Letters to the Editor
-
(Very) Stale Mate
Forget the arguments about negative campaigning, focus on the boredom factor.: i.e., how sick the general electorate is going to be of both of them by the time we get to Denver. Sixty-year old feminists aside, is there anyone who can hear Hill's nasal, school-marmy voice or see her pop-eyed, daughter-of-Chuckie grin without cringing? Does anybody really want to hear Obama give another speech about hope? Doesn't McCain benefit, above all, from the fact that he isn't on the 24-hour news 24 times a day? And can't we all foresee that presidential debate in October in which McCain and Clinton argue about who is going to obliterate Iran more?
Surely the moment has come at last, eight years late: Run, Al, run!
-
Caucuses (Cauci?)
Alright--it's true, at least to this voter: caucuses have always seemed basically unfair. I'm a very "one human one vote" gal. I despise the Electoral College. I believe in popular vote and in the most people voting in the easiest way possible. It just seems more Democratic to me. But as friends remind me, we live in a democratic republic. Blahblahblah, I say. And I contact my congress critters and tell them, whenever I can, please do away with the Electoral College and go with the popular vote. Canada does it. They are a civilized country, after all.
With that as my view, I much prefer primaries to caucuses. But here is my question: why oh why if your state has a caucus and you hate the hell out of it (even comparing it to poll taxing, etc) don't you clamor to get rid of it in favor of a primary? Why do you not climb all over your congresscritters like a cheap suit until they change it? I live in IL. We have a primary. We would not stand for a caucus. It just would not go over. If we did, I would protest and change it, or die trying. So why bemoan the caucus and accept it? DO SOMETHING, if you hate it so much. Or leave the state for one with a primary.
The thing that's killing me this time around is that it seems that people are bemoaning the fact that they have caucuses after the caucuses have favored the candidate they did not choose. It seems like they want to change the rules after the game was played, because they lost. That you cannot do. If your state still demands a caucus, that's the rule. Change it if you do not like it, but you must change it BEFORE the election, not scream about it later. Just like the "disenfranchising" of FL and MI. Where was the outrage before they voted, or even just after? It was *nowhere*, not even in MI or FL. I know--my mom lives (and did not vote as she knew it wouldn't count) in MI. She doesn't blame the candidates for it. She doesn't blame Dean for it. She blames the legislature and the governor. She sure as hell doesn't want the result used--they were told it wasn't going to count! She didn't vote because of it and even if she had, her candidate (Edwards) was not on the damn ballot.
I'm all for re-votes in those states--even thought they did break the rules and should be penalized (the states, not the voters). But here's the problem (and you'd know it if you read): they are broke. There is no money to re-run their primaries. Where to get it? What do we do now? HRC rejected caucuses, which were affordable. BHO rejected a shorter primary ("firehouse primary") which would've run from 10am until 4pm (very hard for workers to vote, very easy for the retired). This too was more affordable, but not very fair. Re-running the FL primary is $12 million and the DNC and FL do not have it. Whaddaya gonna do?
The delegates should be seated but the primary was skewed. Michigan's was a travesty. It's a fine mess, but once again, it's *after* the game has already been played and you want to change the rules. You can't do that. Or else there really are no rules.
So fight! Change from caucus to primary. I'm behind you 100%. But don't complain about it now--it's a done deal. Your energy is wasted. (Rather like HRC's--she too is over, but seems to be the last to know it; she banks on coup d'etat. Despicable to me, as an American, but frighteningly acceptable to many). Change the system for the future and remind people of the old injustice in the future. It's what I do with the damned EC!
If I hear one supposed Democrat say they like the Republican primary system (so like the EC) better, I'm going to lose it. 51% takes the entire *state*? Redonkulous. Patently undemocratic.
-
Are you sure "oneguy"?
Are you sure Clinton's votes come purely from nostalgia? Do you have any evidence to back this up, or do you assume like many of the supporters of Mr. Obama, that no one could have any rational reasons for opposing him.
Seems to me that the working class have lots of reasons not to vote for Obama. His patrician demeanour, his careful choice of rhetorical flourish over detail...
And my personal favourite, the fact that he takes criticism about as well as a fourteen year old girl with self-esteem issues.
So I still find it very difficult to believe that the more liberal, more doveish champagne socialists will switch to McCain than will the white working class.
-
Howard Dean's to blame. And George McGovern.
I know Obama backers go ballistic to hear this, but Howard Dean created a lot of this mess. He insisted that Florida, a state in which the Republican supermajority made it a practical impossibility for the Democrats to go later, go later or lose their vote. Really? The Republicans punished it, but they only took away half of the vote. Why the total kibosh? This is Florida, after all, whose votes didn't count, uh, before. Why shut them out? Why shut out Michigan, the big old rust state, with the auto industry collapsing, was it really worth going to the mat about this? Why? Whose purposes are being served here? Forget the dispute about the dates. How can you justify the voters of Florida and Michigan being dropped? Because if you counted them, Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote? No, even I don't believe that. Dean went a long way to invigorating the state Dems across the country. Good for him. But the primaries slipped out of his control, and it's not pretty.
Plus:McGovern, who created this cockamamie proportional voting system to start with, and then was able to use it to get the nomination. More democratic choice of candidate = victory? I don't think so.
I think the Obama revolution is in fundraising over the internet -- $230 million worth -- but he isn't particularly interested in voting. Or at least, why the anger and vituperation over the votes continuing? Because there's a 2% chance that your guy won't win, at this point?
The internet giveth and the internet taketh. It created a massive opportunity for grassroots enthusiasm, but everybody knows the real story about the Internet: flame wars.
Here's my general theory: the internet creates a massive flow of information. But that is too much pressure on the old "As goes Maine, so goes the Nation," kind of straw hat relic that primaries are as an institution. And no, I don't think the caucus is a really good substitute.
So right now, all the states, empowered by Dean and sickened by Bush, wanted to rush forward towards the next election. The structure that resulted is the one we've got now. Let it happen. The longer it goes on, the longer the Democrats are on center stage, the better. Calm the hell down and stop it with the snark. When's the last time I heard anything positive about Barack... from his followers? What's he want to do? What's his vision?
Prmiaries, in the internet era, are like a floating crap game. Everybody wants to roll the dice and leave a comment in the chat room. Live with it.