My greatest concern all along with the issues of seating or not seating the Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida and with the now probably decisive role of "superdelegates" in the convention has not been about procedure in the primaries but about the outcome in the general election.
Kerry won Michigan by just 3% of the popular vote -- less than a 2% swing would've given those 17 electoral votes to the Republican -- and Bush won Florida by just 5% of the popular vote -- less than a 3% swing would've given those 27 electoral votes to the Democrat.
Although I hope Sen. Obama's calls for unifying the country are heeded, we have, of course, been living in a very divided nation for years now; and presidential elections are won or lost on the outcomes in such swing states as Michigan and Florida. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the national party's decision to not seat the delegates from those states, such actions are, only naturally, taken as a sign of disrespect, certainly not respect, by the rank-and-file Democratic voters in those states -- who were not the state party leaders directly involved in the conflict with the DNC.
If that sense of being "dissed" were to result in even a few percentage points of lower turnout in the general election -- and I doubt voters who felt disenfranchised by their own party in such a historic election would be more likely to turn out to vote or to encourage others, including independents, to turn out to vote Democratic -- then it could, of course, swing the entire general election.
Despite what some seem to think, it is not inevitable that Sen. McCain will lose, no matter how psychotic his lust for war or how cozy he is with big business. Indeed, hearing repeated ad nauseam in the media that he is not fully embraced by the most extreme elements within his own party because he is too "moderate" only further cements his already strong emotional ties with many independents, who frankly must be given very convincing reasons not to vote for their war hero.
Perhaps the insanity of the bloodshed in Iraq and the economic hemorrhaging of households here at home will keep it from being a close general election (even too close for Diebold et al. to effect). But given the history of recent presidential elections that we should have won and won convincingly but didn't, every single vote will surely be vital. And it thus has given me great cause for concern that the Democratic voters at large in the swing states of Florida and, particularly, Michigan must only naturally be feeling disenfranchised, disrespected, and discouraged by their own party leaders -- a wound that will be re-opened up to and during the convention, particularly if this neck-and-neck Obama/Clinton horserace continues.
Then toss in the controversy about whether the will of "superdelegates" will be held superior to the votes of the rank-and-file nationwide -- yet another "life or death" advantage or disadvantage for the Obama and Clinton camps to fight over -- then I can more fully appreciate the warning that Chairman Dean has given and Democrats at large are voicing.
It seems to me that the best we can do at this point is to not change the rules after the "game" has begun -- not giving one candidate an unfair advantage, even though the party will thus potentially alienate Democratic voters in key states (who thus must not be taken for granted) -- but then to encourage the superdelegates to fully consider the impact of their choices upon the feelings of the Democratic voters at large, who elect many of them to office and who will ultimately decide whether or not our presidential nominee will get enough votes in the general election to overcome a more formidable opponent than many consider him to be.
In short, Democrats need to play by the rules and be democratic; that is, not become what we are striving to overcome.
http://www.douglasdrenkow.com
Doug Drenkow is a writer, editor, webmaster, and producer. A fourth-generation Democrat, Doug has produced the political talk shows "Barry Gordon From Left Field," on radio, and "NewsRap with Barry Gordon," on cable TV, featuring top progressive guests in the nation. Having met his wife through the Internet, Doug is a big believer in the power of new media!
Doug Drenkow's progressive political commentaries have appeared in print, on radio and TV, and online -- as in OpEdNews, DailyKos, BuzzFlash, UPI, and BBC News Worldwide.
Democrats might take back the White House if we can avoid another 911. I am worried about what Democrats might do with their shot at it. No matter how you cut it, Obama will beat Hilary on the issue of "change" at a time when "change" of any sort seems preferable to quagmire, arrogance and war. Americans are reduced to voting against what they don't want as opposed to voting FOR what they do want.
On the bright side, the GOP has it even worse. Mitt Romeny tried to resurrect Reagan and learned to his chagrin that Reagan was still dead. Giuliani had earlier learned that 911 didn't summon up warm fuzzies for him among the GOP. Now --John McCain is ludicrously thought to be 'liberal' by goppers who are to the right of Attila. If he moves to right in order to gain the nomination, he would most certainly lose the general.
As Nader learned several years ago: it's not easy being green. Today, the GOP has learned it's not easy being 'right'. The Democrats have learned it's not easy being named "Clinton".
Thanks for your great article, Doug. I might add that given what this nation has been through it's not easy being sane. But you've proven that it is still possible with another brilliant piece. Keep up the great work!
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 172 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 3:57:06 PM
As always, you're a gentleman and a scholar, my cosmopolitan friend. You keep up your good work, too!
I ultimately have faith in the common sense of the American people, to whom all our leaders must ultimately answer (even though we "unwashed masses" do occasionally blow it bigtime). That's what being a democratic Democrat is all about to me.
by
Douglas Drenkow (35 articles, 353 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Friday, February 15, 2008 at 5:10:18 PM
You can't just ignore the rules and seat delegates based on primaries that were stated by the national Party beforehand as being illegitimate, and for which they forbid candidates to campaign. These were not fair elections, and the candidate who tried to do a little campaigning without triggering the campaign ban should not benefit.
But we also have to recognize some other things. One is that the rules are basically nonsensical, and not always enforced. Secondly, the voters themselves did nothing wrong, so it is clearly unfair to disenfranchise them because the state Party leadership gambled and lost. It's the leadership that blew it; it's not fair to punish the rank and file voter.
So what's the way out? Offer the state Parties a chance to hold a legitimate primary, caucus or convention to select delegates who would be seated. Require at least 30 days notice so there is time for the campaigns to adjust to the change in schedule, and for the voters to consider their options.
And if the state parties refuse the offer, refuse to recognize them as representing the state parties anymore. By refusing to allow Party members in their state to participate in the Presidential nominating process, they will have abdicated any right to be considered the leaders of their parties. Put the state parties into receivership, and have the national Party run a process to allow the voters to participate, and a process to select new state Party leaders.
by
Bill Samuel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 277 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 8:26:03 AM
Bill, I must confess that I didn't follow the rules fight between the state and national Democratic parties that closely when it was happening: I just couldn't believe that it would end up the way it did, disenfranchising, as you say, all those voters in those very competitive states. But of course, that's exactly what happened.
Since I didn't follow the fight closely enough, I cannot say who was right and who was wrong; although since I have more contacts with DNC members than state leaders in Michigan or Florida, I've gotten mostly pro-national info, so I tend to believe that the state leaders shouldn't have been so insistent upon such early primaries.
Regardless, as you say, the voters at large in those states should not be made to suffer. Your ideas make a lot of sense to me, although I seem to remember someone else recently suggesting the same sort of thing but confronting some strong opposition. I'd like to hear what objections there would be to new primaries or caucuses -- one thing I can think of is that this time around it might favor Obama since he's got more money to tap into now -- but ultimately, I think the rights of the voters to have their voices heard would trump pretty much any other argument.
After all, elections are supposed to be about the will of the people, not the convenience or other concerns of candidates or parties: the latter exist to serve the former, not vice versa.
That's a big reason I like Obama: He continually emphasizes that this campaign is not about him; it's about us. Only the people can make change happen. Yes, it takes good leadership; but the citizens at large do indeed have the power -- with our votes at the ballot box and our dollars at the cash register -- to make things happen, for better or worse.
I'm just happy to hear a politician acknowledge that. And unless I hear a powerful argument otherwise, I would strongly support your ideas, to re-enfranchise the voters in Michigan and Florida, even if those weren't such key states for the general election.
Thanks for the great, thoughtful feedback, Bill!
by
Douglas Drenkow (35 articles, 353 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 12:00:52 PM
Democrats always drive the get away car for the crooks.
The Democrats have never been an agent for change. They have just been able to play the good cops in contrast to the bad cops. They have never been a friend to the average American because they are just as exclusive and they are in league with the Republicans. The only real difference is that they have read a book or two, and they are not knife wielding psychotics.
I donated $1000 to Kerry for damage control, and he took my money and went wind surfing with it. That is the way useless rich people act.
Support this media site and many others. Support organizations that have the black hatred and fighting spirit to kick out all of the crooks and their crookism system.
Sure, I'll always vote for Democrats, but you don't have to like them or believe any of their moralizing to use them in the endless fight against Republican traitors. At most the Democrats are like a piece of driftwood that comes to the surface after both parties have robbed the lifeboats and sunk the ship.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1203 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 9:12:02 AM
If not for Dems, there wouldn't be $ in the banks to rob!
Although I share many of your frustrations -- even more so in a way, since I truly do believe in the Democratic Party, despite many lapses in leadership, as you so sharply point out -- I have to disagree with some of what you said.
The Democratic Party has indeed been the party of change; without it, the working people, people of color, and others not in the most powerful positions in society would be far worse off than they are.
Without the Democratic Party, there would have been no New Deal, and thus no security in banking (Look at the problems we have now, from the Republicans not minding the store), no Social Security (which the Republicans have been trying to eat away at every since), and no progressive taxation (which the Republicans have done a pretty good job at leveling).
Without the Democratic Party there would've been no racial integration of the Armed Services (under Harry Truman), no Voting Rights Act (under LBJ but promoted by JFK's and RFK's policies towards the civil rights movement), and no Medicare (under LBJ).
You might argue that without JFK and LBJ there would've been no Vietnam War. LBJ did escalate things (JFK we've since learned was going to withdraw advisors, not increase them), but that was part and parcel of the Cold War whose paranoia affected majorities in both parties -- a paranoia, by the way, exploited to the nth degree by such Republicans as Sen. Joe McCarthy and Vice President Richard Nixon ... and the latter, of course, would have the blood of countless Americans and Indochinese, including Cambodians, on his hands.
And of course, it was the Republican Nixon who betrayed the Constitution with his Watergate crimes.
It always irks me that the Rightwing, which (in both parties) gave us Vietnam and (in the Nixon Administration) gave us Watergate -- the two things that more than any other turned a great many Americans against their own government (their own organized power) -- then gave us Reagan, who used that hatred of government to advance the Rightwing agenda, primarily of cutting taxes on the wealthy, at the expense of programs benefitting the common people -- everything from public libraries and street lighting to public safety have suffered budget cuts because of the tax-cutting fever that was ignited by California's Prop. 13 and then swept Reagan into office.
Benjamin Franklin gave us public libraries and street lighting and big city police; Ronald Reagan -- ironically, disgustingly invoking the spirit of the Founders -- cut them to the bone.
And ever since then, the GOP has been advancing the cause of the rich and powerful, while the Democrats -- I admit, not as many of them or as fervently as I would like, but the majority of them -- have been trying to safeguard the interests of the rest of us.
But the GOP, or better still the Rightwing in this country, has been succeeding: The distribution of wealth -- and power -- in this nation is more unequal, weighted towards the top, than it has been at any time since the Great Depression.
And the only way to oppose that is with the power that we the people have, with our votes at the ballot box and our dollars at the cash register (70% of the GDP is personal consumption expenditures).
So ultimately, I have to agree with you: We the people have to depend first and foremost upon ourselves to get rid of the crooks -- in both parties (True campaign finance reform would go a long way to ridding the influence of big corporations etc. from our political system; more Democrats than Republicans favor that) -- and to set things straight.
But We the People are also the Government. That is something that the Rightwing does not want us to believe -- it is the power of people organized, i.e., Government, that is the only power that can reign in, i.e., govern, powerful individuals and companies and even abuses by government itself (No administration has trampled our constitutional rights to privacy, free trials, etc. more than this Republican Administration!).
And that is a big reason I like Barack Obama: He calls upon the people first and foremost. And we the people can hold him accountable to that standard.
And supporting OpEdNews and similar media, not answerable to corporate masters, is -- as you so rightly point out -- one of the most important things we can do. Information is our most powerful tool/weapon; controlling the truthfulness of our information is perhaps the biggest battle of our time.
Although I disagree with some of your criticisms, I have to respect you: Despite all the corruption you see -- which makes me absolutely sick and angry, too -- you still care enough about America to participate.
I admire your patriotism. Keep on working for change. I just hope that the Democrats will do more good than harm. I do remember how much better the economy was -- and how we were at peace, not in this horribly unnecessary war -- under the last Democratic president, as compared to the Republican presidents before and after him.
by
Douglas Drenkow (35 articles, 353 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, February 16, 2008 at 12:46:58 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
