Josh Marshall has had an interesting bunch of posts from people discussing their allegiance to one of the two Democratic candidates and their unwillingness to vote for them in the general election. I’m (clearly) a diehard Democrat. I was first eligible to vote in 1996, and since then I voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry for president. The only scenario in which I would not vote for the Democratic nominee for president would be if the person leading in delegates is denied the nomination by the superdelegates. I think Hillary Clinton would be a breath of fresh air after the stench of eight years of Bush, but that - and only that - narrow, unlikely scenario would cause me to stay home. And that’s “stay home”, no way on God’s green earth I’m voting for John McCain. The only Republican I would probably ever vote for is Arnold Vinick.
» Breaking News
Web Rumors Pushed South Korean Actress Choi Jin Sil To Suicide
You?ve Got Bank: $250 Billion Of Tax Dollars To Buy 9 Major Banks
Sunny Leone: Breaking Beauty
Jamie Lynn Spears Does Wal-Mart
If you feel strongly that you couldn’t vote for McCain, then I just don’t understand anyone’s reasoning about staying home. Did you see that Pat Buchanan clip where Buchanan says McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi?
Work hard for your preference, and if that doesn’t come to pass, work just as hard for the nominee. (Be a Democrat, not a jackass
)
(On the other hand, now is the time to be pushing Gore/Edwards in the brokered convention….)
(If it goes to the convention it will suck in many ways, but come on, if it ends up being brokered it should be much more interesting than a football game.)
And finally, I do have to say, party rules are party rules. If the supers vote for someone other than the leader in the pledged delegates, well, that’s entirely within their rights and within the tie breaking role that has been given to them. Work to reduce the number of superdelegates to a more meaningful and representative number, work to move up the convention from August, work to ensure the first primaries are closed primaries, and work to make sure that the first primaries rotate and are not always given to Iowa and NH.
Sure, its within their rights. Its also within the rights of the electoral college in many states not to follow the will of the popular vote in that state.
But it’s not a good thing, and that would be my reaction.
“The only scenario in which I would not vote for the Democratic nominee for president would be if the person leading in delegates is denied the nomination by the superdelegates.”
Oliver, there whole point of the ex officio delegates is that they are NOT beholden to the electorate’s wishes as expressed on Primary Day. They are a check on the possibility that circumstances could change between that date and the convention, and can avoid a candidate who is, for whatever reason, utterly unelectable from winning the nomination based on votes taken months and months before the election. It’s the party’s way of keeping some control for itself, and not simply yielding to pure democracy — which tends to break down into “tyranny of the majority” when applied above certain levels. It’s a reflection of how the United States itself isn’t a pure democracy, but a democratic republic.
At least, that’st the rationale the Democratic leadership came up with a couple of decades ago, when they put this system in place.
This fuss — of which your above statement is a perfect example — reminds me of the fights over the Electoral College that came up in 2000 and 2004. The rules were set long before the contest, but a lot of people (in this case, you; in the other two examples, I suspect you were among those crowds, too) suddenly found them grossly unfair and undemocratic and wrong and unfair the instant it dawned on you that those rules would keep your side from winning.
The time to complain about the rules is before you start playing, not when you realize you might lose. That just makes you look like whiny little gits.
Your party, Oliver, your rules, as spelled out long before you started playing. If you were 1/10 of the political analyst and junkie and devotee you claim to be, you must have known that long before Obama filed for his first primary.
Suck it up, pally. Or are you a seven-year-old? “I don’t like these rules! Change ‘em so I win, or I’m going home!”
Man, for once a convention’s gonna be fun to watch…
J.
Oh, and any new thoughts on the passport scandal now that it’s turned out that 1) all three candidates’ records were searched, and 2) the snoops were not federal employees, but contractors working for a firm headed up by an Obama advisor? I thought it was no big deal, just a couple of idiots caught poking around and who ought to be fired, from the outset, and I still do. But I’m curious what happened to your big conspiracy theory once it pointed away from Rice and Bush and a bit closer to your guy’s camp.
So Obama is leading in delegates, but gets hit by a bus and is in what looks to be a long-term coma.
Previously pledged delegates and superdelegates, not wanting a vegetable on the ticket, switch to Clinton.
You still staying home?
“The only scenario in which I would not vote for the Democratic nominee for president would be if the person leading in delegates is denied the nomination by the superdelegates.”
Has this always been your stance, or did it come into being due to the current situation?
Personally, I want Obama to win, but I also want the Republicans to lose. If I can’t have both, I’m still going to do my damndest to at least get one.
I believe that Obama will be the nominee. That said, if Hillary wins the nomination and you don’t vote then you are in effect voting for John McCain.
If you asked Obama, I believe he’d tell you to go out and vote Democrat no matter what.
Peace.
Obama ‘08
If the supers vote for someone other than the leader in the pledged delegates, well, that’s entirely within their rights and within the tie breaking role that has been given to them.
If Obama doesn’t get the nomination, it will be a travesty, yes, but I won’t stay home. I will hold my nose and vote just like I have in the last 2 general elections. (I was a Dean supporter and still think he got robbed.)
Hopefully, Michelle won’t hold Barack to the “one run and we’re out” because he’s still young and could benefit from the next election (brand recognition, etc.)
“2) the snoops were not federal employees, but contractors working for a firm headed up by an Obama advisor?”
Again, Jay Tea, do you ever, ever, ever check your facts before you write something? Only one of the three contract employees worked for the company run by John O. Brennan, the Obama adviser, and the employee looked at Obama’s passport record and McCain’s.
Three contract emplyees are accused in the wrongdoing, including the one who works for Analysis Corp. and who was disciplined. That contract employee accessed McCain’s file in addition to Obama’s. None of the contract employees was identified.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/
Which is to say that, yes, some people jumped to conclusions or suspicions before all the facts are in. What’s your excuse?
I think superdelegates are stupid. I think the electoral college is stupid. Oh no, the consistency, it hurts Jaytea’s brain! Historically speaking the electoral college has usually reflected the will of the people, but in 2000 it did not. And America got the booby prize.
fafaroo, I said from the outset that this whole passport thing was nothing. The idiots who did it need to be fired, but it was hardly any grand conspiracy. Oliver was one of those who started howling when, at first, it seemed only Obama’s records were accessed.
And Oliver, I’m not questioning your consistency, merely your timing. Why didn’t this outrage of yours manifest itself before it became apparent that the rules could end up hurting your guy?
Say what you want about the Clintons, they do their homework. They knew the rules of the game before they started playing. (That helps you cheat all the better, after all.) They worked on the superdelegates because they saw that they might need them. Obama, apparently, made a rookie mistake and seems to have figured that if he went into the convention with a plurality, that’d be enough to win.
And you want to re-write the rules to make his mistaken assumption the rules. You are the one who is suddenly appalled at the undemocratic Democratic party and its rules.
It’s 2004 all over again. Then, it was the Electoral College that you were all hissy about, because it looked like Kerry might win the popular vote and still lose.
Your righteous indignation might carry a bit more weight, Oliver, if it was less conveniently timed to coincide with you suddenly discovering that you might actually lose, thanks to the rules.
J.
I wasn’t in a hissy over the 2004 election and the EC. I know you like to transmute your wacky beliefs unto others, but that opinion was not expressed by me. Furthermore, if the Clintons had done their homework they wouldn’t have given up February, would they?
And as I’ve expressed - in this very post - I think a scenario in which the delegate leader doesn’t get the majority of superdelegates as unlikely to happen as you getting a clue on a single issue.
JT: Say what you want about the Clintons, they do their homework. They knew the rules of the game before they started playing.
As OW notes, the first sentence is debatable. As for the second, it doesn’t keep them from trying to break the rules. See: Florida and Michigan.
Well, Oliver, I said that the whole passport thing was just a few idiots doing idiotic things, and not some grand conspiracy. You, on the other hand, chose to use the opportunity to call Condoleezza Rice a pathological liar. Why would you say that unless you thought it was relevant, and therefore she was involved? And what has happened to your grand conspiracy theory since it turns out that at least one of the contractors works for a guy who’s a key Obama advisor?
I’ll take that as my “getting a clue on a single issue,” thank you very much.
J.
On a completely lighter note, Oliver, you and CK really ought to check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcL6-mjRNk
J.
I don’t know if I will ever blog about the elections in the US again. There is nothing honorable in politics in the US anymore. I don’t think the Founding Fathers will proud. They will be ashamed. This is a proud country. But politicians do everything to kill that honor and pride. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/23/the-founding-fathers-will-be-ashamed/
JT: since it turns out that at least one of the contractors works for a guy who’s a key Obama advisor
Has there been any info on exactly what the contractor’s relationship with “the guy he works for”? All I’ve seen is that one is an individual employee and the other is head of the company.
If the head of my company donates to McCain, does that mean I have a connection to the McCain campaign?
I’m sure there are a large proportion of folks at any company (regardless of size) that don’t agree with the politics of their CEO.
(And “key”? Really? So far all I’ve seen is “an”)
Don’t look at me, Sean. Back when it was apparently a State Department employee, that was enough to justify linking in Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush. I’m just following the precedent established by Oliver and others.
J.
Sorry to disagee, But I am a Obama supporter. And no I will never vote for Hillary. And I won’t vote for McCain or Nader, I will leave it blamk.
Hillary says that their is no difference between her and McCain, so why should you bother to choose.
If you vote for Hillary you are saying it is ok to vote for a lying, race-baiter that questions her opponents patriotism. Also one that tries to scare the stupid into voting for her.
Vote for Hillary and you are saying we are ok with a Presidential candidate that uses Karl Rove sewar campaigns to get elected.
If Hillary in the nominee I will not sell my soul and vote for her. If you all can, that is between you and your maker.
You, on the other hand, chose to use the opportunity to call Condoleezza Rice a pathological liar. Why would you say that unless you thought it was relevant, and therefore she was involved?
Well, she is a pathological liar. Just not about this.
JT: I’m just following the precedent established by Oliver and others
Given the opinions of them you’ve expressed in the past, what does it say about you that that’s the standard you aim for?
Ken If Hillary in the nominee I will not sell my soul and vote for her. If you all can, that is between you and your maker.
I’m with Ken on this. I’ve had enough of voting against. I want to vote for and will not settle for the lesser evil. To do so is to accept that nothing will change. It sends the message that it ok to lie and work to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Someone wants my vote, they are going to have to earn it.
If Hillary in the nominee I will not sell my soul and vote for her. If you all can, that is between you and your maker.
I understand what you’re saying, but sell my soul?? Me and my maker?
Dial it back a bit, okay? It’s only March.
Sean, “when in Rome, do like the Romans.”
I’m just trying to see if there’s any actual consistency behind things, or if the only rule is IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You’re Attacking Republicans).
Oliver tied the passport snooping to Condoleezza Rice when it was generally believed that the snooper was a State Department employee. Now that the snooper is known as an outside contractor employed by an Obama advisor, I’m wondering if the grand conspiracy now will be tied to Obama, if Oliver will say “never mind, I was wrong,” or if it will all get swept under the rug as inconvenient.
My money’s on the last option, but I feel the compunction to take a few pokes at the topic just to see how it comes down.
J.
At the end of the day the Secretary of State is responsible for the work of the State Department. It’s called responsibility, and I know after eight years conservatives believe that magical fairies and not bosses should be held to account, but… nooo.
OK, let’s hold the guy’s boss responsible — the guy who’s working for Obama.
Although, personally, I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the entire State Department, either…
J.
“I said from the outset that this whole passport thing was nothing.”
I suppose that’s why you couldn’t be bothered to get your facts right. At the same time, anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to get rid of the state department shouldn’t be taken seriously about anything. Not checking your facts is one thing, not bothering to think period, is quite another.
I’ve been an Obama supporter from the outset, but was once of the opinion that I would cheerfully vote for Hillary if she won the nomination. I also thought that she would win the Presidency if she got the nomination (albeit I thought that Obama was the surer bet).
My thoughts on both those matters have changed over the last month.
Hillary’s behavior on the campaign trail has been deplorable. Her endorsement of McCain over Obama was sickening; her manipulative emotional swings, between weeping at a campaign stop and shouting “Shame on you, Barack Obama…”, have been embarassing; her campaign’s statements that any state they don’t win as being insignificant/meaningless is a downright shame.
If the superdelegates wind up overturning the expressed will of the people, I will sit on my ass on election night and watch McCain crush Clinton. It will be a bittersweet victory for me and millions of others like me. Regardless of the stated rules and the superdelegates’ roles as the tie-breakers, this scenario would fuck the Democrats in November and would likely fuck up the party for the foreseeable future, as millions of young people that Obama has energized and brought to the political fore will quit. They will take their toys and go home, and I don’t think we’re likely to see them again. This is the fact of the matter.
I still don’t think the superdelegates will overturn the people… but this is the Democratic party here… they could still fuck it up.
(By the way, as awful as Hillary has looked, Obama has shown nothing but poise, confidence, and maturity throughout this campaign. He has stayed above the fray as much as humanly possible. It really has been incredible to watch.)
Diplomacy? We don’t need no stinkin’ diplomacy. All we need is a plane full of JDAMs.
Quaker, to say that there would be no diplomacy without the State Department is like saying that if there were no cops, there would be no violent crime.
Although I should clarify my statement: I wouldn’t mind getting rid of pretty much everyone in the State Department and starting fresh, with new people who understand that their role is to carry out policy, not set it, and understand that their first loyalty is to the United States.
But that STILL doesn’t resolve the question of what happened to Oliver’s blaming the State Department for employing the passport snoops, when it turns out that one of them was an employee of an Obama supporter…
J.
I’m a hardcore Obama supporter and I’d still rather vote for Hillary than McCain or Other.
My feeling–and yes, there’s that “emotion” thing–is that the three candidates would suss out more or less like this in terms of the next four years, using a flight-plan metaphor:
Obama - It’s impossible to bring us completely back on course after eight years of Bush incompetence, but he’d be able to straighten the plane and start climbing to get a better look at the landscape.
Hillary - Can pull us out of the nosedive and understands how to press auto-pilot, but we’ll likely be stuck circling until the fuel runs out.
McCain - Will push you and your grandmother out of the way to get to the last parachute aboard.
JT: “Quaker, to say that there would be no diplomacy without the State Department is like saying that if there were no cops, there would be no violent crime.”
OK, I’ve tried parsing that a couple of times and it just doesn’t scan. Your analogy makes no sense.
For it to work one has to accept that, like the State Dept is supposed to practice diplomacy, cops are supposed to practice violent crime.
people who understand that their role is to carry out policy, not set it, and understand that their first loyalty is to the United States.
This is a hell of a broad statement and easily reinterpreted to exclude anybody who doesn’t (a) shut up and implement every cockamamie idea the executive or Congress comes up with, or (b) dares say that aforementioned cockamamie idea might not be in the best interests of the United States.
In other words, you want a State Department filled with the Colin Powell who allowed his opinion to be dismissed and undercut and who agreed to go to the UN with his flimsy file of “evidence” that Iraq was mere moments away from unleashing Global Thermonuclear War…and you have no use for the Colin Powell who later realized what a tool he’d been.
Spider, just a little above on this thread Oliver said that Condoleezza Rice was liable for the actions of every single person in the Department of State, even a contractor employed by an advisor to Barack Obama. How can she be liable for their conduct if they aren’t obligated to carry out her policies?
I’ll go along with an independent judiciary, but NOT an independent State Department. You might recall that it’s a part of the Executive branch, not an independent body.
J.
Fine, Jay, continue that argument with Oliver, but so far you’ve been using “Oliver said this” as a rejoinder to things other people on this thread who are NOT Oliver have been saying.
I’m asking you to define more clearly what you mean by “loyalty to the United States.”
Quaker, to say that there would be no diplomacy without the State Department is like saying that if there were no cops, there would be no violent crime.
Perhaps you mean if there were no cops, there would be no law enforcement? That makes a helluva lot more sense.
I’ll go along with an independent judiciary, but NOT an independent State Department. You might recall that it’s a part of the Executive branch, not an independent body.
I’m with you on that. So why the fuck do we have independent contractors at the State Department in the first place?
I wouldn’t mind getting rid of pretty much everyone in the State Department and starting fresh, with new people who understand that their role is to carry out policy, not set it, and understand that their first loyalty is to the United States.
Hmm. Disloyalty in the State Department? I’ve heard that somewhere before, haven’t I?
Oh, now I remember!
“I wouldn’t mind getting rid of pretty much everyone in the State Department and starting fresh, with new people who understand that their role is to carry out policy, not set it, and understand that their first loyalty is to the United States.”
Jay Tea, could you please provide an example of disloyal behavior by the State Department or an example of the State Department setting policy contrary to the will of the president or both?
“I’ll go along with an independent judiciary …”
I’ll just note for the record that your rhetoric about the state department is very similar to your typical rhetoric about the independent judiciary you’re so happy to “go along with”. As in, “Judges shouldn’t legislate from the bench!”
fafaroo, he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. He can say that stuff on his blog because the America haters lap it up. You want to hear something scary? He’s considered an INTELLECTUAL over there. Yea. Scary, huh?
yeah. it’s really amazing, isn’t it?