Letters to the Editor
-
If it is a tie.....
and the superdelegates split, then what?
Why not split the presidency in half?
go down the issues:
1. Obama, Commander-in -Chief of the armed forces,
since he was wise enough not to vote for the war or to authorize the use of force in Iran...
2. Clinton President of Domestic policy including green jobs and health care because these are issues in which her experience may be stronger.
Hmmm...using the word domestic with Clinton, though, might be considered sexist. I know, Obama and Hillary could be co-presidents, but they would also have to marry. Hillary would divorce Bill and all of his baggage; Obama would divorce Michelle and Hillary would be President of the Oval Office--because its her turn--and Obama would be President over the Pentagon....
arrrghghhghgh......having it both ways just doesn't seem to work in this situation, however you try to divy it up.
-
But neither wants to be VP
And who can blame them?
They would have to give up their Senate seat. Providing they won in the fall, the VP job would last only 4-8 years. Much more fun being a Senator, and ii's a gig that can go on for decades.
-
Superdelegates
These are mostly just very loyal Democrats. The polls are beginning to show that Obama can beat McCain but Hillary Clinton with her heavy negative baggage cannot. From 796 people we get some who make early snap decisions but many are more methodical. The smart ones have not yet said anything. It is too early to know the result but it is becoming clear that our next president will be Obama.
-
@deloresflowers
"Obama did offer to seat them as long as their vote didn't change the outcome of the race;"
I don't understand what that means. I take it as: he offered to seat them only if the FL delegates were evenly split (ergo, he didn't lose out by seating them). Why should HRC agree to that? Why should Florida?
"OR, he offered to seat them if there is a do-over in both states so that voters can decide fairly."
This I can get more on-board with. However, I disagree that FL should get a "do-over." Obama and Clinton were both on the ballot, they both refrained from campaiging in Florida, and by the time Florida held its primary, any person with access to newspapers or television or the internet "knew" both candidates (I don't buy the "HRC has the name-recognition advantage" in FL: the voters there generally keep up with politics, and many who "know HRC's name" may or may not like her). Obama believes (and he may be right)that he can sway more voters to his side if he can campaign "in person". So, he wants a chance to change peoples' minds who have already voted.
(As much as I wanted FL to have a "do-over" in 2000, I saw the inherent unfairness to the rest of the country: by knowing the outcome of te other 49 states, many FL voters would likely have voted differently than they had intended to on Election Day. I feel the ame way about a FL primary "do-over" in 2008).
MI certainly deserves a "do-over," since Obma wasn't on the ballot, and write-ins weren't counted.
I suspect that a I do-over would end in Obama's favor. FL for HRC, MI (I'm guessing)for Obama, all delegates seated, and all voters heard, is probably the "fairest" solution to a truly horrendous tangle.
-
@deloresflowers again
You also noted that the HRC campaign refused both of Obama's offers. But, isn't this up to the DNC to decide or ignore?
-
Now that I've wrenched the computer back from my 5th grader
FL delegates: Why the hostility RJforHRC? I was just asking. I thought from your prior post that there was actually a rule I was missing, something like "no delegates for the primaries, no delegates for the national." I knew it didn't make sense, but I had just heard the same thing on the radio about fifteen minutes prior to reading your post. Thanks SocsandTwigs for helping me understand that not seating them would make them mad enough not to vote in the national. Although it makes sense that they'd be mad, I would think that their anger would be toward the DNC (which I think you said) or at the Republican legislature that scheduled their primary early in spite of the rules (That's what I heard--godforbid if I got that wrong, lest RJ comes after me)
superdelegates: Madame deFarge, Socs/Twigs, Slackie, and other compatriots, I'm wondering what the whole point of superdelegates is in the first place if they are required to vote with the public. I have to concede Joan Walsh's point that the time to object to this whole stinkin system was BEFORE the start of the season. I think 20% of the total delegates is too many, but I remind myself that they used to pick the party nominee to begin with and only threw it to us peons in 1972. People like Al Gore or Jimmy Carter supposedly have some kind of insider wisdom, and I'm not sure I can argue with that. I would certainly reduce the number of superdelegates or eliminate it entirely in the future, but we sort of have to live by these rules right now. If you say that they should reflect the will of the people, you still have to draw up rules: Do you mean the people in that superdelegate's district or can it be his/her state?
FL/MI: For whomever brought up that Obama already offered to have do-overs of some variety here: I happen to think that's best of all, but it's not a concession to Clinton. Right now, she's sitting pretty, playing hero to their victim, rallying to get their votes counted. And I'm not diminishing their very real grievance. I'm just saying that they would become franchised both ways--by having Clinton sue for them or by simply going to the polls again, this time with those who didn't go the first time. So, I totally see the do-over as best and most democratic, but I also see it as not a concession at all. So that one has to come from Clinton herself.
@won'tgetfooledagain: Thanks for the kind words. It distresses me more than it should when salonistas don't get along. Perhaps I need a real life. :) And a big yes on Gore.
@doloresflower: You are a class act. I'm not necessarily referring to anything particular in today's threads but to your pattern of genuine kindness and willingness to assume the best in others. I try hard to stay measured but I don't hold a candle to you. For example, what follows...
@whoever said they got rid of cythera45: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Was it ugly? Was there any violence involved? Is there any left for W.E.S.? (Kidding...sort of..)