Please God, make it stop

The Associated Press is reporting that, according to their own tally of convention delegates, Sen. Obama has effectively clinched the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

It’s AP, so take it with a grain of salt and stay tuned…

A Change is needed

Two more primaries are occurring right now in Indiana and North Carolina, and while the focus is clearly on who will end up with what percentage in these contests, the bottom line still comes down to this:

Super-delegates.

Sen. Clinton has to perform well in order to continue pushing the message that she is the one who is in a better position to beat Sen. McCain in November, but with the way the Democratic Party assigns delegates, odds are neither one is going to end up with a huge boost in numbers after today’s votes are cast.

The Democratic party needs to make some changes in the way the primaries/caucuses/etc are handled.

My preference; get rid of the caucuses, throw the concept of super-delegates out the door and base the nomination on a truly democratic process… vote in the primary, winner of the states wins the delegates.

Pretty damn straightforward if you ask me… and then, and only then, would we truly have a system where everyone who was eligible to vote had the ability to do so, and the decision of who gets the nomination would be made by the voters themselves…

What a concept… a concept that should seem more vital now that Sen. Clinton’s campaign has openly stated that the campaign will attempt to get their allies on the Democratic Convention’s rules committee to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations… something that would not only give approval to breaking the rules, but would also showcase how dysfunctional the Democratic party can be at times… which is something we do NOT need right now.

(I am going to assume everyone reading this knows about MI and FL and how the legislatures in Michigan and Florida decided to hold early primaries despite the DNC telling them they would be held accountable and that their votes wouldn’t count… and how all the major candidates agreed not to campaign in those states… and that most voters stayed away from the polls in those states because they knew that the results would be insignificant) [Co-editors note: And don't forget that Sen. Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot in Michigan as he knew that the votes would not be counted due to violating the parties previously established and agreed upon rules - sorry for interrupting, Scott]

Ms. Clinton has wanted to seat those delegated for some time (electoral math shows she has no chance in hell to win without those states), and she now plans to use the rules committee that she stocked with her own allies to swing a backroom deal that would, essentially, thwart the will of the majority of Democratic voters.

Big, big mistake.

I personally will vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination, but I know for certain that others won’t.

If Clinton wins in that manner, not only will a plethora of voters stay home in droves on Election Day, but it would be easy for Sen. McCain to paint her as the candidate who’s willing to do anything to satisfy her (blind?) ambition.

In other words, it’s one thing that might throw the election to the republicans and give us four more years of Bush 2: Electric Bugaboo.

And we can’t have that, can we?

Let's get it done... sooner, not later

With another primary a week away, DNC chairman Howard Dean is once again trying to nudge the as-of-now-un-pledged super-delegates (could I have more hypens?) into making their choice known by June 4th, the day after the final Democratic primary.

Said Dean; "We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3. […] We really can't have a divided convention. If we do it's going to be very hard to heal the party afterwards. So we'll know who the nominee is, and that'll give us an extra 2 1/2 months to get our party together, heal the wounds of having a very closely divided race and take on Sen. McCain.”

Granted, Democratic Party rules enable the super-delegates to wait until the presidential nominating convention in Denver on Aug. 25 to make a choice, but Dean says, correctly I might add, that the party cannot wait that long if it hopes to beat Republican John McCain in November.

If we do, it will be that many additional months for McBush to trot out the same old, same old that we’ve come to know and abhor with George Bush in office for eight years.

The Democrats still have a better than average shot at getting back into the White House, but we need to make a move sooner rather than later, and having the nominating process drag out that long would be detrimental to the party…

Regardless of his ‘presumptive nominee’ status, there are still quite a few republicans out there that aren’t sold on Sen. McCain, witness 25% of republican Pennsylvanians voting for Huckabee and Paul last week… and with a weak candidate on that side, we have an opportunity to get a Liberal back in the White House and attempt to clean up the mess that 8 truly horrifying years of George Bush has done.

Stay tuned…

Make it stop

(HT to Daily Kos)

The Clinton campaign is getting a tad obsessive-compulsive as they have started an on-line petition aimed at, what else, forcing the DNC to recognize the delegations from Michigan and Florida or else promise to hold new elections.

Michael Kempner, a Clinton donor and PR exec, says; “For whatever reason, the DNC seems to be captive of the Obama campaign. The fact is that many, many long-time supporters both financially and non-financially, that have a very different point of view. We very much want to put them on notice.”

Kempner then went on to say that the campaign wants DNC chairman Howard Dean “to exercise some leadership.”

Wow… first, let’s start with the fact that the DNC is NOT captive to Sen. Obama but, in fact, is captive to its own rules… and in abiding by those aforementioned rules, Dean is showing some fantastic leadership.

Why in God’s name should the DNC help Florida and Michigan skirt the rules when 48 other states were able to abide by them? It doesn’t make sense… and as far as new elections go, Dean has said all along that he and the DNC would recognize new contests in both states, but both states passed on that option because, well, because they’re idiots…

None of this has anything at all to do with Dean or Obama but more-so two state’s (bipartisan) decisions to chuck the rules in the toilet and do what they wanted to do…rules be damned. And now, just like we teach children to do, the DNC is abiding by the rules… but Clinton and her people – knowing there is no math anywhere in this world or out of this world that will give her the needed number of delegates – are trying to browbeat HER OWN PARTY… AGAIN... to do what benefits them… rules be damned.

Explain to me again why she has any supporters left?

Please stop, you're making a spectacle of yourself

I don’t want to start trashing Sen. Clinton on this blog as I used to have profound respect for both her and her husband… respect though that I see being tarnished with some of her and President Clinton’s actions in the last few weeks.

Despite that, I've tried to hold my high ground and have refused to get into trash posting like I've seen on other blogs... but what she said this morning on NPR was simply too much for me to ignore.

First you should know that Ms. Clinton, along with Sens. Obama and Edwards,
signed a pledge not to campaign OR PARTICIPATE… and this morning she appeared on NPR:

Clinton: “Well that was his choice, remember. There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot, and his supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted. So it wasn't that he didn't participate at all. In fact there was a real effort to get people to vote uncommitted and I still won 55% of the vote.”

NPR: “You say that was a fair result even without Barack Obama's name on the ballot?”

Clinton: “Well that was his choice, Steve”

NPR: “Wasn't it the Democratic Party's choice that it would not be a result that be counted and most people took their names off the ballot?”

Clinton: “No...I think that the Democratic Party said that they would not under the circumstances count the votes. But we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And I think that was a wise decision because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall. And I think if there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count those votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete redo of the primary. Nothing else is fair and I feel strongly about that.”

So how is this NOT a direct and unequivocal violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters?

Simple… it IS a direct and unequivocal violation of her pledge to the DNC and Democratic voters… she’s just choosing to change the rules to benefit her, because she wants the presidency so badly that she’s under the impression that she’s not only destined for it, but that the office is somehow owed to her.

My favorite part of her interview was her saying; “…we all had a choice as to whether or not to participate in what was going to be a primary. And most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. […] And I think if there is to be any difference between my proposal that we count those votes and any other course of action, it should be a complete redo of the primary. Nothing else is fair and I feel strongly about that.”

Really Ms. Clinton? You’re going to bring up fairness? Seriously? Explain to me and everyone else in this country how the hell it would be “fair” to count two states who broke the rules… how would it be “fair” for you to go back on your pledge?

Fair...

Ms. Clinton’s actions of recent weeks reminds me that we haven’t seen someone like this – someone so intent on getting elected president that they would even throw their own parent under the bus to achieve it – since one Richard Milhouse Nixon ran for president… and we all know how well THAT one turned out.

And before I get flamed for making a parallel to Clinton and Nixon, keep in mind that I’m not comparing the person per se, but rather the lengths they would go to in order to achieve this specific goal…

Sen. Clinton is starting to make a spectacle of herself, and a fall from grace when you're as high-up as she is, can really hurt...

Isn't ignoring the public a republican trait?

Steve Grossman, a former DNC Chairman and Clinton supporter, as well as a super-delegate, sent out an open letter to Democratic Party Super Delegates this past weekend, and in it he urges these other super delegates to refuse “to be mindless tabulators of primaries and caucuses won, or popular votes amassed” because “our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party--and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it…”

So let me understand this… he wants the super-delegates to IGNORE the will of the people and to IGNORE the primary results…

I wonder if he would think along these lines if his candidate was leading the delegate count?

I would vote no, but he would overrule it…

When all else fails, UNITE!

After victories in 3 primaries last Tuesday, Sen. Clinton was ready to call the contest for herself.

Not so fast Hillary.

According to a new Gallup poll, her wins in the Texas and Ohio primaries have not transcended themselves towards any noticeable momentum shift.

According to a just-recently completed Gallup poll, Sen. Obama holds what could best be described as a statistical dead-heat 2-point lead over Sen. Clinton – 47% - 45% respectively.

But that’s not the big news, the bigger news is, as Gallup implies, Clinton gained on Obama in the days leading up to the March 4 primaries/caucus, but her successful showing -- winning three of the four elections held that day -- failed to boost her candidacy nationally. So in other words, Ms. Clinton won… but her victories did not have the huge swell of support that her campaign had been expecting, nay needing.

Despite Obama’s victory in Saturday's Wyoming caucus (he won 61% of the vote and more than half of the delegates) neither of the two candidates has broken through the 50% plus range since mid-February, which is a pretty fair indication that the race is likely to remain deadlocked for a relatively long time, at least until an agreement is reached on what to do about the whiney states of Florida and Michigan. Even that would not guarantee that the race would break decisively one way or another in terms of pledged delegates for either Clinton or Obama.

All of which takes us back to the super-delegates and the possibility of a fight at the Denver convention in late August should the campaigns and the DNC be unable to reach a resolution by then.

It’s promising to be a long, hot summer.

The American people need and deserve a functioning government to deal with pressing domestic issues, and Obama has proven ability to bring in not only Independent voters, but quite a few republicans and millions of Democrats.

Sen. Clinton represents the confrontation domestically and in foreign policy that has brought us to the sorry mess we're in now; a federal government paralyzed by bitter partisanship.

I think Ms. Clinton represents more of the same (as does Sen. McCain, but that's a whole other post)

Having said that… whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama, the most important thing is for the Democratic Party to lead a long-term agenda for building a stronger America and a stronger global community.

Support whichever candidate gets the nomination. Our country and our world could be at stake.

One last thought about last night's primaries/caucus

How about a quick delegate rundown for last night… keep in mind that all these numbers are tentative, as final vote tallies continue to creep in from the post-Texas primary Texas caucus (yes, it is as ridiculous as it sounds…)

Vermont, which Sen. Obama won, and its 15 delegates: Obama grabs 9 and Clinton 6.

Rhode Island, which Sen. Clinton won, and its 21 delegate: Clinton gets 12 while Obama still gathers 8.

Texas PRIMARY, which Clinton won, and its 126 delegates: Clinton takes 65 but Obama still grabs 61, only four less than what Clinton, the winner, got.



Ohio, which Clinton won, and its 141 delegates: Clinton took 76 while Obama grabbed 65.

So for the night, Clinton grabbed 191 delegates while Obama scooped-up a still-respectable 178.

The overall lead in pledged delegates, as of now, per CNN;

Obama: 1,257

Clinton: 1,127

If you add super-delegates, Obama has 1,451 and Clinton 1,365 with 2,025 needed to officially secure the nomination.

What does all of this mean?

Well, the stark reality of it is that, despite her three state victories last night, Clinton only chipped away at Obama's pledged delegate lead, and if Obama can show he's not going to collapse under the weight of Clinton's assault, there will be no reason for the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters in either pledged delegates or the popular vote)… and, as my esteemed colleague Scott says, with the way the delegates are divided, in order for Sen. Clinton to pull ahead in the pledged delegate count she would have to win the rest of the primaries and/or caucuses by 65% in each state… which, barring Sen. Obama having a secret love-child with Brittany Spears, will NOT happen.

As always; stay tuned…

Things to consider after 'Mini' Super-Tuesday

Unless you have been in a cave since last night you know that Hillary won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island in yesterday’s primary contests.

A couple of observations:

• Total vote counts in each state were roughly 2-1 in favor of Democrats over republicans (Kemp’s Note: Which gives me hope for November, regardless of our nominee…)
• Texas was essentially a tie (In the primary voting, the caucuses have yet to be determined)
• Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates by approximately 150

Now these observations raise questions:

• What does the difference in the number of total votes for each party mean for the General Election
• Are there really that many more Democrats in each of these states compared to Republicans? Or was the Republican turnout artificially low because McCain essentially had it locked up? (Which means they will come out in force in November...)
• What was the factor, specifically in Texas and Ohio that caused the dynamic to switch from Obama to Clinton? And can this factor be repeated by one or defeated by the other?
• If Obama maintains his pledged delegate lead, what does that mean for the convention.

Ok, now the last observation and question raise an interesting question. Which was touched on by most news organizations, and that is the issue of the Super-Delegates.

The Obama camp (and the average person) are stating that the Super-Delegates (let’s call them ‘SD’s) should cast their votes in support of the candidate who comes into the convention with the majority of pledged delegates.

The Clinton camp is stating that the SD’s should vote independently of the pledged delegate counts in favor of whom they feel is most qualified.

Of course each candidate is going to favor the position most beneficial to them personally. However let’s think back to another situation where a select group of people decided an election independent of the popular vote: the 2000 Presidential Election.

Should the SD’s at the convention decide to vote for the candidate who has the least number of pledged delegates they will be no different than when the Supreme Court handed the election to George Bush. And we all know how well that has worked out!

Also, what of the electorate? The people, whose votes were recorded, counted and reflected in the pledged delegate count. Think of the outrage, the effect that disenfranchising their vote will have come November. They voted for a candidate and they all expect that a majority rule should apply. Should this majority be ‘slapped’ in the face by the SD’s at the convention I shudder to think of the repercussions?

Personally, I believe that the SD’s should line up and support the pledged delegate majority candidate. However, should the SD’s vote alter the popular vote and elect the lesser candidate then the party needs to put the control back in the hands of the voters and get rid of the SD’s.

We have worked long and hard to get to this point and to have this screwed up by ‘patronage’ delegates will set the party and the country back by decades.

But hey, this is just my opinion…

An Open Letter to Sen. John Edwards

Dear Sen. Edwards:

It’s time...

Before you dropped out of the race I was leaning towards you as my choice for the Democratic nominee… and after you graciously dropped out, I threw my support to Sen. Obama.

Over the last weeks you’ve met with both candidates, Sen. Obama (who is expected to get the Teamsters endoresement soon) and Sen. Clinton… and now it’s time to do your thing… either endorse one of them, or get completely off the stage.

So Mr. Edwards… what do you want to do?

I believe that you will have an important role in the next administration, regardless if Obama or Clinton wins… but it’s time to cede your moment in the spotlight and let your intentions be known.

You can offer no endorsement… which is a fair and reasonable thing to do, especially if you don’t think either candidate is viable or better than the other.

You can endorse Sen. Clinton… though some might view that, given the things you said about her during the campaign, as hypocritical. And would an endorsement for her really help her campaign right now?

Or, you can endorse Sen. Obama.

Some people believe that your endorsement would seal the deal for Obama… I don’t think that… as I don’t put much weight into endorsements. But it COULD propel him further, especially with some super-delegates that are still beholden and loyal to you.

And perhaps… just perhaps, it would spark something inside Ms. Clinton and she would, after she loses at least 2 more states on March 4th, drop out of the race. It’s farfetched, but a man can dream can’t he?

Whatever you choose to do Mr. Edwards, I pray that you do it soon as Sen. McCain is now gearing up for the general election rather than worry about the primaries and caucuses… Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee notwithstanding.

Thanks for listening…

A Delegate Primer

If you are like the plethora of people confused about the delegate process for Democrats, find solace that you are not alone…

So, like I did before Super Fat Tuesday, I thought I would create a Democratic Delegate primer for all of you that are confused and flummoxed by the process.

First, you should understand that there are two kinds of delegates; pledged delegates and the so-called super, or un-pledged, delegates.

Pledged delegates are those who are, oddly enough, pledged to a candidate based on the candidate's performance in a state's nomination contest… have I confused you now? Remember, most states and territories have a primary, but some have caucuses, and even fewer have either a hybrid system or a state convention. Seventy-five percent (75%) of a state's pledged delegates are allocated by Congressional district with the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) allocated in proportion to statewide results… but only if the state has more than one Congressional district…

God, I’m confusing myself now…

Let’s start with the basics… and you can’t get much more basic than republicans… republicans award delegates on a winner-take-all basis, usually by the entire state, although some places award delegates based upon winners of Congressional districts.

Democrats, however, award pledged delegates in proportion to their share of the vote; for example, if a candidate receives at least 15% of the vote in either a congressional district or statewide, he or she will receive at least one delegate from that jurisdiction. Because delegates are parceled out mostly by Congressional district, it is possible, and not rare, for a candidate who finishes second statewide to actually get more delegates than the candidate who won the state, so what matters isn't just the number of votes, but also how they are distributed.

Staying with me so far?

Okay… each state party has a process for determining the actual individuals who will serve as pledged delegates at the Democratic Convention, but individuals can submit their names to the state party and declare which candidate they would like to represent at the convention… these names are then vetted with the campaign so they can determine that these individuals are in fact supporters of their candidate, which is relatively important as there is nothing that binds the individuals to vote for the candidate to whom they originally pledged their support once they’re at the convention.

But that’s why those people are vetted, in an attempt to prevent that from happening. And truth be told, it’s exceptionally rare for someone to not vote for the candidate to whom they originally pledged their support.

Weeks after the state's primary, or caucus, the state party holds a meeting of the leadership and votes on the individual delegates which must have an equal balance of men and women, and must also represent the state's racial make-up.

Now we arrive at the other type of delegates, the un-pledged or “super-delegates” who are not obligated to pledge support for anyone in advance of their arriving at the convention. Furthermore, even if one of these delegated publicly declares their support for one particular candidate nothing officially binds them to stick with that endorsement.

This means that anyone who now declares support for Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama could show up at the convention, change their mind, and throw the nominating process into chaos.

It should also me mentioned that most un-pledged delegates are elected officials, in fact, all Democratic members of Congress and the Senate are un-pledged delegates (except Joe Lieberman, whose had his super-delegate status yanked away because someone in the DNC finally realized the putz is a republican in Independent clothing…). Additionally, all Democratic governors are “super-delegates” as are most members of the DNC. Add to that that a small number of “party elders” are also “super-delegates”… and this group can range from former Democratic presidents (Carter & Clinton) to vice-presidents (Gore) to former presidential nominees (Kerry) and former House Speakers to past DNC chairs.

The delegate battle at this summer’s convention will determine our party’s nominee, and the contest is already gotten fierce and will not be decided for quite some time… so, as I like to say, stay tuned.