selecting the nominee:
- Who polls better against the Republican nominee nationally and specifically in swing states? Get out the electoral map, average together a dozen or so polls with much larger-than-normal sample sizes, and crunch the numbers.
- Who would be the best candidate for other Democratic candidates to have running at the top of the ticket? In other words, in hotly contested Congressional District X, would the Democratic candidate for that seat do better running alongside Senator Obama or Senator Clinton on the ballot?
- Which campaign has more money in its coffers? Is the difference significant enough to give one candidate an advantage? As much money as has been raised thus far, nearly as much has been spent, and the DNC will have no shortage of contested races (other than the presidency) that need cash infusions.
By getting this far, both candidates have earned the right to be the Democratic nominee. Should this contest go to extra innings, though, there will have to be a set of objective criteria laid down by the DNC, and applied by a transparent system that preserves as much of the public trust as possible. Superdelegates are too much a relic of a bygone era of politics, and simply won't do. But in the meantime, let's hope that someone just runs away with it. That, I could accept.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
Edwards stood for me, the little guy, who wants more than just fancy catch phrases and campaign slogans. Where's the Beef?
A John Edwards Democrat!
I like 1 & half million Floridian who put in the time and effort to vote(not poll) want our v ote to count,we are tax paying citizens.
All the candidates names were on ballet.To my knowledge Obama was the only one to run an ad here.
What is the issue here? This is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY picking a candidate. It SHOULD BE a back room process--consider the popular vote, but only as a measure of how the general election will go.
Too many confuse a democractic process with what IS party politics.
Hillary's background taught her to win at all costs. Its sad, but this little girl was taught to develop an iron skin. The passionate support of her opponent by so many who served in the Clinton White House is a real warning. The baggage, the decision to recklessly expose the Democratic Party to Bill's "problem" even after knowing about Gart Hart's scandal...the arrogance of the Health Care fight..this is NOT a TEAM PLAYER. I don't want to see the light go out of my son's eyes. The answer to the three questions is OBAMA If Edwards were willing to be the voice of the middle class as VP it would be a team that would electrify the country. Edwards as the next in line might keep Obama safe. Of course it would be more exciting to unleash Edwards on all the corporate greedmongers as the next ATTORNEY GENERAL!!
Yet another poll needed...The question, who would support a team and who should be "team leader"
At least with a early pick of a team they can pool assets and save the cash for November election giving them a head start.
I personally would vote for either combination as a team while welcoming the absence of any more inter-party jabs.
The contest between Hilary and Obama is not about how they voted on Iraq. The election will not be about that at all. The election will be about the very survival of the Nation! We are regarded already as a Third World nation by many nations! Our dollar is becoming worthless by the day. The Middle East is soon to link oil to the euro. America will at that point become a second class economic powe, never to raise again! This is what the next election must correct, not the bickering about "who did what"!!
At the risk of repeating myself, I propose that the State of Michigan run another primary contest that has both Obama and Clinton on the ballot. Giving the people of Michigan an honest voice in this would be the right thing to do and it may also avoid the train wreck of a convention in August.
EngineerBill, why is that the right thing to do?
I believe the right thing to do is to abide by the rules they set up. The people of Michigan and Florida had an honest opportunity to oppose the Democratic party rules, if it mattered to them. They had an honest opportunity to vote.
this train wreck can be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I live in Florida and I just spent this afternoon tallying up the votes that were cast and COUNTED. In an election that included a vote to change our property tax system, out of the people that cast ballots, only 2% of thoses votes show not counted. For the presidential vote, the non-counted votes added up to anywhere between 14.8% - 33%!! People went to the polls, but AGAIN the corruption in our election process has caused several hundred thousand votes from NOT being counted. America, wake up, the elections are always fixed. The only thing these corrupt politicians want from us is our money. This government disgusts me! If the economy and the war is the issue (80% want out of the war), how can any American in their right mind vote for McCain or Hillary! We should have paper ballots with receipts and the winner should have to win the popular vote, period! Until we take back our goverment, we're all screwed.
I have a better idea than all of the above. If neither candidate has sufficient delegates at the end of this nauseating process, then the party should mandate a general, national election in late June. The outcome should determine the candidate, even if it comes down to a single vote! No delegates, no proportional split-up by state, no BS!
Hopefully, the Democratic Party will learn from this and opt for a national primary next time. This state-by-state debacle is ridiculous. It reminds me of nothing so much as an episode of "Survivor", or worse, "American Idol" and trivializes the outcome. We, not party Grand Poo-bahs, should be henceforth allowed the privilege of electing the party's candidates.
hey katzenmom, your proposal is terrible for democracy. without a gradual state by state campaign, any lesser known, less rich, less funded candidate wouldn't stand a chance. The cost of a national campaign is astronomical and will always favor the better-known establishment incumbent. Starting off in small states where even underfunded candidates can compete is the only hope for keeping any semblance of actual democracy going in the country.
That's it! Our political "game" is Reality TV.
The whole thing was trivialized in the summer of 2007 when CNN and MSBS wouldn't cover ALL the candidates in the race at that time. We've been hoodwinked - and hold on, there's more to come.
CONTEST ?? PROLONGED ?
THIS IS AMERICA'S FUTURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
Obama DOESN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY AND AVOIDS THE HARD VOTES BY ANNOUNCING PRESENT.
HE HAS SORENSON ( JFK'S SPEECHWRITER ) SO HE SPEAKS WELL ENOUGH.
OBAMA belongs to a church that admires
Farrakhan's dream. Farrakhan has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all.
HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE !!! What is wrong with America they can't see thru anything.
jammb Great post. But nobody believes what you say. You are right--America can't see through this fairy tale.
"Backroom Deals" sounds so sleazy and who better to push the sleaze than the DLC- Democratic Leadership Council? Nathaniel, I'm surprized you didn't even mention the DLC.
Those spineless milk-toast Centrists will do anything to put the kabosh on any sort of the Progressive Populism that brought the Demos back in 2006 and made Obama so popular. I wouldn't put it past the DLC/Clinton/Carville posse to "Swift Boat" Obama. It could get ugly.
First the supreme court in Florida threw out my vote in 2000, then Gov. Dean did by stripping Florida of it's delegates. If the elected party hacks pick my candidate and not the American people, I am afraid the Democratic party will simply implode. I for one will become an independent.
This angst over a brokered convention is really getting too much air space. So what if there's a convention fight? This has happened before and after it's all over and a candidate prevails everyone licks their wounds for a few weeks. They'll get over it. Most of the writers on this site have Obama bias and would love Hillary to step aside for "the good of the party." These folks want to move the party much more left, a disastrous move for the general election. It's not as if the Republicans are in such great shape. They have plenty of their own stuff to work out.
When ever there is politics involved there is a back room deal involved! Politics has not involved out in the open antics in many years. Will Mitt end up as Vice pres? By brokering a deal to drop his run for a better deal, is that why it happened? McCain like Hillary is unelectable MCcain because he is too old to get the young vote, and Hillary because of too many lobbyists skeletons in her closet. That unfortunatly leaves Obama, and the Noneoftheabove.
There is only one way to have a united party in the fall, and that is with a ticket that includes both of them.
Whoever gets the most delegates by primary vote, or whichever gets the most popular votes , gets to be at the top of the ticket. No super delegates, no backroom deals, no do overs.
Howard Dean and the Democrats have really f-ed up the party.
I am one Democrat who will not settle for a backroom deal. If the superdelegates have to decide this, I'm like Donna Brazile - I'm out of this party.
I am so disappointed that the democratic party is being taken over again by the wing of elites and pacifists.
I don't want Obama on the ticket at all. Look, alot of old people like me would feel safer with McCain having the red button than Obama. Hillary is my first choice for having the red button. It is all about making us feel safe.
There is little chance Obama could beat McCain. There is a reason the media and republicans are pushing the idea that Hillary has too many negatives - they don't want to have to run against Hillary. They know they can beat Obama because of old people like me.
So Obama saying he can get my vote is a bunch of whoee.
So you would rather have the "Manchurian Candidate s" finger on the button, eh? I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't. I don't think that man is entirely there mentally. Besides that he's a fake. During the last several years of Bushes Presidency, McCain would pretend to disagree over some issue only to cave in afterward. I personally he wanted to give the appearance of being a Maverick within the party in order to build up his resume for precisely this event. He's a fake and unbalanced.
'scuse me, but what makes you so comfortable about Hillary's hand on the red button? She went along spinelessly with Iraq and even that warmongering resolution against Iran. You like this war in Iraq well enough to live with it while the needless casualties pile up for the rest of your life? Well you and John McCain can star in some gunslinger movie, and Hillary can play Miss Kitty. Me, I'm with Obama who got it right from the start.
Loading comments…
Posted February 7, 2008 | 06:47 AM (EST)