Howard Dean, DNC & Super Delegates: The Problem?

[Freddie53]

In a nutshell, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot. I will list the events that lead to this debacle. I am laying the blame at the foot of Howard Dean and the DNC, not Hillary or Obama.

To the Obama supporters. It is true that I name the first two opportunities to get a nominee are for Clinton. But keep reading, your turn is coming and the Democratic Party had an opportunity to name Obama King as well, but didn't. Just keep reading you'll see.

1. The present system of selecting delegates was set up in response to Jesse Jackson's complaint that the winner take all system shut the black vote out. This was not this year, but fairly recently. The fairness of either system is debatable.

2. Howard Dean was named Chairman of the Democratic Party. Dean was a disaster in the last presidential campaign and had a horrible positive rating with the public. I blame Dean for not providing leadership to keep the party united instead of the fragmented ruins that it is in at this moment.

3. Clinton was 30 points ahead. When all the Republican candidates bailed out when McCain was just barely ahead of the others for the sake of the party and to be unified, Dean and the super delegates had a chance to crown a nominee right then and unify the party but they didn't. This has nothing to do with fairness, favorite candidate etc. It was the first opportunity to gather around a candidate and proclaim him or her the nominee.

4. Michigan and Florida. The Republicans set up these early primaries knowing fully well that DEAN would fall for them and he did big time. Dean should have told Obama NOT to remove his name from the Michigan primary, just in case. But Dean being the old idioloque he is would rather lose on principal then win on a technicality.

4. Clinton was the winner on Feb 5. Not by a lot, but still she had more votes that day. Just enough to crown her queen if the Democratic Party has wanted a presumptive nominee if they wanted a nominee right now and not later. Didn't happen.

5. March. Obama is marching taking city after city. It appears that Hillary is going down and down fast. The greatest opportunity of all to for Dean. the DNC and the superdelegates to announce it was over was the last week in March. With 11 straight victories Obama seemed invincible. Had all those superdelegates jumped on the bandwagon on April 1, it would have been over. But it didn't happen.

6. Let me interject here that DEAN is the chairman of the party. His job is not to see that the nomination is the fairest of all, that his candidate or any candidate is the nominee. His job is to keep the party unified and set up a successful run for a Democratic nominee to win the White House.

Dean has had three chances. One fairly good to name Clinton. One questionable to name Clinton. and one very good opportunity to name Obama.

THAT IS STRIKE THREE

At this time the Democratic Party is still unified. The polls at that time showed that as I recall 90 % of Obama and 90 % of Hillary voters would vote for either candidate for President in Novemeber. I may have the percentages wrong, but they were high. They have been dropping ever since and getting perilously close now to half of Clinton supporters and a smaller but still damaging number of Obama supporters.

I'll get just a little crude now. It is April 1. Basically Dean, the DNC, and the superdelegates have had three real urges to name a candidate. The last almost overwhelming. they didn't do it. We all know what happens when you keep ignoring that urge to go to the toilet. Yeap. At this point, Dean and superdelegates have pretty much pooped their pants. It is too late now to have a unified party because:


7. April 3. Hillary's Day. and then again the next Tuesday. Hillary shines again. So what to the super delegates do. Start lining up for Obama. Had they done that in March, it wouldn't have riled up many Hillary supporters. After all Hillary had lost 11 primaries in a row. She was significanlty behind in the popular vote.

8. On the day that one system of counting shows that Hillary is ahead in the popular vote, super delegates respond by endorsing Obama. (I'm not defending that system of counting, just pointing out that it is out there.)

That really sets the jaws of the Hillary people on edge. If the superdelegates couldn't announce for Obama when he was taking village after village why did they have to announce for him on Hillary's great day at the polls? Bad bad choice of days to make their announcement.

Why? It sounds like a opps, Hillary might get the election, we better announce now to get "THAT WOMAN" from being elected.

9. THE GREAT SEXIST CONTROVERSY. A host of things led up to the charge that the media was sexist against Clinton. The key though is that it didn't bubble and boil until April. The press started ignoring Hillary. The press discounted her 70 percent win in West Virginia and 65 % win in Kentucky. So did many super delegates by announcing the day after those primaries that as a result of the day before primaries they were announcing for Obama. Of course they were talking about different primaries on those same days but...that is not how Hillary supporters read it.

BITTERNESS SETS IN.

10. There is hope though. Obama and Hillary both noticed at the same time the disaster that happened in April. They both know better than anyone that on April 1 the Democratic Party was still unified. They both knew on May 1 that the party was fragmenting quickly with the number of Hillary voters who would not vote for Obama and the number of Obama supporters who would not vote for Hillary steadily climbing.

Notice, that they both want the nomination. It is a history in the making. But Hillary does not want to be the first woman to lose the electoral college vote in November. Obama does not want to be the first black to lose the electoral vote in November.

They each will do what they can to win the Democratic nomination. But that does not take action that will so enrage the other wing that there is no way for the winner to win.

Goldwater in 1964. The liberal wing refused to support him. Landside loss.
McGovern in 1972. The moderate wing of the Democratic Party refused to support McGovern. Landside loss for McGovern.

WHAT WE COULD BE READING IN THE NEWS BUT AREN'T:

1.Dean is meet privately with Obama and Hillary in a dinner meeting to talk about the issues facing the Democratic Party Dean announced today. There will be no press releases Dean said, but Dean commented that the Democratic Party is very united. Hillary and Obama are personal friends who both want to do all they can to see a Democrat in the White House next January.

2. Dean announces that after meeting with Hillary and Obama that he will propose to the DNC that half the delegates in Michigan be awarded to Hillary and half to Obama and that the Floriday primary vote be honored with a 10 percent penalty for having the open primaries. Both Hillary and Obama have agreed to support the plan. (Don't fuss over what I wrote, that is not the point. It is the last part that is critical. Dean proposes and Hillary and Obama accept.)

3. Dean tells the nation that as part of the history making process, that the Hillary delegates should put her name in nomination and let it be a historical fact that she had 40 or 45 percent of the delegates on first ballot before the motion that the nomination be made officially unanimous.

It is important to many women that this historical fact not be lost in an attempt to unify the party. Hillary has to stay in the race officially as a support to women's equality. Obama knows that more than most of his supporters do. That doesn't mean that the party has to stay divided.

CONCLUSION

Baring some unforeseen event, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. It is DEAN'S job to orchestrate that so that Hillary's position as the first major woman candidate is protected. Hillary's supporters are welcomed by Dean and the DNC, not just Obama.

Dean has failed in every opportunity he has been given to wrap up this nomination with a unified party. While he had two chances with Hillary and only one with Obama, the one he had with Obama was stronger than the two with Hillary.

Whether you are a Hillary or a Obama supporter, I think you have to agree that the lack of leadership on behalf of the DNC and Dean has had a major impact on the debacle that has just recently surfaced:

THAT IS SINCE APRIL 1, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS BECOME SIGNIFICANTLY POLORAIZED.

Sure there was some polarization, but I wouldn't call it major. It is major now. In my area, people are saying that the Democrats have handed the presidency to John McCain and by and large they aren't happy about it. But I live in a predominantly Democratic state.

I did my best to write this from a neutral observation as far as Obama and Hillary are concerned.

It is the DNC and Howard Dean that alarm me and worry me. It is they that I blame for the present divided party.

I don't know what is so hard for true Democrats to understand. To Democrats another four or eight years of McCain will be even a greater disaster to our country than Bush.

To Republicans and Independents the following statement doesn't apply to you. BUT:

If you are a true Democrat, there is a bigger picture than Hillary or Obama.

 

[B_CBTallthetime]

McCain has a good shot at winning this thing

 

[Freddie53]

I need to make a very important point that might get lost if you don't read my thread post carefully.

This thread is only about whether when and who Dean could have annointed, either Hillary or Obama, not whether it was fair or right. It is also about the performance ofthe DNC and the Super delegates from the beginning until now.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT HILLARY OR OBAMA AND WHAT THEY DID OR DID NOT DO IN THIS RACE!

I don't mind discussing to some degree about what Dean, the superdelegates and the DNC could do in the future to solve the problem except that it is human nature when looking at the future to base your suggestions on what would favor your candidate.

Esample Supporters of both Obama and Hillary have commented on why the popular vote should matter the most when it benefited their candidate. Only to talk about districts, the importance of super delegates and other factors when those were to their candidates advantage.

I don't want this to be another Hillary's suipporters on one side and Obama supporters on the other side.

I really want a serious discussion of how the Democratic chair, Dean, the DNC and the super delegates have performed in the past and how their behavior might have been better. Ive given my examples. I would love ot hear other comments.

If you think Dean has done a magnificent job as chair I really want to hear that with examples. It will take lots of them to convince me. Go ahead and try if you wish.

I suspect both Hillary and Obama privately are not happy with Dean. Both will replace him if they get the nomination. That will be the first move as the nominee. Fire Dean.


Maybe others see some other points in the race where Dean could have done something different to have shown better leadership.

My post is not about Hillary or Obama. It is about DEAN and the DNC and SUPER DELEGATES.

 

[lucky8]

i agree, the DNC and superdelegates have caused more problems than they have solved this year. mccain is probably going to win this election now because the DNC doesn't realize most republicans vote for the party, not the candidate, whereas we have all of these dumbfuck democrats now threatenting to vote republican if their candidate isn't nominated. what a debacle...thank you mr chairman...YouTube - Howard Dean

 

[headbang8]

Have simultaneous caucuses, on a single day. Call it a convention, call it a primary, call it whatever.

 

[Industrialsize]

2 quick points. Next tuesday, June 3rd are the Idaho and Montana Primaries. I don't know what data you're looking at Freddie, but this will NOT be a shing day for Hillary. Obama is favored in BOTH races by alot.
Point 2: the current system of superdelegates was not set up because of jesse jackson. The system predates him and arose out of the Carter/Kennedy race for the nomination where Carter went into the convention leading and kennedy intitiated a bruising floor fight for the nomination with carter winning. he ended up losing the GE.
Also, it is NOT up to Howard Dean to Name a nominee. His job is to remain impartial. The decision rests with the superdelegates

For what it';s worth, the superdelegates are not endorsing en masse for a reason according to conventional wisdom. They have been endorsing Obama in groups of 3-7 a day. An en masse endorsemnt would look like the Supers were trying to shut the race down which WOULD anger Senator clinton's supporters. So it's a slow drip, drip, drip...but it's crystal clear for anyone with a brain to see in what direction the supers are going.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Dean has failed in every opportunity he has been given to wrap up this nomination with a unified party. While he had two chances with Hillary and only one with Obama, the one he had with Obama was stronger than the two with Hillary.

But who says Dean should have tried to wrap up the nomination?
The mere fact that the advantage moved back and forth so much is the proof that any effort at the points you have indicated would have been premature.
Don't the super delegates have the right to make up their own minds, when they choose?
Wouldn't the super delegates likely have responded with considerable anger?
And wouldn't the scorned candidate have done the same?
Not to mention that candidate's supporters?
I don't think there was any onus on Dean to preempt the democratic process in his own party.
Sure, one can envisage scenarios in which disaffected Clinton supporters sit out the November election. But when push comes to shove, I'll bet few of them will risk abetting a continuation of Republican folly.

 

[Bbucko]

One of the main reasons why I've always labeled myself Independent is because Dems are notorious for bitter, fractious infighting and have a disorganized way of vetting their candidates.

I have always found the DNC to be as noxious as the RNC, at different times and for different reasons.

HOWEVER, in thirty-plus years of voting, I have only ever voted for one Republican, Bill Weld, who would never even be considered a Republican outside of New England.

 

[SteveHd]

Freddie, thank you for the insight. It looks like you put some time into it.

I'm an independent so there's too much detail for me to digest but it augments my previously-held negative view of Howard Dean.

From an outside view, I the party division is overstated. It exists but it's partly compensated by rank-and-file energy and enthusiasm.

 

[swordfishME]

Very good post, Freddie.

If the democrat loses this November (and THAT is a very realistic possibility) it will be more Dean and the DNC's fault than Obama's or Clinton's.

The republicans had a good strategy to play the democrats and they have done so pretty successfully. Rove and his friends wanted to use the proportional vote primary system to dent the eventual nominee and they have done so pretty well. The Democrats and Dean fell for it hook, line and stinker.

I come from a conservative state (Texas) and am in touch with a lot of people back home and trust me, they despise McCain with every fiber of their conservative being. But in the end, he is the republican nominee and they will get in line to vote for him come November. The Democrats have never been able to say that. A decent chunk of the non-nominee's supporters will either stay home of vote for someone else, this is ingrained in the Democratic mindset and no amount of pleas by the non-nominee is going to change that. Add to that from the beginning it has been implied that if Obama does not get the nomination some blacks are going to make it a civil rights issue (same is true for Clinton and the feminists but to a slightly lesser extent) and the democrats have a disaster of what should have been a sure bet.

I had said this on the board 7-8 months ago and I think it bears repeating today: This was the year that the Democrats needed to go with a white male candidate with little baggage instead they might just blow it by trying to make history with the first female or first black major-party presidential candidate.

 

[Guy-jin]

I think the DNC, Howard Dean and Superdelegates are less of a problem in and of themselves for the Democrats than the universal inability to compromise in the party as a whole, from the simple voters to the top level individuals in the party.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

HOWEVER, in thirty-plus years of voting, I have only ever voted for one Republican, Bill Weld, who would never even be considered a Republican outside of New England.

I lived in Boston when Bill Weld was in office. And there were times when I actually mistook him for being a Democrat. If there were more Republicans like Weld running for office, I'd be willing to listen to them.

But back on topic... Freddy, as always, brings up very valid points that look at the whole picture. It would really suck to see the Democrats lose, but with all of the mistakes being made all around you can't help but not feel that it could happen. If somehow McCain manages to win this, you can bet that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. The war will not end, gas prices will continue to rise as well as health costs. Our education system will go down the crapper since all of that money will be spent to continually protect a farm in Kansas from a terrorist. But of course, some people think this is better than having a Black man or a woman in office.

 

[Freddie53]

I understand how some of you feel and it is amazing that it is the Obama people that feel that way when Dean had his best chance to persuade the party to back either candidate. (My opinion off course.

I agree that at least in theory the people should be nominating the candidate. The truth is the candidate represents the party. On the Republican side, the right wing fundies are silently fuming and by and large going to vote for McCain. The Republicans find a way to get unified.

Romney dropped out way to early in my opinion. The race was far from over. But it was in the Republican Party's interest that McCain became the presumptive nominee that early.

I still hold that Dean is not a good leader for the party. I hear what you are saying about how he shouldn't be trying to annoint a candidate.

I hope you are hearing my point that Dean is NOT A GOOD LEADER. HE IS NOT A UNIFIER. It was under his direction that we got into this horrible mess in Florida and Michigan. He should have privately sternly told Obama to keep his name on he Michigan ballot so as to not tie the hands of the Party Rules Committee. With Obama not on the ballot, that makes that state extremely tricky to deal with. Florida is a bit easier. Neither candidate campaigned in the state. Clinton only visited after the polls were closed so she didn't campaign there while the voting was going on either.

As far as next Tuesday. I didn't mean to imply that I thought Hillary was defintely going to win those primaries. I am aware that there are only two primaries left. That is the future. We do know that the primaries will be over on June 3.

My details of my scenerio that I gave may be full of holes. But I still stand my ground that if the Democratic Party had a really great leader as the Chairman, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Some other things that Dean could have been doing. In the same speech with exactly the same amount of writing space be singing the praises of both candidates all along. Dean's job is to help deliver the White House to the Democrats and keep the party unified until there is a nominee. He hasn't done that.

Maybe his worst faults are not what he did, but what he didn't do.

So those that are backing Dean so far. Are you suggesting he has been a great chairman of the party? Dean blew it nationally as a candidate for president. He embarassed himself on national TV with his speech. Don't you think having a Chairman with some charisma would not have helped just a little?

i don't know how anyone can not put part of the blame on the super delegates. They could have at least given the name of the candidate that they are leaning to but state that this is subject to change.

If most of the super delegates are going to sit on their hands until August every election, then we need to do away with them.

But you say, Freddie, I thought you were for Hillary? You know that would give the nomination to Obama. Yes I do. I don't like changing rules to fit a candidate. I want rules that give a nominee who can still win after the convention is over. I don't want a candidate that is in political intensive care after the convention is over. If the nominee is Obama, it is Obama. he gets my vote. If it is Hillary, Hillary gets my vote. If a compromise candidate Al Gore gets the nomination, Gore gets my vote. (Very far stretch indeed.)

But I am from the old school. I am a party man first and a candidate man second.

At this point we have far far far too many Democrats who would rather the Democrats lose the White House than for their favorite candidate to not get the nomination. That is fine for Independents to feel that way. True members of the party should be loyal to the party unless the candidate is really way off. Yes, I am aware that more Clinton supporters feel that way than Obama supporters. I still don't like it.

No one has challenged the notion that there just isn't that much difference in the written agendas of Clinton and Obama. Who knows what the difference would be if they were president. That is the future. If we are talking about platforms, not personalities, there is no reason to abandon either Obama or Clinton come November. The only reason would be personalities, sexism, or racism.


AGAIN, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR HILLARY. I WANTED IT TO BE ABOUT HOW COULD DEAN, THE DNC AND THE SUPER DELEGATES HAVE HANDLED IT SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS EXTREME POLARIZATION THAT WILL GUARANTEE THE WHITE HOUSE TO McCAIN.

I don't know if I know enough or am intelligent enough to give the right answers on what they should have done.

For you Obama supporters, I will admit that the main reason I was for Hillary is because as a political family here in Arkansas we go back 35 years. My brother knew Bill in college. No they aren't personal friends. I doubt my brother could contact Bill if he tried. I never was against Obama.

This thing has gotten so polarized that any suggestion made by anyone here the members are going to line up as a group of Obama supporters and Clinton supporters.

Let me give this humorous analogy. If we LPSG people discussing this were all gathered around the big table and I pointed out that I needed to go to the toilet and suggested that we take a five minute break, the supporters here would first look to see if I was for Clinton or for Obama before they would decide if a five minute break would be a good idea. It is that way nationally as well.

I can see it now. The Hillary people would then be glamoring for a five minute break because Freddie is for Hillary The Obama people would then suggest that each person go just as needed and not have formalized breaks.

I give that as an example because really why in the world would all Clinton people want to do that one way and the Obama people the other way.

Because we are so polorized that at this point, it is impossible to get the Clinton and Obama people to agree to anything. For a while, it looked to me to be the Obama people that were worse at it, Lately, it appears it is the Clinton people that are that way and sorry fellow Clintoni supporters, it is getting worse.

It is this mass group thinking that I just don't like. I refuse to give up my free thinking. I am not going to vote for formalized breaks or each person go when they need to based on which system fellow Hillary supporters want. I would vote on what fits me the best. This is just an analogy folks

We should be for doing what is right. But I have read supporters saying popular vote is most important when their candidate is helped and the same person is for district whatever when that is most helpful and on and on. And I have seen this on both sides, not just one. We and that includes all of us have switched around the procedure to fit what will do our candidate the most good in this one situation and feel free to change it as each situation arises. In most instances, I am talking about LPSG members here not Hillary or Obama themselves, but sometimes their point man somewhere.

I still maintain that it was and is Howard Dean's job to see that the party did not fragment to this point where one candidate would vote for Hilter before they would vote of the OTHER candidate.

Dean failed. He will always fail because he is not an effective leader. He does not have the qualities needed to unify.

The most horrifying thing is that Michigan and Florida thing. Simmer and boil is what it has been doing now for months. It will be the death of the Democratic nominee come November. Had I been Dean, I would have asked the top 100 rich Democrats to pay for a new primary in both states. I think that would have been legal since it didn't favor a candidate. The party could have done it through a mail-in like Oregon. I believe for the sake of the the top 100 richest Democrats would have and could have paid for it and we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, Dean said the DNC would have nothing to do with having another primary because they need that money somewhere else. True, but they can save their money on Michigan and Florida. Unless Hillary campaigns extensively for Obama in both states, Obama nor any Democratic candidate will have a chance in those states come November.

Dean can't think about side the box. No vision.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I still maintain that it was and is Howard Dean's job to see that the party did not fragment to this point where one candidate would vote for Hitler before they would vote of the OTHER candidate.

Ideally, he would do that, but not everything is under his control. And the Dems find their way to rancor and division by sheer homing instinct.

Dean failed. He will always fail because he is not an effective leader. He does not have the qualities needed to unify.

As a Canadian, I know much less about your politics than you do, but I have to say I share this impression.

I am aware that there are only two primaries left.

Three, Freddie.
Puerto Rico (June 1), and Montana and South Dakota (June 3).

 

[B_New End]

Terry McCullough set up Kerry when he was DNC chair, against the will of the activists, and all he could offer was Kerry was winnable. Well, Kerry lost, and the activists put Dean in his place.

Now Terry McCullough is trying to present yet another guaranteed loser as winnable, as Clinton's campaign manager.

Obama is a candidate that actually is a liberal, and is against the war in Iraq, and definiteley against war with Iran. His donations pour in from the little people. He is truly a people's candidate, 200,000 new DONORS last month.

If Obama wins, Dean did better than McCullough. If Obama loses, Dean merely did as good as McCullough.

Clinton was 30 points ahead. When all the Republican candidates bailed out when McCain was just barely ahead of the others for the sake of the party and to be unified, Dean and the super delegates had a chance to crown a nominee right then and unify the party but they didn't. This has nothing to do with fairness, favorite candidate etc. It was the first opportunity to gather around a candidate and proclaim him or her the nominee.

Look, the majority of the Democrats have spoken. They want Obama. You are suggesting, Dean, as a uniter, should have ignored all of them, and chose Clinton. This is the typical Clintonesque attack. "Obama cant even beat Clinton" All the while, Clinton is losing to Obama. Its such a disengenuous and hypocritical attack. How would he have "united" the party by "choosing" a candidate before the primaries were even over? RIDICULOUS!!!

Let me interject here that DEAN is the chairman of the party. His job is not to see that the nomination is the fairest of all, that his candidate or any candidate is the nominee. His job is to keep the party unified and set up a successful run for a Democratic nominee to win the White House.

WRONG. His job is all of those. Furthermore, the nominations have to be fair, to keep the party united. You think the party would stay United if he made executive decisions over the will of the majority of Democrats? What kind of twisted logic is this?


The feminists WILL SUPPORT OBAMA when ol MCCain starts touting his pro-life shiite.

The bitterness will be turned onto McCain. If Democrats can hate Obama as much as they do, just wait until they start again paying attention to McCain's big mouth.

 

[Trinity]

Great post.

6. Let me interject here that DEAN is the chairman of the party. His job is not to see that the nomination is the fairest of all, that his candidate or any candidate is the nominee. His job is to keep the party unified and set up a successful run for a Democratic nominee to win the White House.

I do believe it is Dean's job to see that the Democratic Primary is "fairest of all." If a candidate does not win in a fair manner then there can be no party unity.

Democratic Party rules were a problem waiting to happen for two candidates evenly matched such as the first viable African American candidate running against the first viable woman candidate. Proportional allocation of delegates made it nearly impossible to get a concensus winner to "rally" behind and push to nomination in remaining states with "clear" wins in order to avoid this "street brawl" that divides rather than unites. Couple that with the fact that democrats proportion against the Republican's easier won Winner-Take-All. Just makes the Democratic Primary more difficult, harder won and there made Dean and the DNC's planning and leadership all the more necessary to be fair, deliberate and wise.

It was none of those things. In any other Primary Race a threat to sanction states who broke the rules would seem fair, except this one. To actually do it was unwise and even undemocratic. We now know states can be held hostage by the Republicans and voters can be held hostage by elected officials.

Dean has had three chances. One fairly good to name Clinton. One questionable to name Clinton. and one very good opportunity to name Obama.

THAT IS STRIKE THREE

At this time the Democratic Party is still unified. The polls at that time showed that as I recall 90 % of Obama and 90 % of Hillary voters would vote for either candidate for President in Novemeber. I may have the percentages wrong, but they were high. They have been dropping ever since and getting perilously close now to half of Clinton supporters and a smaller but still damaging number of Obama supporters.

I don't think Dean should name a candidate the Nominee prior to a candidate securing the necessary number of delegates. That would not be proper -Not even to promote party unity. A candidate must win to be the winner. A Nominee can not be "selected" because we fear the Republicans may win. If we are so adamant about winning back the White House, why can't we fix what is wrong with the process?

Please tell me Republicans aren't smarter than Democrats. It must be fair to unite us. This is why Democrats chose proportional allocation...we wanted the fairest process but ironically we want to circumvent our principles out of fear of losing when doing so is what is preventing us from winning.

If you are a true Democrat, there is a bigger picture than Hillary or Obama.

Yes, there is but the bigger picture is lost if people can't see themselves represented, their needs met, their wants and desires respected.

There is a movie on HBO recently called Iron Jawed Angels which details the Women's Suffrage Movement. It was a hard fought battle for women to get to vote. In the movie the women were fighting a Wartime President to support a constitutional amendment for Women’s Right to Vote, and they were conflicted with fighting for their rights or “being good little women” as society dictated and unifying with the nation of men against the war. They were told to wait for their rights because ending the war was more in important than their petty want for a vote. One of the most important lines was: Nothing is more important than ending a war...not suffrage not anything. The thing is…

The women fighting for suffrage made Pres. Wilson recognize that in order for Unity to be REAL everyone on the “team” had to be valued with the same respect. The women ultimately continued their fight as the War raged. The women's right to vote was added as part of a War Resolution...Wilson stated that giving women this dignity was important to the war effort.

Now, Hillary Clinton Supporters stand on the brink of standing up for their representation and for fairness in our Democratic Processes or being good Democrats and unifying in the War against the Republicans.

The issues in our elections and the errors the Democratic Party has made have devalued the integrity of the Primary. For those who feel abandoned, disenfranchised, cheated, and ignored by the Party they won't be forced to comply with mediocrity by fear of the Republican Reign of Terror excuse. The Party and the nation must exemplify true democracy, fairness and Democratic Party ideals.

In order to win the "War Against the Republicans" and have Party Unity adding back the fairness in a “War Resolution” is necessary once again. Give everyone their dignity and equal representation then we can stand United.

The pledged delegate count will have to be equalized by the DNC through Florida and Michigan. Yes Obama will have to be at a disadvantage in those states. The Superdelegates will have to decide the Primary Nominee not based on some small lead in delegates that was garnered through errors, bias and unfairness in the democratic system, but on the strengths of the candidate to beat John McCain and to be the next President of the United States.

 

[B_New End]

Great post.



I do believe it is Dean's job to see that the Democratic Primary is "fairest of all." If a candidate does not win in a fair manner then there can be no party unity.

Democratic Party rules were a problem waiting to happen for two candidates evenly matched such as the first viable African American candidate running against the first viable woman candidate. Proportional allocation of delegates made it nearly impossible to get a concensus winner to "rally" behind and push to nomination in remaining states with "clear" wins in order to avoid this "street brawl" that divides rather than unites. Couple that with the fact that democrats proportion against the Republican's easier won Winner-Take-All. Just makes the Democratic Primary more difficult, harder won and there made Dean and the DNC's planning and leadership all the more necessary to be fair, deliberate and wise.

It was none of those things. In any other Primary Race a threat to sanction states who broke the rules would seem fair, except this one. To actually do it was unwise and even undemocratic. We now know states can be held hostage by the Republicans and voters can be held hostage by elected officials.



I don't think Dean should name a candidate the Nominee prior to a candidate securing the necessary number of delegates. That would not be proper -Not even to promote party unity. A candidate must win to be the winner. A Nominee can not be "selected" because we fear the Republicans may win. If we are so adamant about winning back the White House, why can't we fix what is wrong with the process?

Please tell me Republicans aren't smarter than Democrats. It must be fair to unite us. This is why Democrats chose proportional allocation...we wanted the fairest process but ironically we want to circumvent our principles out of fear of losing when doing so is what is preventing us from winning.



Yes, there is but the bigger picture is lost if people can't see themselves represented, their needs met, their wants and desires respected.

There is a movie on HBO recently called Iron Jawed Angels which details the Women's Suffrage Movement. It was a hard fought battle for women to get to vote. In the movie the women were fighting a Wartime President to support a constitutional amendment for Women’s Right to Vote, and they were conflicted with fighting for their rights or “being good little women” as society dictated and unifying with the nation of men against the war. They were told to wait for their rights because ending the war was more in important than their petty want for a vote. One of the most important lines was: Nothing is more important than ending a war...not suffrage not anything. The thing is…

The women fighting for suffrage made Pres. Wilson recognize that in order for Unity to be REAL everyone on the “team” had to be valued with the same respect. The women ultimately continued their fight as the War raged. The women's right to vote was added as part of a War Resolution...Wilson stated that giving women this dignity was important to the war effort.

Now, Hillary Clinton Supporters stand on the brink of standing up for their representation and for fairness in our Democratic Processes or being good Democrats and unifying in the War against the Republicans.

The issues in our elections and the errors the Democratic Party has made have devalued the integrity of the Primary. For those who feel abandoned, disenfranchised, cheated, and ignored by the Party they won't be forced to comply with mediocrity by fear of the Republican Reign of Terror excuse. The Party and the nation must exemplify true democracy, fairness and Democratic Party ideals.

In order to win the "War Against the Republicans" and have Party Unity adding back the fairness in a “War Resolution” is necessary once again. Give everyone their dignity and equal representation then we can stand United.

The pledged delegate count will have to be equalized by the DNC through Florida and Michigan. Yes Obama will have to be at a disadvantage in those states. The Superdelegates will have to decide the Primary Nominee not based on some small lead in delegates that was garnered through errors, bias and unfairness in the democratic system, but on the strengths of the candidate to beat John McCain and to be the next President of the United States.

Ive seen Iron Jawed angels, great movie, esp the bubble bath scene... grrrrowl

Women got the right to vote in 1914, some blacks really couldn't vote until the late 60's.

Activists are tired of watered down Democrats. The Republican party is weaker than it has ever been. Now is the time to put in a real liberal, and time to end this fucking war, NOW. NO more pussy-footing politic playing triangulation Clinton style politics. It's time to crush the Republicans for their treason!!!

 

[HazelGod]

Freddie, I personally believe your premise is flawed.

Neither Howard Dean nor any other party leader has the mandate nor the authority to select a nominee. That power resides entirely with the party's national convention delegates.

Our system of government is rooted in democracy...of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have lost sight of this as a society, and that needs to be rectified, not exacerbated by a dictatorial decree from an elite upper echelon.

I agree that the delegate selection process as it stands today is unnecessarily convoluted and would benefit greatly from overall simplification...but that has no bearing on the current election.

I don't care much for party politics at all, but I don't believe Dean could have prematurely coronated any candidate without permanently alienating most of the electorate. As much as I personally wish Hillary would accept the mathematical reality of her defeat and shut the fuck up, she has every right to keep squawking right up to convention day...and I would not support any strongarming by Dean, the DNC, or anyone else to eliminate her from contention. As party leaders, it's their job to try to reason with her and make her realize the damage she's inflicting...and I'm sure they have and will continue to do just that.

Beyond that, however, I can't get on board. Freedom of choice trumps all, IMO.

EDIT:
There is another point I wanted to address, and that is the question of fairness. Stop already. Fairness is the domain of small children and imbeciles. It's a subjective fantasyland that has little bearing on pragmatic reality. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then fairness is surely that of crybabies.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

In any other Primary Race a threat to sanction states who broke the rules would seem fair, except this one. To actually do it was unwise and even undemocratic. We now know states can be held hostage by the Republicans and voters can be held hostage by elected officials.

Why is it less fair, less wise, and less democratic in this race to sanction states that broke the rules?
What marks this race out from any other?
Because the candidates are so close in pledged delegate counts? That could hardly be known in advance.
So why?

 

[Bbucko]

EDIT:
There is another point I wanted to address, and that is the question of fairness. Stop already. Fairness is the domain of small children and imbeciles. It's a subjective fantasyland that has little bearing on pragmatic reality. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then fairness is surely that of crybabies.

Repeated for the utter brilliance of truth contained therein.