Putting All of Your Eggs in One Basket

A funny thing happened on the way to the primaries: I became bewitched, bothered and bewildered. Mostly bothered.

As I watched the Democratic National Committee play their little game over seating the delegates and counting the votes of Michigan and Florida I could feel those states sliding into the hands of the Republicans.

A committee does not bullwhip the voters that cast their ballots in all honesty expecting them to be counted and not expect some kind of repercussions. The Republicans I know were ecstatic to see Democrats punishing their own. "You can chalk up Michigan and Florida to John McCain," said one Republican.

The one good thing that has come out of this year's primary elections is that those of us living out here in the hinterlands of South Dakota get to cast our votes tomorrow knowing that for the first time in decades, they will make a difference.

The other good thing was that for the first time as far back as I can recall, a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, visited the Pine Ridge Reservation and actually stopped off in my hometown of Kyle, the heart of this large Indian reservation. The Clintons realized that the Indian vote could make the difference and Bill and Chelsea visited some of the other Indian reservations in the state. Barack Obama did not stop at any of the Indian reservations.

It bothers me to see several tribal presidents and chairman from across America endorsing presidential candidates, particularly if those candidates are United States Senators. There will be bills crossing their desks in the not too distant future that will have ramifications for the Indian people and I would assume that it is in the best interests of the tribal leaders not to alienate those senators. At this stage in Indian history tribal leaders need all of the friends they can muster in the House and the Senate because they certainly have very few on the United States Supreme Court.

I am also bothered by the processes that led to the way the primary elections are held. I think that a caucus is a terrible way to choose a candidate. I think an election that counts the votes of all of the electorates should be the order of the day. A vote should be cast in secret as was intended. It is too easy for voters to be intimidated in an open caucus.

Instead of divvying up the number of delegates by way of percentages I believe that it should be a winner take all process as it is in the Republican primaries. We would not be in a position of not having a nominee for the Democratic Party this late in the game if this procedure was the rule.

And I am really sick and tired of the talking heads on television interpreting for me what I have just witnessed. I can make up my own mind. Maybe I have been living in wonderland all of these years but I cannot recall a time in my political life when I was so disgusted with the way news anchors and reporters expressed such bias for any political candidate. People I used to admire as news analysts have lost not only my admiration but have earned my condemnation. And news networks I used to watch have lost my viewership and earned my disdain. Networks I never watched, Fox News for one, have proven to be much, much more objective than say MSNBC. The talking pundits on MSNBC have actually become cheerleaders for their favorite candidates. Fair and balanced? Let's give that motto back to Fox News because it has truly earned it.

What about these so-called Super-delegates? Again, and perhaps I am really politically naïve, I have never heard of such a potent force that operates behind the curtains of Democratic politics. Why do we need these people? Once again it smacks of a voting bloc that would intercede and negate the will of the people based upon their own political choices. After all of the votes have been cast do these Super-delegates actually have the power to overrule my vote?

For those elected tribal leaders so eager to jump on political bandwagons, let me insert the name of John McCain here. Please recall that McCain served on the old Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and spent many hours protecting the rights of the Indian people. When he resigned from that Committee he wrote an editorial for my then newspaper, Indian Country Today, to explain why he was resigning. Coming from a state with a very large Indian population, Arizona, McCain is acutely aware of the many problems in Indian country as he has witnessed them firsthand.

All I am saying is it is not wise to put all of your eggs in one basket because there are alternatives. I honestly hope that funnier things do not happen on the way to the General Elections in November.

Comments

[NDNlady]

Mr. Giago, again I appreciate your support for the Cherokee against the legislative attacks from the CBC, but I have to disagree with much of this article. Yes, Hillary Clinton went to Pine Ridge, just like her husband did. But tell me, did she proudly inspect the many improvements brought about by the promises he made at that time? Or was it deja vu all over again.

Hillary went to Pine Ridge. Barak Obama went to the Crow Reservation. But Barak has already gone a lot further than a token visit to the rez. If you go to his website, you will find a detailed policy page on his stand on Indian issues. You will not find a word about native people on the other candidates sites. He has a thirty member tribal policy group on his campaign staff with some very sharp minds on board. And most of all, he has already put his money where his mouth is by standing up to the CBC and stating that he does not support legislative assaults on tribal rights to self-government.

In my opinion, America cannot afford any Bush Jr's. Much less Indian Country. John McCain offers no real change from eight years of a disastrous domestic and foreign policy. I believe Barak Obama does. Just my opinion, but alot of Indian people feel the same way.

[Podcast]

Digoweli:

Not too many Americans know that it was Nixon who passed Public Law 93-738, the Indian Education and Self-Determination Act that gave back the rights to self-government to the Indian people. Nor do they know that he was responsible for returning the Sacred Blue Lake to the people of the Taos Pueblo against the anger and hate of the white ranchers. I guess that Native Americans do deserve this kind ot treatment from Republicans. Liberals have probably done more harm to the Native Americans than good. Tim

[tbone99]

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has stated his opposition to H.R. 2824, an attempt by his fellow Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) to sever government-to-government relations with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma because of an on-going dispute between the tribe and the "Cherokee Freedmen."

[jvarga]

"A committee does not bullwhip the voters that cast their ballots in all honesty expecting them to be counted and not expect some kind of repercussions."

You make it sound like the DNC made this decision after the primaries took place. In case you didn't realize it, this decision was made before the primaries began. If the voters expected their votes to count then perhaps they should be slightly more involved in politics.

[kath1]

What I see is that the people's votes don't matter.. delegates.what a joke..we the people- are the majority, it always get forgotten..we don't need a small handful of people to make the voting choices for us..we do not need red states ..blues states-that is another way of pulling us apart(go team go want to be part of the winning team mentality)..i feel there is nothing to gain by voting..they all smell the same to me..

[wheresthebeef]

McCain and Obama are "all the same" to you? Maybe you should stop sleeping in class.

[Reaniel]

Mr. Giago,

While I do think HuffPo blog entries should be more lax compare the editorials of major newspapers... you should still always post facts instead of "what you think is true".

"Barack Obama did not stop at any of the Indian reservations."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_el_pr/courting_american_indians_2

I guess either you have selective vision on seeing the best of Hillary while ignoring any good from Obama, or that you saw right through the stunt double Barack Obama had filling in for him at the Montana reservation.

[digoweli]

Well, Reaniel,

All Indians are not the same and so stopping at the Crow reservation in Montana is definitely not the same as stopping at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Not in any way. A little history is in order for you before you make such judgments. Some sensitivity would help America in the eyes of the world who seems to know more about Native Americans, their histories, grudges and differences than the average American. It's embarrassing. Digoweli

[Reaniel]

Your logic of moving the goal post is really astounding. You are literally saying that the statement is right when it is wrong from the outset.

Mr. Giago's statement was one that tries to say Obama doesn't care for Native Americans and didn't try to court them, which is totally untrue. Yet you're making an argument that has nothing to do with this merit of this statement at all.

Tribes are all different, but when a blog post (such as this one) is talking in the context of seeing them as a whole, it is imperative to disscuss it in the same context.

In an attempt to justify a false statement, you're wandering way off the road.

History has nothing to do with what I've wrote, as this wasn't one about history. Mr. Giago didn't say "Obama failed to woo any of the South Dakoda tribes" or "Obama didn't talk to the Oglala Sioux tribe in particular", but "Barack Obama did not stop at any of the Indian reservations".

Get your fact straight before running your mouth or calling someone insensitive.

[Podcast]

Reaniel

Since I was talking about South Dakota, I meant the Obama did not travel to any of the Indian reservations in this state. Sorry you misread it. Tim

[twgbonehead]

Is it just me, or have we really slipped into the twilight zone here? So many blogs on this decision, and each one more bizarre than the last?

Floridians are going to vote Republican because they were disenfranchised by the dems? Despite the facts that:

a) Both the R's and D's imposed the same delegate penalty. (Not that you'd know this if you went to the NYTimes site, which mentions this for the D's, but not the R's)

b) McCain got ALL of Florida's delegates, despite winning only 36% of the vote. This is due to the "Winner-take-all" rule decided on by the (R)'s. The other 64% of Florida (R) voters got 0 delegates for the candidate they chose. For the D's, it's at least proportional, and 83% of the (D) voters got a delegate representing them, still, at this stage of the game.

And, of all people, you chose Indian Tribal Leaders to single out as those who shouldn't support specific candidates????????????????????? WTF???????????????

And, after far too much effort, I have to conclude that the "eggs in one basket" title has nothing to do with the first half of your post, but instead is basically a threat that any group that endorses one candidate should expect to get totally hosed in their treatment from Washington if the endorsed candidate loses? Yes, in Bush/Bush/Regan America, that's been true, but that's not the way it's supposed to be.

[Michale32086]

"A committee does not bullwhip the voters that cast their ballots in all honesty expecting them to be counted and not expect some kind of repercussions."

Why did those voters expect their votes to be counted??

"I think that a caucus is a terrible way to choose a candidate."

OK, that's kewl... But the time to complain about that is BEFORE the contest starts. Wouldn't you agree??

On the other hand, caucuses seemed to be perfectly OK for Bill Clinton in his previous runs, eh??

"And I am really sick and tired of the talking heads on television interpreting for me what I have just witnessed. I can make up my own mind."

I agree. That's why I watched the raw feed without any commentary. And what I saw is the Clinton camp being petulant and vulgar. They did extreme dishonor to Clinton..

"What about these so-called Super-delegates? Again, and perhaps I am really politically naïve, I have never heard of such a potent force that operates behind the curtains of Democratic politics. Why do we need these people?"

Uhh.... Imagine how this primary would be WITHOUT the SDs.... You get to the end of the primary and NO WINNER... Then you go to the convention and have a brutal and bloody slugfest and then go on to lose the General...

Michale.....

[ObserverinVancouver]

When the voters of MI and FL voted, they knew the DNC had ruled that they would seat zero delegates from both states.

[burnt]

Hi Tim, You've got a litany of issues that you discuss. Sounds like you just wanted to get "stuff" off your chest... and that's okay. I'll speak directly to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting to which you referred, as it was tops on your list.

First, you didn't offer any alternative scenario. Where you suggesting that the Committee should not have met, or that they should have reached a different conclusion? All you did was criticize their decision to do what they had previously told the states that they would do.

"The Republicans I know were ecstatic to see Democrats punishing their own."

The Republican Party did the same thing for the violations. FL & MI Republican delegates will each have a half vote voice. People seem to forget that the primaries are not really a democratic process. The political parties are in essence "owned". Courts have upheld the Parties' contention that they can do whatever they wish with them... including downplaying democratic processes. You can influence the next cycle by contacting the DNC with your suggestions for change, however. I can think of many ways the primaries could be more fair and democratic.

Here's the point that you don't want others to interpret for you... She lost. She lost a long time ago. She did it to herself. The DNC did not cause her loss. You can make any other conclusion, but it would be delusional.

[DJShay]

So says a Clinton supporter. Fox news? Really? Do you really think it's fair and balanced to continually push the Obama "muslim smear"? Why don't you take a step back and look at it through the eyes of an Obama supporter. I will give you that MSNBC is pro Obama and I think it does a disservice to his campaign, but Fox news is fair and balanced? Give me a break.

[Michale32086]

It's actually the Twilight Zone over at Pro Clinton sites like TM et al..

People over there are begging a GOP Senator to hold hearings into the DNCs actions. What laws have been broken is never really established.

Others are praising FNC and people like Hannity and O'Reilly.

And the coup de grace?? Hillary et al using Karl Rove's polling data to justify her continued presence in the primary..

It's really a fascinating study in blatant hypocrisy. Made even MORE fascinating by the Clinton Camp's complete obliviousness to the hypocrisy...

I won't even mention the Clintonista's support of a 3rd Party run a'la Lieberman. A move that they utterly castigated in Lieberman but encourage and support in Clinton.

Go figure...

Michale.....

[RabidRightRebel]

I am not sure what you are suggesting but if it is that the Democrats should run two candidates all I can say is the right wing blogs can be found on another site.

Further if you think that the Repubicans care more about native Americans than the Democrats you have deserve mistreatment that you get from them.

[digoweli]

The Clintons were reasonable for Native Americans but like for the Arts, the man who has done the most recently for Native Americans was that old scalawag Richard Nixon. He had a great fear about his place in history so he supported native causes and the Arts. Much more than Carter or Clinton although the Democrats have been reasonable in the Congress. I say that as a fourth generation Democrat but I won't lie about the way our party has ignored the poverty in places like South Dakota. Thanks for a sensitively written article although I disagree completely about Fox. It's a rag as well.

Digoweli