Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro and So-Called Party Leaders

[WillyT]

Jennifer Nix - HuffPo

Dear Ms. Ferraro:

I learned from your Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday about your role in setting up the superdelegate system, and that you believe superdelegates should lead, and not follow the will of the people.

I'm confused. Does leading mean helping to make the case to Democratic voters for why a certain candidate is better for us than another, or does it mean flouting the will of the people in some kind of superdelegate coup?

My fear, Madam, is that your brand of leadership would have us following you right off the cliff and out of power--or triangulated into dead-lock--for yet another generation. After all, that is the kind of leadership most of you party elders have shown since 1982, because of the simple fact that you have not been able to build a working majority.

Perhaps the people are ahead of you "leaders" on figuring out what needs to happen, how we can build a new American majority--and what kind of Democrat can best lead it. Here's a clue: We need Democrats, Independents and some Republicans. In case you've been too busy to notice, Barack Obama has been building that majority for the Democratic party in recent months.

Your elder-posse had chances to get this majority thing right, and you blew those chances time and time again. I do remember Reagan Democrats. I don't remember Mondale or Clinton Republicans. Why should we believe that shuffling the chairs will get us different results? Is the real problem here that you just can't stand to see a new generation finally getting its ideas heard on how politics, activism and government can better represent the people? Your argument, and fuzzy math, in the Times sure read that way.

First, your superdelegates may once have served a worthy purpose. But in this Internet age, where bottom-up thinking is possible and preferable, superdelegates represent an outdated and elitist system that is rife with possibilities for securing the Establishment's hold on power within the party and little else. Certainly, as a party, we can do better if our goals are really, as you say, to create unity within the party (and how about across the country, while we're at it?), and nominating the strongest Democratic candidate for the presidency.

We all know about the PAC money and favors Clinton and Obama have both had to shell out for superdelegate support. Is that how you envisioned it would work? Funny, how we see many of these so-called party "leaders" running for cover now, and in some cases openly switching their support from one candidate to the other when a little transparency is introduced to the equation. Just asking: Is that leading or following?

Sure, there's probably some pandering to constituencies going on. It's so discomfiting when the people want a say, isn't it? But, clearly, an Establishment-annointed and "inevitable" candidate can go around strong-arming superdelegates for pledges long before any rank-and-file votes come in, while other candidates have to make their cases and build real coalitions in order to legitimize their campaigns. Perhaps some of the superdelegates you see fleeing Clinton at this point felt pressured to support the "inevitable" candidate pre-Iowa, and now they feel free to support their true, personal choice. In any event, I would rather see an elected official "pandering" to her constituency rather than said official taking PAC money from a presidential candidate in exchange for support. Any. Day.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-nix/open-letter-to-geraldine-_b_88528.html

:shrug: