In the last few days, I’ve talked with many people about Barack Obama and why I have decided to support him. We’ve discussed domestic policy, foreign relations… even Bill Clinton and George Bush.
The one thing that has not come up is how I feel about supporting a candidate who represents the Democratic party.
Considering that this entire nominating process disaster stems from Democratic party rules, it’s just as well the question hasn’t come up… because I’m singularly unimpressed.
Today, reading about Hillary Clinton’s latest spastic grasp for power, I find that I’m second-guessing my support for Barack Obama — not because I have lost respect for him, but because I have almost no respect just now for the political party he represents.
The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”
“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
Yes, Hillary Clinton is clearly willing to risk everything to take her place at the head table… but it is the Democratic party rules that allow her to do it this way.
It’s hard to argue that your party is fit to govern when it created such a ridiculous, and entirely undemocratic system.
* * * * *
Update: Another statement from the Clinton campaign (at TPM), this time saying they didn’t say what Roger Simon says they said. Or something. I agree with Joe (and Capt. Ed) — they tried to float one of those new-and-improved lead balloons.
Really, really dumb idea.
You do realize that the same is true of the electors we vote for in presidential elections in about half the states, right? “Rogue electors” are rare but it does happen.
The link between party governance and the operation of the government is pretty tenuous, at best. And party procedures are a bit of snake pit for all parties. I think this is a strange issue to be that concerned about, whatever one thinks of the process.
John – I think this is analogous to folks bashing the Republicans for personal/moral shortcomings, when they claim to be the “party of the Morality.” As the Democrats claim to be the party representing the people (and even the name “Democratic” implies “Democracy”, which is more transparent than the process as it is now described), I would expect folks to hold them to a “higher standard” on this: it is just human nature.
~EdT.
Polimom,
They may just be trying to signal the Obama camp that “we’re crazy enough to destroy the party if that’s what we have to do to win.” The implication is that you (Obama) should pull out in order to prevent me from being “forced to do it”.
Kinda like playing chicken by driving two cars head to head at 70 mph and swearing they won’t flinch. Or would it be more like, “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot my hostage!”?
Quite a way to select the Democrats’ candidate for leader of the free world.
Obviously, my frustration here is more with the Hillary campaign than with the Dems. But yes, EdT’s comment is part of it.
They’re offering an alternative — a “better way” — to the Republicans, I thought. This is hardly a model.
I have no intention of withdrawing my support from Barack Obama because his opponent is power-mad. However, this entire situation reinforces my extreme ambivalence toward party politics.
Actually, I don’t really fault the Democrats for what they did. There was (and maybe still is, but for a different reason) a concern that, if the primaries became nothing more than an exercise in vote-tallying, candidates would concentrate on the 50 or so largest metro areas – just enough to get them the number of votes they needed to win – and ignore everyone else. That is also part of the philosophical reason behind the Electoral College (the other part being that the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the people to directly elect a President, maybe fearing they would elect someone like Hugo Chavez or King George… a “man on horseback” who would promise them whatever it took to get their support.) Actually, the FF really didn’t trust a Federal government at all – and given what I have seen during my lifetime, I tend to agree with them.
As far as your ambivalence toward party politics goes, I think that sometimes they aren’t strong enough – other times (as in judicial elections in Texas) they play waaay too prominent a role.
~EdT.
The delegates are supposed to be pledged to their declared candidate on the first ballot and the candidate election team has a great deal of influence, basicly veto power or more, over who their delegates are in each state chosen for the national convention.
I hadn’t heard this argument, I thought all the argument was over the role of super-delegates which the Democratic Party convention has too many of.