Today's New York Times carries an op-ed piece by former Democratic VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro, arguing Hillary's cause in the guise of advocating for the role of "superdelegates" in the Democratic nomination process. (See: "Got A Problem? Ask The Super")On the one hand, we agree with Gerry that the role of the superdelegates is to lead, not to follow. They are the Democratic party's leaders and should exercise their leadership skills. Furthermore, if the will of Democrats is sufficiently clear, those leaders--many of whom are elected officials dependent on that same Democratic electorate--will follow that will. In short, if Obama keeps winning, the superdelegates will fall in line.
Unfortunately, Ferraro--who herself is a superdelegate--has declared for Senator Clinton and her argument soon loses its cohesiveness as she seeks to boost Hillary's prospects rather than make a principled point about the Democratic delegate selection process.
For example, Gerry fails to address the fact that Republicans--who have been very successful in presidential campaigns over the past 25 years--don't have superdelegates, yet seem to getting on just fine. She also contends that the Democratic nominating contests don't really represent the will of Democrats because many of them are not closed--many states allow independents, and even Republicans, to vote in such contests.
Again, so does the GOP. Significantly, if the Republicans didn't have a significant number of "open" primaries, they probably would have nominated an unelectable candidate this go-round.
In any event, it's the Democrats in each state who determine whether to have an open or closed primary (or caucus). In Virginia, where we have no party registration, our primaries are open. That's a good thing, because it let's us get a feel for how independents--the ones who generally decide elections--feel about a candidate, weeding out anyone too extreme to have a shot. It's what Democrats here want, and so it does represent the will of Democrats, at least here.
Where Ferraro's argument really falls to the ground, however, is when she says that if Obama's people really want the nomination decided by the voters, they shouldn't object to the seating of Michigan and Florida's delegates.
Here at the Curmudgeon, we can see a decent argument with respect to Florida: both candidates' names were on the ballot and both kept to their pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine state. (We also see compelling arguments for not seating Florida's delegates; ironically, had Florida stuck with it's original March 11 primary date, it could have had a huge impact on the nomination this year.)
But Michigan is an altogether different story. There, Obama had his name taken off the ballot--as did every other candidate except Hillary. So the fact that Hillary, as the only candidate, "won" Michigan is hardly a surprise. And it certainly doesn't fairly represent the wishes of Michigan voters--no telling how many Obama voters simply stayed home since he wasn't on the ballot. Indeed, the fact that even as the only candidate on the ballot, Hillary barely broke above 50% in Michigan is pretty telling.
If Ferraro at least acknowledged this disparity in Michigan and then came up with a decent rationale (if there is one) for nonetheless seating Michigan's delegates, then we might be inclined to listen to her. But to ignore it entirely shows that she's just cheerleading for Hillary.
Gerry's prescription--that the superdelegates should band together to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, and then put Hillary over the top--is a recipe for a Democratic disaster of epic proportions. If that were to happen, Hillary would never be able to unite the party and John McCain would cruise to a landslide victory in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment