Bravissima, Hillary! Bravissima!

I just watched Hillary's address at the Democratic National Convention. Amazing. Please watch it when you get a chance. It will probably be up soon at www.demconvention.com.

When she first withdrew from the primary, I thought her concession speech was fantastic. She really reached out to her supporters and delivered an impassioned and moving speech trying to rally the troops to Barack. You could even notice a change in the tone of her supporters over the course of her speech as she helped end what had been a very tough primary battle. All in all, an excellent piece of oratory as I remember it.

Tonight's speech was better. I don't have the time to go into all of it, but I am very impressed. She seems to have really found her voice.

Hillary's anti-democratic agenda II

As much as I hate how Team Hil' is handling this primary election, I will say that it is really helping to expose some traditionally backstage activities during the election. Case in point is the news that a group of 21 big donors to the Democratic Party/Team Hil' recently sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi. I figured they probably just sent a letter to the highest ranking House democrat to reassure her that they will do whatever they can to help get the democratic nominee in the White House, no matter who it is. Well, it turns out I'm an idiot. The letter says, in part:

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

...

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

That last line is a keeper. "We ... hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters." I love the respect for democracy that these people have. "Look, we're rich, so you should do things our way."

To clarify, Pelosi wasn't saying that Clinton shouldn't keep campaigning (although she shouldn't), she was just saying that the superdelegates should not decide the nomination in a way counter to the will of the voters. Sounds like a pretty simple proposition. I like it because she acknowledges a shortcoming of the system in an attempt to fix it and make the system more democratic. You could also view it as pragmatic because, as Pelosi's representative states, "it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters." Makes sense. But apparently 20 rich people disagree.

Of course, I'm sure that this kind of thing has happened in every democracy without publicly funded elections. But what I love about today is that the internet is changing things. Barack Obama is burying Team Hil' when it comes to fundraising and he's not relying on a small group of wealthy donors to do it. It seems like Pelosi is aware of this trend and is not backing down. And I bet that someone working with Pelosi leaked this letter as a not-so-subtle "F*ck you" to the authors. This will likely generate a nice bump in grassroots fundraising from democrats who want to take their party back. MoveOn has already circulated a petition supporting Pelosi.

Overall, this is encouraging. It seems like Team Hil' is getting more desperate and that leading democrats are willing to embrace the new age of grassroots fundraising and leave behind the days when large donors could control everything. It's a sign of progress. Now we just have to hope that Clinton doesn't try to completely destroy Barack or the party in her last ditch effort to win the nomination. Unless she's trying to help McCain to win, there should be a concession speech in the works. I'm hopeful, but not going to hold my breath.

Hillary's anti-democratic agenda.

Hillary is at it again with her anti-democratic talk during the Democratic Presidential Primary. And I don’t mean her negative shots where she implies McCain is better than Obama, thus undermining the Democratic party’s chances of winning the Presidency. I mean her statements against the actual values of democracy. Here she goes again.

Choice quotes:

For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose,"...

"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said. "And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday.

"You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. [Pledged delegates are] just like superdelegates."

Nice. That’s just classy. I like how she’s taking the few semblances this primary has to a democratic process and publicly attempting to destroy them. After all, did you think that your vote actually counted?!?! Hahaha... you idiot. Votes only counts if you’re a delegate. Don’t you feel better about this whole system now that the charade of having some form of an actual democratic process has finally been exposed for the lie it is?

Of course, the Democratic party has a rule telling delegates that they "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." But that’s so ambiguous! I mean, the people who elected me voted for Barack, but do their sentiments really lean that way??? And aren’t reflections backwards? You know, like my right hand is actually my left hand in the mirrror. So if I’m reflecting the people’s votes, then shouldn’t I do the opposite? Ugh, this is so confusing! I mean, does democracy mean that the people get a voice or no voice?!?! I JUST DON’T KNOW!!!

[turning off the sarcasmotron]

Of course, I think that it’s completely fine and even laudable for any candidate to identify the shortcomings in the Democratic primary system, but only when the goal is to fix the problems and make the system more democratic. Hillary is trying to exploit the shortcomings for her own gain and make it less democratic. And it’s not like her argument is really even colorable. The system is set up so that the pledged delegates should vote for the person their constituents voted for! This is not complicated! What Hillary is doing is the antithesis of democracy. She’s trying to find a loophole to crown herself regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regardless of the voice of the people. This kind of hypertechnical argument about such a simple issue is exactly the kind of shit the Bush administration pulled with respect to torture and wiretaps and a million other issues.

And one more thing. The Electoral College has similar rules to the pledged delegates. Not all states require their Electoral College delegates to vote for the winner of the majority vote in that state. So in 2000 and 2004, where was Hillary with this argument to help a Democrat win the White House and keep Dubya out? This argument would have worked just as well, if not better since winner-take-all seems rather undemocratic. But Hillary didn’t go there. My guess is because she saw nothing to be gained for herself. But Gore didn’t go there, either. Nor Kerry. Why? Methinks (mehopes) that, although the Electoral College system may be seriously flawed, Al and John did not attempt to undermine the little bit of democracy that it does embody. Granted, each of them actually won their elections and they should have fought harder for the true result to be known. They should have fought harder for the bit of democracy the Electoral College does embody. For not fighting harder I am sorely disappointed in them both. But at least they did not try to subvert the system for their own personal gain. They left that to Dubya. And now Hillary.