Clinton Superdelegates Echoing "Screw Democracy" Message

[Joanne98]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31029

By DAVID SIROTA, Huffington Post

Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka. party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy - as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination.

Here in Colorado, we get this dispatch from Mannie Rodriguez in the Rocky Mountain News:
Because regular delegates are allocated proportionally, some calculations show that even if Obama
were to roll through the rest of the primary season, he would not be able to secure the nomination
with pledged delegates alone. That could result in a floor fight during the convention - with
superdelegates key to the outcome.
"I'm going to stick to her 100 percent," Rodriguez said. "I hope it doesn't go to superdelgates deciding, but if it does, I'm with her all the way."

Forget that Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported Obama, forget that Obama may win the total, democratically awarded regular delegates...
Then in a suburban Philadelphia newspaper, we get this from Clinton-backing superdelegate Marcel Groen:
"It's worked for the past 40 years, for the most part, and largely it's an honorary position," he said. "But if it's going to be real close, then I think it's wise to let the leaders of the party do the right thing."
This follows Clinton hack Lanny Davis's missive on Huffington Post saying almost exactly the same thing (after embarrassing himself by claiming Adlai Stevenson was elected president). It also comes as the Boston Globe today reports that Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."
So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons.
Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty - not even to the founding principles of democracy.
Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly "disenfranchised." What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections - no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot. Puh-leeze.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31029

To sign a petition demanding superdelegates respect democracy, go here:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/votersdecide

And make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project

[LakeSamish706]

1. I don't believe that the majority of SuperDelegates feel this way though....

I think that most of them will fall in line with what the voters have indicated as there choice... JMO though.

[madaboutharry]

2. This is really upsetting

If what Mr. Sirota is saying is accurate than we all can see why the American electorate is so uninvolved. This is exactly what turns people off to politics. I will never understand poor sportsmanship. I feel strongly that whoever is ahead in the delegate count without the superdelegates and who has the most popular votes should be the nominee. Hopefully, that would be the same person leading in both.

I hope that most superdelegates will honor the will of the voters.

[DJ13]

7. "This is exactly what turns people off to politics."

Politicians and their corporate sponsors dont WANT people getting involved.

Its easier to sweep sweatheart deals under the rug when no one is looking.

[Windy]

13. thats the problem for Mrs. Clinton. People ARE watching this time after 2000 and 2004

If the democratic party wants voters to come out for them in the fall, they better follow the will of the people!

After the lousy actions of congress after the public came out and gave the dems overwhelming support in the midterms, this may well be the last straw. If they do this, expert a viable progressive third party to emerge.

[Benhurst]

11. "The will of the voters." ? So far, the MAJORITY of Democrats

who have voted have rejected both Clinton and Obama. And that in a contest which did not include a "none of the above" choice.

The agreed upon rules for the primary(which I have never liked particularly; but unlike both Clinton and Obama I was in no position to voice my opposition to before the campaign began) give the nomination to the candidate who has won a MAJORITY of the votes, not a plurality. They could have set up the contest as The Biggest Loser; but they didn't. So anyone's trying to convert it to that at this late date is hardly taking the higher moral ground.

I wish they had provided for a national runoff in the case no one won. But they didn't. (Some have said it would be too expensive. Yeah, the people who give us Trillion Dollar military budgets year after year are suddenly worried about pinching pennies!)

Since, as it seems, we are down to a choice between just Clinton and Obama, we are choosing The Biggest Loser. All the moral posturing about "the will of the people" is as hypocritical as it is silly.

If one looks to the total votes which have been cast, it's "neither of the above." But the super delegates are going to have to make a call. No matter which decision they make, it won't be a reflection of "the will of the people." It will be a reflection of the will of some of the people, reinforced by that of party functionaries.

And whoever doesn't like that should start on November 5th working to change the rules for 2012. And while they are at it, I hope they will work to get rid of the undemocratic caucuses as well.

[Mme. Defarge]

3. K&R!

[NJSecularist]

4. She can do what she wants. As can Senator Kerry and Kennedy.

[Samantha]

5. Note to Mannie Rodriguez and Groen, Davis

If this is YOUR plan A to usurp the 2008 Presidential Election, please be advised you will go into the General Election absent the support of a lot of ticked-off voters from the Democratic base. Get your Plan B part to usurp the 2008 Presidential Election ready now because you will need it against McCain in the General. Additionally, Independents now currently behind Obama will probably swing to McCain. So good luck in getting out the vote in November. You are going to need it. And should you prevail against all odds, your candidate sitting in the Oval Office will get as much support and respect as the current occupant during her Administration.

Sam

[backscatter712]

6. I personally doubt the superdelegates will shoot the party in the foot this way.

Because I promise you it will throw the election to McCain. Most superdelegates are cowards, and they know they'll lose everything if they pull a stunt like this. Even Clinton is likely to set her ego aside rather than destroy the party.

And I will leave the Democratic Party if the popular will of myself and the rest of the members of the party are overturned by fat cats in smoke-filled rooms.

I don't care if it's "by the rules," I will not tolerate a popular vote being usurped in this manner.

If you don't like it, you can kiss my shiny white ass.

This party will be broken if the superdelegates do this. I promise you. '68 will be nothing compared to the shitstorm that will be seen in Denver if the pledged delegates and the popular vote are overturned.

Don't do it. We will break you.

[RiverStone]

10. I agree! This could not only cost us the election - but trash the party

And if the aforementioned arrogance of a few super delegates results in the will of the electorate to be ignored - there would be a revolt that could not only cost us the GE - but many, many Dems would leave the party in utter disgust.

We remember how Shrub and the SCOTUS stole the election in 2000 - if Obama has the popular vote but Hillary gets the nom with party bosses, that would equal another stolen election.

Expect massive walkouts at the convention, protests in the streets, and the pukes licking their chops at the mess the Dems did to themselves!

It would be a clusterfuck of unprecedented proportions.

[frazzled]

8. You know, I think we need to live with both the caucus issue and the SD issue

Nobody has ever really cared about all the caucus states before, because it's never really made a difference.

Nobody has ever really cared about the super delegates before, because it's never really made a difference.

These are the rules as they exist, however, and we have to take both of them as they stand. It's the closeness of the campaign that is diffrent now. I'm beginning to feel that, short of one candidate gaining a significant lead (200 or more? plus popular vote) that the superdelegates have every right to vote as they want, just as the caucus states have influenced things with a smaller proportion of the populace voting. Maybe it'll all even out.

It's a political problem, because one side or another is going to feel cheated no matter what. But I can live with whatever outcome.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. What mechanism is there for 'rank and file' Democrats to get the system changed?

Can part of the work of the up-coming Democratic Convention be to abolish the idea of super delegates? It seems that various Democrats have suddenly realised they've been sitting on top of system they don't like, and feel is unfair (even undemocratic?) for several years, and are now rather embarrassed by it. Or has there been a strong movement to get rid of the super delegates in past years, but somehow it's failed to get its voice heard?

[WCGreen]

12. It's not like either camp didn't know going in that the Superdelegates...

were out there...

It's not like that part of the process was only open to HRC and hidden by evil party bosses...

Give me a break...

It has been part of the process for decades...

Remember, the parties operate outside of the law...

The Courts have repeatedly stated that the party process is left for the party to decide...

Obama has a whole bunch of Mass Super delegates willing to ignore the will of the people...

Just as HRC is backtracking on MI and FLA...

It all boils down to this; you have to have the support of the party apparatus in order to win in November...

You also have to have the support of the rank and file in order to win in November...

If a candidate can't blend enough of both into a winning general election coalition, well then I guess we are left to wander in the wilderness for the next four years...

It's a simple as that...

If you are that upset about it, organize to change the rules for next time...

It's too late now...

BTW, while you are at it, can the caucus tradition as well...

The smokeless suburban front rooms where a relatively small number of people gather to decide the fate of the party are not that far removed from the smoke-filled back rooms of yore...

[backscatter712]

14. I actually liked my caucus.

Sure the procedures were a bit rough, but all the noise about people being intimidated didn't pan out for me.

I went, I met my state legislator and senator, I met a bunch of my Democratic neighbors, we split into our precincts. We had a passionate discussion about who we wanted to be our President, and we went out of our way to make sure all of us could speak our mind. And in the end, not only did I feel my vote was counted, but I became a delegate for the Adams County Assembly of the Democratic Party.

It felt to me like democracy in the raw. Maybe a few rough edges, but I don't think anyone got pressured or intimidated. Everyone got their say, as they should.

[Benhurst]

15. They are still undemocratic. They make it difficult for many to participate.

Voters are given a narrow time-frame in which to express one's preference. Many have to work. The meeting are often scheduled at night, making it difficult for older voters to participate. The sick and infirm are disfranchised. And even under the best of circumstances, participants are subjected to group-think, not necessarily the best atmosphere to make such a decision.

No, I hope they do away with the caucuses next time, and, above all, the open primaries, which are often manipulated by persons who have no intention whatsoever voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

[WCGreen]

16. Intimidation wasn't the point...

The point is, the caucus system excludes people from the process just by the nature of the process...

That's why I don't believe the caucus system gives a true representation of the voters...

Now I am not calling for a retroactive killing of that process this year, I do think party leaders should take a clear look at how wide groups of people are excluded by the caucus system, for instance people who work second shift, can't afford a baby sitter, are taking night classes, don't have a car etc. etc. etc...

IT's a lot of fun, going to a caucus, it makes you feel part of something greater than yourself...

I am the first to admit, voting doesn't have the same kind of kick...

[Joanne98]

17. KICK