An Open Letter to Superdelegates
This moment in the political history of the United States is profound and unique for many reasons. A bankrupt and immoral administration is paving the way for a new administration to be led by (a) a warrior intending to carry out his predecessor’s agenda, more competently, but especially then with more disastrous consequences for the world, (b) an always-middle-talking and always-middle-walking woman offering a meager compromise between what is financially practical and what is ecologically necessary for human survival, or (c) a man who is courageous enough to speak a good distance beyond these “safer” options, articulating a vision of hope that has both energized a new community of first-time voters and infused many of the wisest minds alive with a similar hope: perhaps, finally, with Obama as President, we might just be able to bring the civil libertarian seekers of the right and the civil liberty seekers of the left together into a wholly new, structurally reformed Democratic Party.
My message today is a warning and a plea to superdelegates who now have no choice but to decide the question of the nominee who MUST be able not only to defeat John McCain, but to mark such a pivot in the affairs of U.S. relations in the world as to provide trusted leadership for crises far beyond those that preoccupy John McCain. Climate change, peak oil, food shortage, economic exhaustion, religious conflicts and the inevitable tendencies for social friction on a scale never seen since the Great Depression and the World Wars, perhaps far greater.
So let me state the conclusion first: if superdelegates overrule the pledges of delegates from state contests, or if any other machination is employed to disempower the undeniable public movement catalyzed by Barack Obama for the first time since JFK, I believe the result will be a catastrophic fragmentation and disaffection with the Democratic Party. Take note, superdelegates, of this fact above all: younger voters are not only registering in record-breaking numbers as a direct result of Obama’s inspiring vision of change, but because they finally feel that their voices matter. Compared to Clinton’s spin, Obama has truth to share. Compared to Clinton’s tactics, Obama offers strategy. Compared to the low road of Clinton’s Rovian tactics, Obama has worked hard to maintain Jeffersonian high ground.
I like Hillary. I believe she is smart, competent, experienced, courageous and ready to be commander in chief on day one. She would likely be the most competent president since JFK. She blows Bush (Jr), Clinton (Bill), Bush (Sr), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson out of the water. But that is not good enough now. Our challenges are greater than the ones those men faced. And in any case, she is not electable now, since among her talents is the slickness of Bill, and we progressives have the fear that it will anesthetize the left with measures far more meager than required of us now, putting us asleep in false comfort. She has unfavorable ratings that WILL NOT be overcome. In large part this is because, like her husband, she parses the truth with such obviousness to smart citizens on the right and left that there can be no excuse.
She’s won the popular vote already? Come on. Only in a tally that did not reflect a competitive or fair campaign in Michigan or Florida. Does she live in fantasy land where the MOST gifted Web surfers — 18 to 36 year olds — don’t know this? Hence, she becomes a liar in their eyes. To claim it is fair to include such votes is, simply, bullshit. She knows it, but somehow thinks that her audience doesn’t. Well informed voters know it. The fact that Hillary claims this vote reinforces the appraisal of so many that she simply will say anything to be elected. Anyone — man or woman — who plays such petty games with truth does not deserve the Oval Office, particularly in these times.
There is absolutely no way Hillary Clinton can overcome the negatives that the Clintons have earned in the course of building the DLC into a middle-party-elite election machine, possibly more dangerous than the neocons, since at least we know the latter are truly crazy.
More practically speaking, Obama can retake the Reagan Democrats. Hillary cannot. He can take purple states, maybe even red states. Hillary cannot. No serious superdelegate should consider for a nanosecond Hillary’s argument that “she has won the states Democrats must win in November.” So what? Do you REALLY believe that Obama cannot take those states, given a reasonable opportunity to familiarize himself with their hurting voters, in contrast to McCain?
Barack Obama represents the best hope this country presently has to address every crisis we face. He can go to Iraq and reclaim our honor. He can go to Iran and reclaim our stature and beneficent power. He can go to China and demonstrate how a disadvantaged people deserve the potential to become the leaders of free nations. He can command the attention of educated wealth, to appreciate that only two options exist: share with those with lesser means, or ultimately reap the storm of mass discontent which no physical or electronic security wall will ever contain.
Obama is an historic figure. If the DLC band of political gangsters maneuvers around Obama, the new Democratic base — the millions of 18-36 year old voters representing the only future possible for the party — will immediately lose hope, as will the civil libertarians on the right who are ready to embrace a brilliant black statesman who truly understands, not just parrots, their pain. If the Clinton “kitchen sink” machine prevails, the divorce in the Democratic base will be as close to permanent as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove could possibly hope.
Hillary has lost the Democratic nomination. I hope superdelegates will move swiftly to close down the debate. Don’t pull a George W. Bush on its new core, just as it emerges to believe in the genuine power of democracy again.
Choose wisely…
Joe Firmage
April 28, 2008
April 28th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Obama is losing ground. In the beginning he was successful because he was the anti-Hillary, but now that people have had a chance to see him for the empty vessel that he is they are having second thoughts. I agree with Shawn Hannity when he says that if we knew then what we know now about Barrack Obama coming into Iowa things would have been very different and the primary would be sewn up by now. By the time the Democrat convention rolls around Obama may be so damaged that even if he has the majority of pledged delegates he may be seen as un-electable by the Super-delegates. I don’t see this thing coming to an end until the convention and even then there is going to be fight not seen in the history of this country.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Obama is promising more than Hillary, but both of them may be promising more than they can deliver in terms of changing the direction of the country. It’s the only way I can explain the latest polls. Hillary beats McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
When upwards of 80 percent say the country is on the wrong track, it’s not good to see these early indications of a close election (to be decided by Diebold or the Supreme Court?)
April 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
You agree with Shawn Hannity? There’s a big surprise. Whatever happened to Arianna Huffington. I thought everybody knew, she kicked Hannity out of Elementary school for being a dumb fuck.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am
This post hits the nail on the head!
Obama is carrying the torch Howard Dean lit for young people in 2004, only more so! It brings a new hope of participatory government on a true grass roots level. Any attempt to stop it will be dangerous for the nation.
The fight not seen in the history of this country Ken is talking about at the Democratic convention is probably Rush Limbaugh’s literal call for riots and burning cars. He’s dreaming of a “white Christmas” (country?) And he still has a radio show. We have come far, haven’t we.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:57 am
The Republican Party is moving swiftly to maintain the Hillary option. They KNOW she is less electable than Obama, and they are scared sh*tless that Obama prevails in the nomination. Hence Rush’s Operation Chaos and other similar maneuvers.
Obama was right on the war in Iraq. He is right on health care. He is right on economics. He is gathering younger generations of voters (our future LEADERS) en masse. He has the voice of vision that can be respected in Baghdad, Paris, Jerusalem, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Athens, Damascus, London, Salt Lake City, Cairo, Pretoria… not just the south side of Chicago.
The DNC and superdelegates MUST. FORCEFULLY. CONFRONT. DLC.
SHUT. IT. DOWN… before the Democratic Party once again losses its mind as it cuts the national baby in half… and losses yet again by succumbing to the tactics of its opposition.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Go back a few months in my statements that back then there was plenty of time for the Democrat party to screw up this lock they should have. In my view I stated then, neither obama or hillary are electable to the mainstream of the American people. It is coming true. The youth are not the majority of voters. The old are.
Obama is going to raise taxes, and in this political climate and given the fiscal realities of the times, this is the kiss of death. It is why he is mum for the most part when discussing it. In fact he is pretty mum about just about any topic.
The actions(inaction) of the DNC have brought this to pass. Dean should be strung up for his incompetence. Solidarity wins elections, we get to watch that happen with the reps. Meanwhile, this nonsense goes on until the convention, where hillary is given the candidacy. Obamas’ associations and who has supported him color him, and paint him amateur, and given the whole fiasco of Democrat politics, it all looks pretty shaky.
Whoever gets the call, and wins, will have very limited support to change. In many ways, the die is cast, in the same way a buried debtor has few options, we as a nation do not either.
Pie in the sky is not going to rule the day. The American people are in no mood, and the general election will be a hide and seek for any candidates, to explain away their positions on this disaster.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I have always found the “Obama can’t win the states that the Democrats need” argument to be non sequiter. Those big states are pretty reliably blue and I would expect almost any Democratic candidate to carry them in the general election. Beyond that, can anyone point to any of those big states that Obama lost and find that Obama did not still receive more votes in the primary than the Republican winner of the state (generally McCain)?
April 29th, 2008 at 11:58 am
So, Ken, might you be able to articulate why Obama would be a poor choice for President? Try and make the articulation without resort to Hannity’s talking points.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
As soon as Hillary and the DLC quit trying to win the Republicans at their own deceitful game and get the heck out of the way, Obama and Dean can team up with the rest of America and then LOOK OUT! The radical Republicans won’t know what hit them. The sucking sound will be the worthless pundit liars gasping for one more breath of air after the blow.
The White House was scared to death of Howard Dean. Karl Rove was saying he was “salivating” at the prospect of the Republicans running against Dean, but it was a complete bluff. In the book by John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney “Tragedy and Farce - How The American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy”, there is a chapter that explains best why the media destroyed Dean. It quotes from Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack.” Woodward was in the White House and exclaims “Rove was gleeful” and said “the good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee”. The case is made that “Dean’s unconditional opposition to the Iraq War could have been a potent face-off with Bush” and Kerry had voted in favor of the resolution for war.
The latest ridiculous false news story is this OBAMA VS WRIGHT idiocy that even Keith Olbermann is being forced to headline with. Obama and his preacher are being Dean Screamed. White AND black Democrats are showing up in twice the numbers the Republicans are. With a little push, enough of us can be brought in to make another stolen election implausible even with hackable machines just because of the sheer numbers and will strike fear into anyone even thinking of cheating. Even Scalia and Roberts wouldn’t dare take it away this time!
“Plausible Deniability” will not be an option. Exit polls changing in the middle of the night will be documented and exposed by countless young warriors.
Hey, if Rush can dream of violence, I can dream of hope.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Albert
Here is why Obama would make a poor President. One is he is an elitist completely out of touch with common Americans. He is articulate but in his case he can say nothing of substance very well. He has no original ideas but old tired liberalism. His mantra is change but I have yet to hear exactly what he wants to change and what the changes will be. I believe him to be very naive which will be taken advantage of by our enemies. He is basically an empty suit with a nice smile. Last time we elected a President with those credentials was Jimmy Carter and we all know the disaster that was. The people he has chosen to associate with is very troubling such as the “Reverend” Wright, and the terrorist William Ayers. Right now Obama is trying to distance himself from Wright but I have a feeling Wright is not going to take it lightly. We may be seeing the beginning of a very bitter smack down between Obama and Wright that could easily bring down the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Ken:
As far as past associations, Bush was a cokehead and a drunk, so what’s your point there? Second, you cite elitism as a fault? What about Bush and Cheney? You don’t think those two fuck heads think a bit highly of themselves? As for Jimmy Carter, I think you are way off the mark. You are just citing Hannity crap w/o substance. What, are you going to blame the oil embargo on Carter and defend Bush from the current state of affairs? And finally, when is the last time your hero GWB said anything os substance? Nice try, Ken, but all I am hearing from you is the same crap I here from 1 to 4 daily on KSL: Sean Hannity! If you still like GWB, you’re gonna love Obama.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Albert O, I don’t think Kens dribble qualifies as even a ‘nice try’. You’re being generous.
I have concerns about all of the three ‘front-runners, and given the numerous serious problems this nation, and infact the whole planet face, the best attribute that anyone rising to the US presidency could offer would be a real willingness to ammend the crimes of the past several administrations by working as a partner among the family of men, women and creatures, as opposed to some delusional posture of commander in Chief of the entire world (assumed or coveted). Obama may be that person, but There still needs to be some aging. Hope that makes some sense.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Given that Ken presumes to be such a ‘good man’, how is it that he supports such people as GWB, unarguably the worst president in all recorded history, and That other scumbucket ‘war hero’ who, really, let’s be fair, weakened for his captors in Vietnam after bombing the hell out of them on god knows how many bombing sorties? A real prize of an offering, there GOP. And he’ll probably pick Cheney (another Gem) for his running-mate, if you know what I mean.
Ken?
April 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I only support GWB as far as he advances conservative principles which to be honest has been rather disappointing. I listened to his press conference today and it was almost painful to watch. I was happy to see him go after the Congress about energy policy. His line about Democrats demanding foreign nations increase oil production at the same time stopping domestic production was great. I think he is wrong about biofuels, especially ethonol which I believe is a major factor in driving up food prices. It is wrong to convert food to biofuel and could lead to massive starvation because it is more profitable to use farm land to grow crops for fuel than for food. I was glad to hear a reporter bring that up and I don’t think the President answered the question very well. I am very disappointed in GWB capitulating on global warming. I think the fear of global warming is going to have disastrous consequences on our economy and way of life, way more than any rise in temperature. Just like the Clinton’s were bad for Democrats, George W. Bush has not been great for Republicans.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Thanks Ken. I just wish that conservatives weren’t saddled with such shit-heads as so often rise to leadership positions…I guess that goes for what’s allowed to rise among the liberals as well. Is there any hope that the divide between L’s and C’s could be bridged by something other than ‘Bi-partisanship’? which is either ‘date-rape’ or ’stalemate’.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Caveat
For once we agree.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Ken:
I find it quite remarkable that you can even use the word “support” in a positive sense in the same sentence with “GWB.”
If I were you, I’d be more prone to use words like “outraged” and “betrayed.” But, then again, some Punching-Judys need to get decked hundreds of times before they catch on.
Maybe we should start calling you: “Punching-Judy”!
Ken “Punching-Judy” Bingham; kinda has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?