Thoughts on the campaign

I find it interesting that there is so much drama about Florida and Michigan primaries. It is obvious why, this tight of a primary race, was never predicted. But had FL and MI allowed themselves to have their respective primaries at some point past Feb 1 - then the map would look, potentially, quite different. Super Tuesday was a draw. Hillary won some big states, and she lost alot of the smaller states. Florida and Michigan decided to rebel against the Party and hold their primaries before this arbitrary line in the sand, that being Feb 1st.

The primary results of these two states, obviously, should not count. The Democratic leadership of these states obviated their citizens' votes. This is not a Federal issue nor is it even an issue of fairness that their votes are nullified. The people of those two states let their "leaders" disenfranchise them, willingly. There was no ambiguity from Howard Dean on this issue. The "leaders" decided to defy the leaders as a gamble to push their importance as bellweathers for the primary candidates. Sad to say that the leadership decided to put their own interests as "players" ahead of their people. As a result, the people of these two very populous and very distinct populations are now sitting on the sidelines. And I would argue this is now very much to Hillary's chagrin. Hillary polls well in blue collar states - Ohio, Pennsylvania are two states with similarities to Michigan in many regards. She would have probably taken Michigan cleanly. Not neccesarily for a large share of the pie - but in terms of supporting her stated position that she can command the vote at large. Florida, very unlike Michigan in almost every way, is full of minorities - Jews, Cubans, Blacks, Hispanics (of the non-Cuban ilk), gays, the grey hairs. She might have fought to the draw here - but a draw in Florida would have been huge to support her role as a "vote getter".

Instead, Hillary got no bump from either state because both MI and FL chose to place themselves at odds with the Party rules. As it turns out, Obama came to a draw on Super Tuesday (in VERY early February). He then secured his position as the leader by going on a rampage in the February primariles. The problem that Hillary now faces has become clear in the national polls of Hillary vs. Obama. To wit, Hillary can win the big states, but she has not shown any ability to win most of the small states. Are we to believe that the people of the large states, in voting for the very liberal Hillary, would then turn around and vote for McCain or some third party candidate? Nope - the large states would, in a general election, still go blue and that would be benefit Obama. On top of that, the electoral college votes would go(notably non-proportinally) to Obama. He would be, if he were to become the nominee, a formidable challenger in most of the 50 states, not just the big ones.

So Hillary, not having primary votes from these two VERY large states (in terms of population and their very distinct differences where Hillary was competitive), is now almost a moot point. Especially when, a favorable vote tally from both of these states in early February, could have contained, to some degree, Obama's bubble.

It is interesting to me that state politicians of FL and MI would allow their people, and a big chunk of votes, to be nullified by their own fiat. The gamble had such poor odds at the time when the bet came due (maybe not when the bet was made many months earlier, that being when Hillary was to be coronated after an appropriate time of "appearing" to compete), one has to wonder, in context, what the whole point of Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore really entailed. That Supreme Court decision had everything to do with advancing a candidate and not the people. When every vote is supposed to count, and in that particular case, only Kennedy's did, the Democrats now must have an odd feeling of deja vu - except their own party fucked them in this case - not the Federal judiciary which was Republican in the case of Bush v. Gore.

Hanging chads and premature primaries. Florida seems to be the home of the disenfrachised. And Michigan, a state in dramatic decline, could only benefit from Hillary's big government proposals - those free Federal dollars would keep the state of Michigan afloat. At least for a few more years. But here we sit, watching millions of primary voters left on the sidelines due to a small cabal of insiders playing God with their citizens' will.

I say the choice is obvious. The state leaders went against the rules of the national Democratic Party, and now those leaders ought to pay the price. This price should be a recall of every state government person in FL and MI that supported the premature primaries in defiance of the national Democratic primary rules. Whether those national rules are valid is a sideshow now. The Democratic leadership of those two states rolled the dice in a longer term battle, that being which state decides the momentum in the early primaries - and the result is a catastrophe for every citizen who wanted to have their voice heard in the Deomcratic primaries.

Now onto the more troublesome (in many ways) situation of the superdelegates; Hillary's last hope. The superdelegates are a fine way of recapitulating the political machines of old. In the past, the conventions were about back room deal-making in spite of the will of the majority. This was not fair but it was par. In our current era - this sort of old-boys network seems rather dated (in kind terms) and downright undemocratic (in reality).

The proportional distribution of the common vote, in primaries, seems easy to comprehend. The check of superdelegates in close races seems far more complex to understand. Do we need the leaders of the states to have a non-proportional opportunity to "check" the fiery will of the Republic, via the electoral process (in this case primaries), with their more "considered" opinion? They have no mandate to reflect, and thereby echo, the will of the majority - rather, they act, in theory, as the Senate which tempers the House. While this to-an-fro between the Senate and the House is all well and good when framed within the Legislative Branch (we vote for the House and Senate members to do that sort of tug of war) - we do NOT vote for these people to temper the primaries. That was NEVER specified in the Constitution. In this very nondemocratic arrangement, this superdelegate effect is against the very grain of the Democratic Party. It seems much more befitting of a Republican scenario.In reality, are the Democrats, when considering these sorts of manipulations, any different? Of course not. It is, as it was in the past, about controlling access to the highest levels of power.

I do not posit that Obama will wash Washington clean. But, if his message of hope, compromise, and respect - and that resonates with the primary voters - is discounted by some sort of backroom dealing, are we any different than a banana republic? If the secretive cabals of the leadership are biased against (even for) what the majority wills with their vote (and, as a side note, who pays the taxes??) then what is the point of an election, in a primary or otherwise?

Having superdelegates is no different than having the Supreme Court decide a contested election - it is having a politically chosen body "arbitrate" the outcome - and that outcome does not consider the will of the people. It is the will of those, interestingly not directly voted upon for this particular role, to propel their own goals and ambitions.

I find it sad that when the bully (Hillary) becomes the bullied, she resorts to the sorts of undemocratic shenanigans that happened in Bush v. Gore. Her coronation was all but assured in mid-2007. If she cannot win the majority by convincing them of her superiority as a candidate, then it appears she will game the system to still come out of top via the insider/superdelegate vote. Whether it is one Supreme Court vote or one superdelegate vote, the effect of these hollow victories, for us all, is the same. Our vote, sadly, does not matter unless we bow to the will of the majority and consent to their candidate.