What’s going on here? This whole mess down south over choosing who to square off against John McCain in November has seen its share of things unfold that make me feel like I’m constantly trapped in some kind of headpalm.jpg, and it only continues to get worse. I’m talking of course about the recent decision by the DNC over how to go about seating the ‘disenfranchised’ voters of Florida and Michigan (who, knowing their votes weren’t going to be counted, voted anyways), and the immediate reaction to it. Even though it was decided, and agreed upon by all candidates, to strip both states of all delegates if they defied the party and held their primaries early (which they of course did, as we all know by now), they’ve collectively changed their minds, and decided to give all delegates from these two states a vote, but it’ll only count for half a vote. Flip-floppy, sure, but necessary at this point in the race, and all things considered, they (Fl & MI) should be happy they’re even getting that. They were told they would be stripped of their delegates if they proceeded, they did it anyways, and kinda got away with it. But whatever!, Doesn’t matter. That’s not specifically what I wanted to talk about. It’s the reactions to this decision that I want to discuss here.
Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have been arguing that the full delegations “as is” (that is, completed against party rules, with no campaigning done by anyone in either state, and with Barack Obama’s name not even on the MI ballot) must be seated without compromise. How this idea is feasible to anyone is beyond me, but it gets even zanier. They also argued that, basically, since he didn’t receive any votes in MI, Mr. Obama shoudn’t get any of the 31% of voters who chose uncommitted. Their logic? I don’t know actually, but that was their view. Now since they were essentially asking for something illogical, it was obvious they weren’t going to like any kind of fair decision (as their platform for seating the delegates I’m sure can’t realistically be called ‘fair’), but this really seemed to tick people off to levels of ridiculousness. As the panel was voting in favor of this decision, according to cnn.com, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters could be heard chanting thing’s like “Don’t steal my vote!” and “Let’s go, McCain!”, and even some shouting “Denver, Denver”, in reference to taking the fight all the way to the convention in Denver later this summer! Don’t steal my vote? How about don’t break the rules? Denver, Denver? As Democrats you really feel that dragging this out all summer long, clinging to your one last slender hope is in the best interests of the party/party unity? Yeah, OK, that’s pretty unreasonable, but Let’s go McCain? Seriously?? [HEADPALM!]
Read this :
(cut and pasted from cnn.com)
“When Barack Obama’s name was mentioned, boos filled the room.”
or this:
(also cut and pasted from cnn.com)
“Boston native and Clinton backer Jenny Doggett, an organizer of grassroots group Count the Votes Cast, called the DNC “spineless.” “I think what they’ve done is divisive, destroying the party. I’m disgusted,” said Doggett, …. “I’m done with the Democratic Party,” she added. “I’m an independent voter now.””
This is crazy talk people! Calling the DNC “spineless”? That sounds like something a Republican pundit might say about the DNC even giving them anything at all. If they would have seated all delegates as-is, thus not punishing them at all and therefore establishing their earlier decision as an utterly empty threat, as most within Mrs. Clinton’s camp were championing, now that would have been spineless. Saying that what they did was “divisive” and “destroying the party”? Changing a decision that banned delegates from participating at the convention, to one that offers them a chance to have their vote counted in some way is divisive and would destroy the party? Seems like the intended effect would be the opposite, actually.
But it’s comments like “I’m an independent voter now”, or news of booing the mere mention of Mr. Obama’s name – in a room full of so-called Democrats – and those same people chanting “Let’s go McCain” that really make me wonder where these people are coming from. Much has been said about the fact that this candidates supporters won’t support that candidate should their candidate lose the nomination, and most of it has been purported come from the supporters of Mrs. Clinton. After Saturday’s decision this become all the more apparent, and concerning for the Dems overall. Not to mention confusing!
The candidates themselves have made mention of how little difference there is between their various platforms in the past. They are both Democratic Senators who strongly oppose 4 more years of the Republican party in the White House, strongly oppose the Bush Administrations policies, and who see John McCain as a continuation (at least partly) of those failed policies. You would think their supporters would feel the same as the candidate they’re supporting, but to outright say you’d vote for John McCain or leave the party simply if Barack Obama is the nominee, it’s obvious that there is some other reason that they’re even a part of this political process, and I can’t say I’m sure what it is. Perhaps, at the risk of completely sounding like a total chauvinist jerk, many of these supporters were simply supporting her blindly out of a strong desire to see the First Female President elected, and nothing else. That is, they aren’t, or weren’t, political, and only got involved due to the fact that she is, obviously, a woman. Perhaps not, and I think it’s much more complex than just that, but I really think that, at least in some way, the same thing would’ve happened if the GOP had a female candidate running as well.
Just imagine for a moment an alternate scenario, and in that scenario the Democrats had long ago had their presumptive nominee in Barack Obama, while on the Republican side there remained a close contest between John McCain and an unnamed female candidate. If there was a similar mess like this, and it was similarly decided in a manner that seemed more in favor of John McCain becoming the nominee, we’d be hearing the same thing from what would then be ‘So-Called Republicans’ crying foul, and vowing to switch parties and vote for Barack Obama. How is that belonging to a party? Even if I’m totally off the mark with my possibly-construed-as-sexist view, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with the decision, it still makes no sense to me whatsoever, and they are still undeniably what I consider a “So-Called Democrat”. The candidate you backed lost, so you’re going to leave the party whose values you claim to also have, and whose policies – which differ so much from the alternative – you claim to support? Ridiculousness.
-Kimo
