Is anyone besides me tired of Obama surrogates threatening super delegates? On Meet The Press today Obama spokesperson, former Sen. Bill Bradley, basically threatened super delegates to support Obama ... or else face a challenger in their next election.This is not the first time I've heard this threat.
It seems the Obama camp thinks super delegates should "follow the will" of the voters in their respective states. If Obama won the most pledged delegates in a state, then all the super delegates in the state should automatically support him.
If they don't, the person could face a challenger in their next contest.
When questioned by Rep. Nita Lowey about whether Sens. Kennedy and Kerry should "switch" their support to Sen. Clinton, since she won Massachusetts, Bradley offered a telling response. He basically said they should go ahead and vote the way THEY wanted to because even if they were challenged, who could beat them?
This is an interesting thought process in an age of "new politics" being touted by Sen. Obama.
Obama claims to be the candidate of "change" -- which he says includes how we do politics in this country, yet his surrogates are playing politics as usual. So which is it Senator?
10 comments:
I'm so sick of this has-been Bradley shooting off his mouth. Hypocrites. What it all boils down to is that Obama wants to play both sides of the fence. He wants the superdelegates of the states to support him if he won that state, but if he lost it, they should still support him anyway. What really kills me is that I just read a comment on another blog about how Obama is taking the high road and Hillary is just destroying the party. They.just.don't.want.to.see. the.obvious! I can't tell if they are just stupid or blind...maybe both.
"It seems the Obama camp thinks super delegates should "follow the will" of the voters in their respective states." Imagine the gall. It's not like we live in a representative democracy or anything. The super delegates are out there not to represent the will of the people, they already have power, why listen to anyone else.
What the Obama camp has been trying to say (although some more poorly than others...) is that the super delegates should not be seen to overturn the general will of the people. Obama has won more pledged delegates, twice as many states, and hands down the popular vote (although most people only count the primaries, Obama has won caucuses 13 to 1, 12 of those with 20%+ margins). If the super delegates, and the Democratic party at large, is seen to have ignored the people they claim to represent, then they will, as a whole, face serious challenges come fall.
John - thanks for proving my point. The Obama camp has been threatening super delegates for months, and the contest isn't even over.
If we follow your logic -- and that of the Obama camp -- then Sens. Kennedy and Kerry better start campaigning for Clinton right now. She won their state, and that would mean it is the "will of the people."
One thing this election season has demonstrated is just how undemocratic the caucus system truly is. If someone cannot get off work, or has other limitations, they cannot take part in the caucus process. Primaries are a much fairer process, because they allow more time for people to participate. They also insure that no one can be intimidated.
Face it, John ... your guy has not been able to close the deal, so his camp has taken to threats and intimidation. So much for "new politics."
BAC
Let's hope he doesn't "close the deal" BAC. The more I see of Obama, the less I think he's Mr. Naive and Clean. The guy is showing how willing he is to smile for the cameras while having his surrogates do the dirty work. I worry about demagogues like him.
I just love the blatant hypocrisy of the super delegate argument when it comes to "following the will of the people." The Obama camp is basically saying super delegates must follow the will of the people -- UNLESS that means voting for Clinton.
Politics of "change"? Yeah, right.
Sue, Obama's camp is saying follow the will of the people, which, by any count, is Obama. As far as Kerry and Kennedy, Clinton did only get 56% of the vote so sure, give her 56% of the super delegates. That doesn't have to include these two. We aren't Republicans where it's winner take all.
BAC, there are issues with primaries and caucuses. When it comes to picking a party nominee, both are equally valid. Caucuses require more dedication to the party and encourage greater participation - which is required to win the general election later. But they do require more time and effort, which means some people won't be able to participate. Primaries have the opposite problem (and a bit of the inability to participate, but that is reduced).
Primaries also add the problem where anyone is able to vote, whether or not they have the best interest of the party in mind. The Mississippi primary is a prime example of this where 13% of those voting in the Democratic primary were strong supporters of McCain (another 25% were also supportive of him).
I would not support a caucus system for the general election, but when selecting a party leader, greatly different issues must be weighed. It is up for the state parties to determine which concerns are more important for them.
Clinton did only get 56% of the vote so sure, give her 56% of the super delegates.
So who decides which super delegates are part of the 56%?
Sorry, that logic doesn't work. The super delegates are not tied to any one candidate. That is what makes them different from the regular delegates. Period. End of story.
John - You will never make be believe that caucuses are a good idea. They leave people out. And I think the Dems should limit participation in primaries only to registered Democrats, and not allow independents and Republicans to select the Democratic nominee. They don't have the Democratic parties best interest at heart.
As for super delegates, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that super delegates must follow the will of the people in their state UNLESS the state voted for Clinton. The super delegates were established for a reason, so that they could be the final deciding factor in what would be in the best interest of the party.
The media is FINALLY starting to take a look at Obama -- and Obama's ratings are going down because of it. Who knows if he will survive the latest controversies. And the question super delegates need to ask is how would the public have voted, had they known this earlier?
BAC
Sue, that is Clinton's logic, and technically, it is correct.
However, if the Democrats don't want to make the millions and millions of people who came out and caucused or voted in a primary feel disenfranchised, they cannot blatantly overturn the will of the people. This is what the Obama campaign has been arguing, like I said some do it more artfully than others.
You asked how Kerry and Kennedy could still support Obama using the logic espoused by Bradley and I gave you a compatible reason.
John - when Florida and Michigan are included Clinton has more pledged delegates, and I believe more of the popular vote.
If you are going to talk about voters feeling disenfranchised, those two states MUST be included in the mix.
As I have said a thousand times, much of Obama's support has come from states that will NEVER support him in a contest against McCain. He needs strong support from the states Clinton won, and I don't think he is exactly winning her people over right now.
BAC
Post a Comment