|
 |
|
|
As more and more voters continue to choose Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination,
there is growing interest in the facts and myths about the race to reach 2025
delegates — the number required for a candidate to secure the Democratic nomination.
The Clinton campaign is claiming, without precedent or justification, that so-called
"superdelegates" — Democratic party bigwigs —
should consider thwarting the will of the people and selecting Senator Clinton,
despite the fact that Senator Obama has won the most "pledged" delegates and the most votes
in caucuses and primaries across the country.
The fact is, superdelegates should ratify the people's choice and
support the candidate who has been chosen by the American people.
Barack Obama has won more states, more delegates, and more votes.
Backroom politics should not reverse the results of caucuses and primaries in which
the Democratic nominee is chosen by a democratic process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MYTH: There is no difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates.
FACT: Pledged delegates are chosen by democratic primaries and caucuses in a democratic process.
Superdelegates are not.
|
Superdelegates represent the remains of old time, backroom politics,
when candidates were chosen by party bigwigs:
men in cigar smoke-filled rooms determining who the voters should be permitted to support.
Those days are over. The Democratic candidate is now chosen by a democratic process
in which men and women go to caucuses and primaries to voice their support
for the person they believe represents best represents their beliefs and ideals.
Bill Clinton is a superdelegate.
Worse, each superdelegate has nearly 10,000 times the power of the average voter.
Does that sound like a fair, democratic process?
|
MYTH: Because party rules require the support of superdelegates for a candidate to win the nomination,
superdelegates should reverse the results of democratic caucuses and primaries.
FACT: The mere existence of superdelegates does not mean the will of the people should be thwarted
or that Senator Clinton should engineer it.
| |
A candidate needs the support of superdelegates because superdelegates exist.
If there were no superdelegates, a Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton, if she stopped losing primaries)
could simply rely on the popular vote. But superdelegates do exist.
Until Senator Clinton began trying to convince them to reverse the results of the popular elections,
superdelegates saw their duty as ratifying the will of the people.
We should not allow anyone to twist the democratic process into the modern equivalent of the smoke-filled room.
The voters should chose the Democratic nominee.
|
MYTH: Because superdelegates may chose to support which ever candidate they choose,
they should undermine the will of the voters.
FACT: The best judgment of superdelegates is no better than the judgment of the voters
| |
This is so obvious as to be self-evident.
Althogh Senator Clinton and her surrogates continue to quote supporters who are willing to do anything to win,
the fact is that the Democratic nominee should be chosen by a democratic process.
Bill Clinton should not huddle with those he once appointed
to undermine the results of democratic primaries and caucuses in which a candidate was chosen by voters.
|
MYTH: The Democratic nomination should be affected by the results of primaries in which all candidates agreed not to compete and in which some were not even on the ballot.
FACT: Contests in which candidates agree not to compete should not be added to the process retroactively simply because
they favor a particular candidate.
|
Unfortunately, because local politicians in Florida and Michigan wanted to propel themselves into the national spotlight,
they sacrificed their position in the process. Warned that if they moved their primaries too early, the results would not count,
those politicians did it anyway. As a result, all candidates signed a pledge not to compete in those contests.
Desperate to curry favor with anyone who would listen, Senator Clinton broke that pledge.
She assured her name would remain on the ballot in Michigan — her name was the only name there —
and made sure her surrogates remained active in Florida.
Nonetheless, in Michigan — with no one else on the ballot, in a contest everyone agreed would not affect the race —
Senator Clinton almost lost to "uncommitted."
Politicians in Florida and Michigan were warned long before they chose to move their states' primaries.
But they wanted to be the next Iowa, and in their zeal they knowingly violated party rules and thus ensured candidates would not compete in their states.
As a matter of simple fairness to candidates who honored their pledge not to compete, these contests should not count.
The era of backroom politics and dirty tricks is over.
As a matter of concience, a candidate should not try to trick voters into accepting this kind of shady deal.
More importantly, the voters should not allow this sort of dishonesty.
|
MYTH: It is mathamatically possible for Clinton to win the nomination.
FACT: Because she lost so many primaries and caucuses,
Senator Clinton's only path to the nomination is to to play games with the rules of the election.
|
Senator Clinton must now convince the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people.
Senator Obama has won more votes, a majority of states, and a majority of the delegates.
Barack Obama is the winner. Everything else is just smoke-filled coffee house illusion.
|
|
|
Superdelegates Are Flocking to Obama
| |
The Democratic superdelegates are starting to follow the voters — straight to Barack Obama.
In just the past two weeks, more than two dozen of them have climbed aboard his presidential campaign, according to a survey by The Associated Press. At the same time, Hillary Rodham Clinton's are beginning to jump ship, abandoning her for Obama or deciding they now are undecided.
More from the AP...
|
|
Clinton on the ropes
| |
She had everything going for her. The most famous name in politics. A solid lead in the polls. At least $133 million.
Yet Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton finds herself struggling for political survival.
More from The Seattle Times...
|
|
|
