She will endorse [UPDATE on caucus]

Right now, we have rampant speculation as to whether Sen. Clinton will ever endorse and support Sen. Obama.  Diaries, such as this one on the front page and others are demanding that she do so immediately, and unconditionally.  Others are speculating that she is demanding help with her campaign debts, or a VP slot, or a prime speaking slot at the convention.


She has no obligation to endorse Sen. Obama unconditionally and immediately.  

In fact, she has a moral obligation to negotiate an endorsement with Sen. Obama.  And if you dont like that, you are welcome to carry on without her support (which you insist is dwindling anyways).  Consider this:

(a) Many of her black supporters are being targeted by their consituents ~ she has an obligation to them, and I hope she will insist on their wellbeing in any negotiatiosn with Sen. Obama.

(b) Many of her "hard workin white voters" are being denigrated as racists.  This situation is simply unacceptable to me.  I hope she negotiates hard on behalf of their concerns, and the concerns of millions of those who rejected Sen. Obama ~ I would lose respect for her if she did not.

(c) And finally, I hope she negotiates for an agreement to reform the primary process starting in 2012 (yes, even if Pres. Obama were running for reelection in 2012).  This reform should include the elimination of all caucuses, and for all other idiocies that marred the primaries in this cycle.  

I am confident that she will, eventually, endorse Sen. Obama.  I am confident that she will, eventually, campaign for him.  And I am confident that those who are associating various nefarious reasons to her non-endorsement will end up looking really foolish !!

Update [2008-6-4 18:30:57 by SevenStrings]:: Many of you are surprised by my vehemence against caucuses, so perhaps I should explain. First, you have to understand the anger felt amongst Clinton supporters on the caucus issue. Caucuses unfairly emphasizes those that have the time and places those that do not have the time at a significant disadvantage. It also empahsizes those that are articulate, and able to perform on a public stage. These are all elements of elitism ~ a government elected by those with a college degree, and not a government elected by the huddled masses. This elitism runs counter to the progressive goals supposedly professed by the caucusgoers themselves. Personally, I feel very strongly over this issue. My bottomline is thus: I will not be a member of any party that utilizes the caucus system in 2012.

Tags: clinton, endorsement, obama (all tags)



This reform should include the elimination of all caucuses

I'm still a "quality over quantity" man, myself.
by Shem 2008-06-04 02:00PM | 0 recs
That would make you an elitist...

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:01PM | 0 recs
No insults, please.

There are intelligent arguments in favor of a caucus.  Having run several here in Colorado, and attended The Big Ones in Iowa, I think they're antiquated and obsolete.  But they are invaluable for Party-building, and primaries don't do that at all.  There are always tradeoffs.

by McNasty 2008-06-04 02:06PM | 0 recs
Can you believe

I typo'ed "intelligent?"  Time for me to hang up my keyboard.  :-)

by McNasty 2008-06-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No insults, please.

I will not be a member of any party that relies on caucuses in 2012...

You can trade that off as well, I suppose !

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: No insults, please.

Caucuses were good enough in 2000 and 2004 for you? How about back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton benefitted from them?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
Do what you have to do. nt.

by Firewall 2008-06-04 02:15PM | 0 recs

Ok, whatever then.  You seem so wait, what's the opposite of reasonable?

by McNasty 2008-06-04 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No insults, please.

Do you really think threatening the Democratic Party with your absence is going to work?

We're not going to be held hostage by those who can't face the reality that Hillary lost.  

by PantsB 2008-06-04 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: That would make you an elitist...

What made the caucuses this year worse than other years?

I am actively lobbying to BRING caucuses to the great state of Maryland.

For too long we have been ignored by both parties, especially Democrats when it comes to the presidential.

As an Obama supporter I guess I dont fit the stereotype since Obama won the CLOSED Maryland PRIMARY by 20% and I still want a Caucus.

I want it to help eliminate voter apaty and non existant activists.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
They have ALWAYS

been bad!

I want to know....

All the people here that think caucuses are great, please tell me how old you are and how much you have been involved in politics before now.

This is not a bash the young voter, this is a simple question to figure out why. Why you would want something that is less Democratic to be the norm?

by kevin22262 2008-06-04 04:52PM | 0 recs
I agree for the most part except

for the elimination of caucuses, I could understand a move to Maine style caucuses which have an absentee ballot and a secret ballot.  I just really liked my caucus in 2004 and 2008 I met a lot of new people and they were energized (heck I voted for Edwards at mine and I came out of it feeling like a democrat would win in a rout this fall).

by Student Guy 2008-06-04 02:00PM | 0 recs
Caucuses are evil...

they promote elitism.

But yes, absentee ballots/secret ballots/ and no-requirement hang around at a prescribed place for 2.5 hours... would do the trick.

But, at that point... you might as well call it a primary !!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

No, they don't promote elitism.  Why?  Because all registered voters are invited to attend.

If you can't spend a few hours to decide something, you didn't care about it.  Period.  This whole argument that people didn't have the time is ridiculous.  I caucused in TX this year and dozens of the Obama supporters present had families, who they brought with them, or were disabled, and got others to bring them...

by Lawyerish 2008-06-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

Or you have to work during that time.

Not everyone has a flexible schedule or works 9-5, particularly blue collar voters and those who have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

by dcg2 2008-06-04 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

You are allowed by LAW in the vast majority of states to leave work to attend elections or caucuses.  So this doesn't exactly hold up as an excuse.  It also isn't as if the date isn't known months in advance, it is.  Plenty of time for people to make the arrangements they need in order to do what is necessary.

I don't think we would be hearing a SINGLE PEEP about the nature of caucuses - if Clinton had actually bothered to organize for any of them.  She didn't, so you bunch are up in arms about the supposedly 'undemocratic' nature of them.  Pfff.  The greeks invented Democracy and ran pretty much everything by Caucus...

by Lawyerish 2008-06-04 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

Why dont we simply revert to the greek model.  They had universal adult I recall.

And you truly are clueless if you are quoting the law on caucus attendance.  I cannot afford to caucus...because I have a young family.  

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I have a young family ...

My friend babysat 20 kids at the caucus site in Iowa in 2004, so I could observe it all.  We were Dean volunteers, and they asked us if we could help them deal with the crowd.  So we obliged.

by DailyKingFish 2008-06-04 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

Why not bring them with you?  Dozens of families at my caucus site did exactly that.

Seriously.  I'd like an answer as to why your family can't leave home with you for a few hours.

by Lawyerish 2008-06-04 02:44PM | 0 recs
How old are you ?

I dont mean to sound insulting with that age question... but do you have children ?

If you have a young child (a baby less than 1 yr old), you dont go out for extended periods of time.  Period !!

You are at the mercy of their sleep cycles.. and you will be until they are old enough to fall asleep by themselves.  

I dont go out for movies, dinners, bars, or any other reason.. even if I could take my babies with me.  That is my obligation as a father!!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: How old are you ?

I personally held two kids under the age of two for about half the caucus, while my (Clinton supporting, btw) friend was running the sign-in.

It's BS to say that you couldn't make it b/c of the kids.  Complete BS.  Hundreds and thousands of others did, I guess to you that makes them bad parents?

Heck, get a babysitter!  You had months to plan.

I don't buy this for a second... it's a rhetorical trick that is being used by sore losers, and nothing more.  There's no real evidence that any large group of people couldn't make it.  Just theories which may sound nice but aren't grounded in reality.

by Lawyerish 2008-06-04 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: How old are you ?
If you have a young child (a baby less than 1 yr old), you dont go out for extended periods of time.  Period !!

Thats your problem.  I know many people who go out for extended periods of time with young children, including those under 1 year old.  Most children under 5 are out of the home during the day because most people can't afford a stay-at-home parent.  If you couldn't leave to go to a caucus for an hour, you'd probably have a hard time voting too.
by PantsB 2008-06-04 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

It is true that many states mandate time off of work to vote.  Typically, however, they limit it to 2 hours, which is often not enough time for a caucus.  Furthermore, the practical reality is that most employers aren't even aware of these laws and, even if they are, will frown upon employees exercising their rights under them.

by XoFalconXo 2008-06-04 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are evil...

If anything Caucuses eliminate Elitism.

Whenever I heard of the Philly or Chicago "political machines" run by mayors/govenors I was shocked.

I personally think the Texas two step was a pretty damn good idea (although they should have planned for it)

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
There is a slight difference

as caucuses are run by the party not the state and a person can stick around to do the organizing/energizing that caucuses provide and primaries don't.

I really do wish all caucuses were a combo of MN and ME style.  In MN we can vote for Presdient then leave if we want to (we have to stick around for the down ballot races, but they often go to the primary anyway), we have a secret ballot and the results of the caucus are binding as for apportionment of delegates.

In Maine they have an absentee ballot.

The good thing about caucuses is the energizing aspect of them.

by Student Guy 2008-06-04 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a slight difference

SG, since you have on the ground experience, how do you think the states you favor differ from Texas (assuming Texas had done the preparations to handle such a turnout).

Im just asking because you didnt mention it.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:14PM | 0 recs
The secret ballot is important

that way you don't get as much of a bullying crowd effect.  Second, I being able to leave is important, this year I left after 40 minutes as I had homework to do.  Absentee balloting is important as well since elections should be open to those who are eligible and want to participate.

Texas had none of these things, MN had 2/3 and I know Maine had 2/3 as well.

These caucuses are more like primaries but they retain the best part of caucuses which is the energizing/motivational/organizing part.

by Student Guy 2008-06-04 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The secret ballot is important

I would not be able to caucus...if it took 40 mins !!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The secret ballot is important

Umm not to rain down on you again, but there are definaltly voting polls that have 40+ min lines!

Also, if you think time is such a hinderance lobby for voter's rights.

It should be a national holiday akin to labor day.

And SG, thanks for the input.  Thats why I love this shit, I started off this year learning the delgate systems, now I know intracicies of state systems you can only learn by talking to activists who live there.

I want a caucus in my state because we have no youth members in our party and NO activists.
Its pathetic.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 03:01PM | 0 recs
I stuck around for 40 minutes

I was done voting in 15 and that is with the crowd that was too big for the space.

That could have been planned better.

by Student Guy 2008-06-04 09:04PM | 0 recs
I totally

disagree with you on this!

I have stated my displeasure with mail in voting and especially "early voting", only to be told by Obama supporters that I must want less people to vote and participate. (Which I don't)

But... when I also bring up about caucuses and how bad they are (they cause less people to "vote" and participate), I am told how great they are by the same people.

When we truly step outside of the campaigns and look at what is truly democratic, then we should all see that it is a primary and not a caucus that is most democratic.

If caucuses were so great, why don't we do the GE as a nation wide caucus?

Maybe we should also do a "winner takes all" in the primaries? (I don't agree with this either) If we did, then I believe Hillary Clinton would have won long ago.

So what I see is this, younger Obama supporters and people new to politics who are HAPPY with how the caucuses turned out for Obama think they are GREAT (even tho they disenfranchise most voters). These same people would most likely NOT want a winner takes all scenario if there were primaries but would most likely want a winner take all scenario if they were caucuses.

Could we ALL please think DEMOCRATICALLY?

by kevin22262 2008-06-04 05:02PM | 0 recs
I caucused in 2004

as well. so this wasn't my only experience caucusing, and in 2004 I voted for Edwards so I don't just like caucuses because my candidate won this year.

The organizing was incredible the state part has loads of volunteers who will help with canvassing and turning out the vote.  That part of caucuses is wonderful.

They do need to become more inclusive, but they do have benefits.

by Student Guy 2008-06-04 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

I think she will endorse too.  I'm curious, though, what do you think they need to negotiate about?  Care to speculate?

by the mollusk 2008-06-04 02:01PM | 0 recs
Read my diary...

I listed 3 things...

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Read my diary...

oh, right, reading.  my bad.

by the mollusk 2008-06-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Read my diary...

i just went back and looked again.  i still don't see what there is to negotiate about.  you say "negotiate on their behalf" or some such thing about working class voters, but do you have honest concerns about whether obama would stick up for these people?  

by the mollusk 2008-06-04 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Read my diary...

but do you have honest concerns about whether obama would stick up for these people?  

Yes... or else he would have had my support all along!!

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Read my diary...

well, duh! (directed at myself)

by the mollusk 2008-06-04 02:37PM | 0 recs
I love the emotional roller coaster these Obama

supporters are on with Hillary.  

First they hate her and call her every name in the book - all because she stands in the way of their candidate.  Then, they admire her when they think she's dropping out and they want her support.  Then, within a matter of hours, when they didn't hear the magic words they deemed themselves immediately entitled to, she was all the worst names in the book again.

Its funny, but I remember speculation that John Edwards was going to suspend his campaign long before he actually did so.  At the time, it seemed like he was getting his supporters ready for the disappointment, instead of just springing it on them.  Also, as mentioned already, it seemed like he was using his staying in the race as leverage to negotiate offers for him to get out.  

He got a free pass for it as politics as usual.  When Hillary does it, not so much.  She's __ (insert shameless, classless, ambitious, cut throat, shrill, or whatever words Obama supporters use when frustrated that she won't roll over for them).

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-04 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I love the emotional roller coaster these Obam

They they they they they they they they.

by Jess81 2008-06-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I love the emotional roller coaster these Obam

I think there are some Obama supporters making a big deal of this, even though I think it is the media more than anything.  Most Obama supporters agree she should have a few days to sort things out and give her supporters a chance to come down.  

by hootie4170 2008-06-04 02:11PM | 0 recs
Yet another example that propaganda works.

The media created the meme within minutes of her speech, and it wasn't until after watching the mock outrage fabricated by the media that many Obama supporters suddenly realized how outraged they were.  OUTRAGED, I tell you!!!!!@!#!@$!@$

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-05 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

She deserves a few days to absorb everything.  The media are blowing this up....I have no problems for now.

by hootie4170 2008-06-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

I take issue with 1 and 2 - specifically how they're framed, but the elimination of caucuses is harder than to just wave a magic wand.

They exist because they're cheap.  Some states don't have a Democratic Party rich enough to fund a primary.  And if they do it with tax money that means that it has to be open to everyone - Democrats and Republicans alike.

And in some places it's just a tradition.  Iowa is not going to part with its caucus system.  And most state parties don't like the national party telling them how to run their affairs.

by Jess81 2008-06-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

Who is she negotiating with?  Obama doesn't have the power to force the press to stop calling some voters racist, he doesn't even have the power to reform the  nominating process.  

Senator Clinton has known for weeks that this day would come, she had all the time in the world to prepare to drop out and endorse Obama.  The fact that she has not done so yet, and has instead continued to take shots at Obama and rile up her supporters, speaks volumes about her character.  

She hasn't conceded yet because once she does, her leverage disappears.  Its clear she wants something, even if its not clear what that something is.

by KevinT 2008-06-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

There is nothing to negotiate. Hillary has lost. The contest is over. You can't plea bargain after the jury reaches its verdict.

Every newspaper in the world is saying that Obama is the nominee. Hillary just looks foolish when she refuses to acknowledge that fact.

Hillary has lost a net of 12 super delegates to Obama in the last 2 days. That is an indication of the party's displeasure with her.

Hillary will not accomplish anything in the Democratic party if the party itself is not supportive of her and it obviously is not now.

by Sam Wise Gingy 2008-06-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

well i think its importatnt for her to make sure that Barack will carry on some of her core arguements: UHC, women's rights, and so on. [very likely duh.] maybe she is making sure that her constiuents are represented aka certain demographics that dont like Barack.

Maybe coming out during an event with Barack is in the works?

be patient peeps, the result may be spectacular.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

She's not going to have as many eyes watching her as she did last night until the night of the convention (if then). That was her moment to singlehandedly bring the party together against McCain.

She passed it up. It's not something she can take back.

by Firewall 2008-06-04 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

Man that would have been awesome!

Oh well, she missed a GREAT opportunity.

Think about if she had introduced him!

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

there is still time.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-04 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

Obama should simply concede to Hillary.

He lost in every state that Hillary won.  He couldn't win any of em.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-06-04 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

"He lost in every state that Hillary won.  He couldn't win any of em."

Common now, thats TOO funny!

Thanks for the comedy interlude.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:31PM | 0 recs
It is the right thing to do

Does anyone disagree with the idea that the right thing to do is concede and endorse?  

Why is Hillary not doing the right thing?

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-04 02:19PM | 0 recs
Give her a freaking day

Do you realize she was going to be the first female president in the country? Do you realize people have been talking about her being president since the 1980s and even before? Do you realize there are VERY FEW female politicians on the horizon with her presence, resume, name recognition, network of supporters and friends, that can even take a shot at the White House in the next few decades? Democratic women?

Chill the eff out. Or just make Obama let Hillary be the nominee.

by catfish2 2008-06-04 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Give her a freaking day

I have given her months.  She is smart enough to know she lost this nomination race months ago.  She doesn't need anymore time.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
You can't stop thinking or talking

about her can you? Neither can I. That's why I want her to be president. Maybe Obama will come to the same conclusion.

by catfish2 2008-06-04 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You can't stop thinking or talking

Shut the fuck up with the pop psycology.  You don't know me from Adam.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-06-04 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Give her a freaking day

"Do you realize there are VERY FEW female politicians on the horizon with her presence, resume, name recognition, network of supporters and friends, that can even take a shot at the White House in the next few decades? Democratic women?"

That is a terribly sad statement to make.

And it simply doesn't make sense.

Hillary's run, no matter what place MUST be inspiring young women to get involved with politics, choose to study law, choose to vouleneteer as a lawyer instead of making cash hand over fist.

HRC has given a great example through her lifetime to Women and Men.

by CrushTheGOP2008 2008-06-04 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Give her a freaking day

"Do you realize there are VERY FEW female politicians on the horizon with her presence, resume, name recognition, network of supporters and friends, that can even take a shot at the White House in the next few decades? Democratic women?"

I need to point out that there are even fewer black politicians on that same horizon.

There are currently 16 female senators and governors.  Obama is the only current black senator, and one of the two current black governors is David Paterson of NY, who only got the job because of Client #9.

I would like to ask some of the female Clinton supporters here what they would feel about another female as Obama's VP: Sebelius, McCaskill, or Napolitano....

by ScienceTeacher118 2008-06-04 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Give her a freaking day

I need to point out that there are even fewer black politicians on that same horizon.

There are exactly none.  Besides, the way the political system works, most black politicians rise up through the ward system, which relies on churches and very left-wing organizations which can't withstand national scrutiny.

Barack Obama himself almost didn't make it for those reasons.

by Jess81 2008-06-04 02:42PM | 0 recs
Don't disagree with you there

so why can't we take a moment to celebrate the end of her herstoric race?

by catfish2 2008-06-04 02:42PM | 0 recs
Two things:

1) Hillary has known this was coming for a long time now.  She should have begun these negotiations a while ago.  The longer she waits, the less actual negotiating power she has...

2) Eliminating caucuses is a bad idea, and would be horribly difficult to do.  First off, Iowa would never give theirs up.  Second, the states decide on how they select delegates, so the Dems would have to convince majorities in every statehouse, even GOP controlled ones, to move to primaries.

As much as Clinton supporters retroactively complain about caucuses, they do have their virtues.  In rural, GOP-dominated places, this may be one of the few times where Democrats can get together to organize and plan.  There are states where I would work to make caucuses more easily accessible, but even primaries have barriers to voting.

by ScienceTeacher118 2008-06-04 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

Oh, for freaks sake.  This isn't the sopranos.  Anyone who wants on board with the Obama campaign and supports it over the next few months will be treated with the utmost respect and will earn the loyalty and gratitude of us all.

Clinton DOES have an obligation to endorse and support Obama.  She has a moral obligation.  It is an obligation she has taken it upon herself over and over again.  It's time to make good.  In a larger sense, she has the moral obligation to endorse and support because he is in position to advance an agenda that is, by her own admission, largely similar to her own.  Either she has principles or not.

by Strummerson 2008-06-04 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

Clinton DOES have an obligation to endorse and support Obama.  She has a moral obligation.

Exactly right.  The whole purpose of a primary is that THE LOSER SUPPORTS THE WINNER.  To breach that is to go back on your word.

That said, I'm quite sure Hillary Clinton knows that.  And she's earned the right to get all sorts of concessions from Barack Obama and from the party.  But it's not about quid pro quo - it's about respect and altruism.

by Jess81 2008-06-04 02:45PM | 0 recs
This is a poorly reasoned diary......

First, whatever is said by some Obama supporters about some Clinton supporters is not subject to any "negotiation" between Obama and Hillary.  Accusations of racism aren't misplaced, racism played a clear and unmistakable role in a few outcomes.  Yes, it can and has been overstated as a factor, and wrongly attributed to, and used as a cudgeol against, Hillary, but that racism drove a nontrivial amount of white voters was and is real.  And whatever the case may be, it's not Obama's problem.  He's not responsible for what gets written on blogs or in the media by his supporters or neutral observers.

Second, the nomination process, too, is not subject to any negotiation between Obama and Hillary.  That's up to the DNC and non-DNC elected and non-elected federal and state Democratic other words, the entire Democratic Party leadership.  Obama can be one player in that process, and he certainly WILL be as an incumbent President running for reelection, but it's not an appropriate topic for Hillary to condition her endorsement.

Only your first topic, that of black elected officials who are getting primaried, is fair game.

by DCCyclone 2008-06-04 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

I don't understand what she can negotiate with regard to belief that their is disproportionate racism among appalachian hard working white people.  It's not as if Barack can just decree that everyone who looks at Oregon, Iowa, North Carolina, and Virginia and sees lower income, white people without college degrees voting for Obama and then looks at West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Pennsylvania going exactly the other way is now hereby directly commanded to not believe their eyes.

by lockewasright 2008-06-04 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

And don't forget exit polls.

by Jess81 2008-06-04 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse

You mean the ones where they freely admitted it?

by lockewasright 2008-06-04 03:32PM | 0 recs
i'll post here later

with a defense of the caucus system.

but for now i have to go sit in rush hour for a bit. ug.

disclaimer: yes i agree we need reform, but i don't think we should completely do away with caucuses.

by annatopia 2008-06-04 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: [UPDATE on caucus]

Barr/Nader/Gravel will be happy to have your vote, SS.

Both Dems and the GOP use caucuses because they are less expensive and they make it easier for parties to organize.  In a caucus, a vote counts the same no matter who casts it, rich or poor, educated or not, just like a primary (even though both get weighted by population, voting tendencies, etc.)

Let me remind you that the only true Democracy in history (we're a representative republic) was in Athens, were anything being voted upon were debated in public first, just like in a caucus!  (Some caucuses, like NM, don't have that either and are primaries that are caucus in name only...)

by ScienceTeacher118 2008-06-04 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: [UPDATE on caucus]

The Greeks were also masters in the art of slave ownership and trading.  They also excluded women, and people of certain undesirable characteristics from participating.

If I were you, I would not be looking at them as a model for democracy.

by SevenStrings 2008-06-04 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: [UPDATE on caucus]

Regardless of their negatives, the Greeks were the only true democracy in history and thus the only model.  Public debate is an important part of the democratic tradition, and states should be able to decide to include that in their primary election rules.

by ScienceTeacher118 2008-06-04 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: She will endorse [UPDATE on caucus]

At this point, the individual likes, dislikes, or feelings of the two candidates are less important than the very vital need for the Democrats to win the White House in November.

This means that it is Sen. Obama's duty to reach out to Clinton and her supporters and bring the party together, and it is Sen. Clinton's duty to support the nominee, 100%.

Anything else just helps Sen. McCain.

Obama can reach out to those African-American politicians who went against their constituents' wishes by endorsing Clinton, but he cannot "guarantee their well-being".  If there are primary challenges, it's up to the voters to decide who to support.  That's democracy.

I would agree with you that we need to reform the election procedure, but caucuses aren't the problem.  Superdelegates are the problem.

by Joe Buck 2008-06-04 03:21PM | 0 recs
Mixed bag

The question of whether and how the Democratic party should reform its process for picking its presidential nominee, can we agree, is a question for the entire party.  On a tactical level it would be unwise for Obama to make any concession which implied that he'd won the nomination illegitimately (which is something, clearly, he doesn't believe).  But on moral grounds it's not really the place of Clinton and Obama to negotiate about these sorts of things.  I'm sure the party will reexamine the whole process.

The question of what will happen to black congressmen who have supported Clinton is an interesting one.  I don't think it's necessarily illegitimate for the issues which came up in this primary race to influence other primaries other levels (eg. a superdelegate from Florida who backed Obama despite constituents going the other way should have to answer for this, let the voters decide of the answer is good enough).  But sure, touchy subject.

I don't think the Obama campaign will show any reluctance to get advice from people on how they might reach out to "hard working white Americans".  For them this might now be job one.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-06-04 03:26PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads