I don't mean to be "Debbie Downer" but....Tim Kaine, Claire McCaskill, Jim Clyburn - are you SERIOUS? Why don't they just add David Plouffe, Donna Brazil, and Bill Richardson to the committee.
C'mon - it's filled with (sorry I have to say it) Obama-bots. How can this really be taken seriously when there is NO - representation from the "other" candidate....you know, the candidate that actually got the most VOTES....the candidate who's delegates were removed by the members of the Democratic Party Leadership....
Alright - not that anyone is going to listen, but here's what needs to be done, IMO:
#1) NO caucuses. By their very nature they disenfranchise voters: disabled people, Seniors who struggle to get to places or sit for along time; mothers who can't find baby sitters; shift workers; voters who are out of town when the caucus takes place or who have to work - the very nature of a caucus leaves out potentially hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.
#2) Hold primaries - allow people to vote in advance by mail/absentee, or a live vote that is checked against a register to be sure they a) have not already voted; and b) have registered to vote.
#3) DUMP IOWA. I personally do not like the idea of ONE state, the same one every time deciding the entire election. An argument is often made that lesser known candidates would not get their "day in court" if the entire process was held on ONE day. Well, then at the very least switch out the states so that the same one(s) do not always decide. Instead of a middle state going first, change to a western state (not NV - but OR for example); then a southern state like FL instead of SC; then a northeastern states like VT instead of NH; then a middle state like OK instead of IA. Keep switching like this til you get to the final date where you want the winner to be chosen by.
I personally think it is best to hold ONE primary on ONE date sometime in May. All the candidates can visit the states leading up to that. If more $$$ are spent in the bigger states looking for votes, then so be it - these same states will matter in the general.
#4) DUMP ALL SUPER DELEGATES. Why get rid of SOME and not all? What could the purpose of holding onto a FEW be? If in the end they don't vote the way their state voted, then what is the purpose that they serve? Again - in the case of Obama/Clinton, the SD's switched from Hillary to Obama - not because he was "better" but because his campaign had more money to donate to the SD's reelection campaign. It's as if the SD's serve as some sort of "mofia" that you have to payoff to get their votes. And yes I would say this even if Hillary had the majority of SD's voting for her.
Final few things I'd note:
-the Repugs have (at least in some states) a "winner take all" delegates strategy - this makes sense IF the democrats think it is important to get the winner sooner (rather than drag it out). Rather than split up the delegates by country, area, etc - they are delegated by whoever wins the whole state. This is keeping in line with how the electoral process works for the general and I think it's a good idea.
-I still think the most "democratic" way is 1 vote 1 person - whether it's for the democratic primary OR the general election - but that would be too simple, right?
Last thought - many people have said to me "if you hated caucuses so much, why did you never speak up before (Hillary ran)". You know many of us (pro-Hillary and pro-Obama) NEVER did this before 2008. I had NO idea that caucuses were so - what's the word - ILLEGAL!!! That just ANYONE could walk in and "claim" they were registered (no checking), or that you had to ANNOUNCE in public who you supported, or that if the candidate you supported (ie Dennis Kucinich) didn't have enough caucus go-ers, you had to declare for someone else, or if you couldn't get off at 2pm on a Thursday for 4 hours to vote - too bad you're out of luck. I HAD NO IDEA - many of us never did this before and I was APPALLED by what I witnessed.
I wasn't for Obama either - BUT - can't we give him a chance? He is the DEMOCRATIC President - we need to REJOICE!!! He's only been at this less than 2 months. For all the he inherited, I think he's doing a good job. I think he is focused, he is NOT moving too quickly on resending Bush's BS EX Orders and overturning 8 years of hell.
Time will tell if he has chosen the right team and if his economic policies will work. If they don't then we're sunk - he's a Carter and we can kiss it all good-bye. But, C'mon does anyone really believe Obama is dumb enough to be Carter #2? I just don't see it.
People have said it here - if he is HALF as good as Bill Clinton, then he is an AWESOME President. Bill Clinton came into a mess, but his mess was not as BIG as Obama's mess. And how can you or anyone be so sure that Gore or Kerry would be better on economic policy? I just don't see it.
Even Bill Clinton said in a Larry King interview not so long ago that he would have "asked for more" stimulus $$$ and he pointed out he's a "fiscal conservative". Obama is doing everything right, imo, and the proof will be in the results. We simply have to be patient - but most, including Clinton, think it will turn around BEFORE the end of the year. If this happens, Obama will go be able to high five his team and take all the credit. If it doesn't work, then the people can "get a new President" (his words) and they will.....
Sexism of this kind cuts to the bone on human rights issues. Yet even here in the good ole US of A we allow woman's rights to be abused under the protection of religious rights. Radical Mormonism comes to mind.
This sucks.....it appears, according to all the 'experts' that they will no allow prop 8 to be retroactive, therefore the 18,000 marriages will remain legal (tho' this is not certain either).
If that happens, how odd, that my wife and I will be able to remain married as one of the 18,000 that took advantage for the short time frame it was legal, yet many of our friends who are gay will not be able to marry. One would assume there is an actual conflict simply right there in terms of inalienable rights - but then I'm not a lawyer.
As I watched the streaming live video yesterday it appears that CA voters can ammend the constiution to the will of the voters even if it is in direct conflict with the U.S. constitution. One lawyer asked "free speech can be overturned Mr. Starr?" "Yes" he replied and same with interracial marriages (as an example) if it is the will of the voters.
I wonder what the supreme court would have to say?