The Firing Squad; Our Party Has Found A Way To Lose The White House Yet Again!
We Have A Choice; “We Have A Decision To Be Made. “Do we really want The White House Back, Or Do We Want the White House Back on Party Insiders Terms?”
The Answer Is: If The People’s Voice Is Heard, Respected, Accepted and Honored; the White House Is Ours.
If The People’s Voice Is Heard, Rejected, And Brokered Away In The Backrooms Along The Way And A Corrupt Bargain Is Sealed In Denver; Then We Will Have Elected John McCain And Will We Have Squandered The Treasure Of Those Who Have Rallied To The Cry And Expectation For Change.
They Will Walk Away In Good Principled Conscience And In Contempt Of All Those Who Will Have Used And Abused Their Trust, Their Faith and Their Support, And They Will Have Their Revenge.
The Nation Will Suffer And Our Party Will Have Suffered An Unnecessary Grievous Wound That Will Simply Not Heal And Just Disappear. The Initial Sign Of Such A Back Lash Will Be Seen First In The Streets Of Denver! Welcome to the "Re-create 68" website, your virtual activists' Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.
R-68 agrees with the proposition, Potestas In Populo, "all power comes from the people." What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutes!
Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained. The "Re-create 68" Alliance is a group of local activists who will be acting as a clearing house in order to disseminate information for resistance so the power of the people can be expressed as loudly as possible!
The "R-68" Alliance is made up of activists locally known as the All Nations Alliance. The All Nations Alliance sponsored the Denver City Council resolution that made Denver the first major city in the country to take a stand in opposition to the Patriot Act and was also instrumental in exposing the Denver Spy Files and the J.T.T.F.'s and F.B.I.'s role in those files, in addition to organizing numerous anti-war, anti-racism, anti-imperialism rallies actions and protest including the G-8 protest in Denver!
We believe that actions can best be coordinated by local grassroots efforts. We encourage national organizations' efforts during the convention, but we ask that you please respect the proud and rich history of organized resistance that exists in Colorado. We are committed to resisting and overturning a system of violence inflicted daily on people of this country and the world, and against the natural environment, by political and corporate power, in the pursuit of profit. We are resolved that our group will not instigate violence against human beings as a means to end this system of violence and injustice. However, we recognize the right of the people to self-defense and community defense.
Mutual Assurances Between Groups And Organizations Planning DNC Related Activities:
1. to publicly support rights of free speech, the right to organize, and the right to dissent for all.
2. To maintain solidarity with and respect the guidelines of all permitted activities, recognizing that there are many individuals who seek a safe and peaceful protest.
3. To support and participate in efforts to assure civil liberties for everyone in Denver, including the right to organize civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action without that organizing being criminalized or disrupted.
4. To speak out against any pre-emptive arrests, raids on activists spaces, or attacks on independent journalists and other media.
5. To be conscious of and speak out against police targeting and differential treatment of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, accent, or appearance.
6. Not to turn people over to the police, or share information with the police about other groups.
7. Not to publicly criticize the tactics used by other parts of our movement or cooperate with media efforts to be divisive or portray good protester/bad protester.
8. To publicly condemn police repression and brutality.
9. To be conscious that if violence or property destruction does occur, we will do what we can to help prevent it from being blown out of proportion and dominating the media coverage.
10. To remember that, when all is said and done, our greatest victory will be an activist community with a renewed sense of strength and unity.
Sometimes we need to look back to move forward. In 1968 there existed a spirit of change, the Paris Rebellion, Prague, Chicago, Vietnam, etc. People believed, around the world, that they were capable of taking over the institutions that controlled their lives.
The smell of revolution was in the air. Over 1 million college students openly identified as revolutionist. People believed that through mass participation in the movement, it was possible to wrestle control from the elite power-holders.
They were not willing to accept the loss of their human and civil rights. Recreate 68 is not a throwback group trying to relieve some vision of glory days long gone. We are predominantly a youthful group who has realized that 40 years later, we have only produced apathy in our communities towards making effective and lasting change.
We intend to recreate that need for change and mass participation in the events that shape and control our lives.
We intend to recreate that revolutionary feeling and pick-up where our predecessors left off. It is time to reclaim the ideals that we have forgotten and leap forward by stepping back and using that voice inside of us that has been telling us something is seriously wrong, a voice that is shouting for change, a voice that has realized we live in a police state and we have stopped moving forward 40 years ago.
When we recreate positives and discard negatives from our collective memories of the past and realize the true power that the people possess, we will have the ability to make 2008 a very special year.
This is the true meaning of Recreate 68. Don’t let this historic moment pass you by.
Join us on this journey and have your energies and voices heard in the streets of Denver, as we demand change during the DNC in 2008! http://www.recreate68.org
Simply stated danger of that which is referred to as “a brokered convention” is that party insiders, including “superdelegates, party apparatchiks, consultants, campaign and candidate managers, pundits, bank rollers, the generally accepted privileged-powerful opinion makers, movers and shakers…the power brokers…(who always reserve unto themselves: the self ordained knowledge that they know more and they know better than anyone else, and therefore their inherent right to make all final decisions whatsoever); (I repeat: the danger being), that expectations unfulfilled or perverted amidst the money, martinis, cigarette and cigar smoke, will cause these “powers that be” to form up in a protective circle to preserve their ambitions and goals, a circular firing squad that will leave very dead Blue Donkey on the floor of some backroom. (Ed.)
The Proposition: A Brokered Democrat Convention Is Looking More Likely! By Carolyn Lochhead San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, January 07, 2008 Let us look at this matter from several different vantage points. This article makes an excellent starting point for discussion and observation.
(02-07) 04:00 PST Washington –The Democratic race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama shows every sign of heading to an August convention fight in Denver, where backroom deals and brawls over rules could trump primary voters in picking the nominee.
"The stakes are growing," said Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "The later you go in the process, the more is at stake.
The nomination is now at stake. Iowa's about Iowa, but now it's about the nomination." Emerging from the 22 primaries and caucuses Tuesday with delegate counts less than 10 percent apart, the two rivals head into a pitched round of contests that will reach a climax with March 4's big prizes of Texas and Ohio.
Yet with each candidate splitting delegates according to the share of the vote they receive, neither is likely to be able to build a decisive lead. And neither Clinton nor Obama is near to ceding the nomination. That puts extraordinary pressure on the superdelegates who make up 40 percent of the total needed to secure the nomination.
Superdelegates are not chosen by voters. They are elected officials and party operatives who are free to pick whomever they like, regardless of who won what primary.
Obama and Clinton's split decision Tuesday also makes the Florida and Michigan delegations potentially pivotal. Under normal circumstances, those states would hold 366 delegates, more than enough to tip the race.
But under party rules, they have zero delegates this year, their punishment by the Democratic National Committee for holding early primaries. All the candidates agreed not to campaign in either state.
Clinton was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. She won both contests and even held a victory party in Florida.
Her campaign now insists that she will try to have the Florida and Michigan delegates seated and their votes counted.
The superdelegates and the Florida and Michigan controversies are serious issues, said Tad Devine, a top aide to Al Gore in 2000 and to John Kerry in 2004. "I think they have to be handled by the campaigns and the party in a very deliberate way." If the Florida and Michigan delegations give Clinton a victory, "I think it would lead to a gigantic challenge ... I think it would have an enormously detrimental effect on the Democratic Party and whoever the nominee was."
That Will Be The First Mistake. The Rules Are Rules. (Ed.)
In the end discontent over this and related matters will have to be blamed on someone; someone will have to take the fall. The most likely candidate: Howard Dean. We he sell out to keep his job, after all it’s the crumb that was given him and quite frankly he has done a brilliant job from which many have been and are about to the beneficiaries of, despite elements with the Clintonista who not happy with the fact that they do not have total control of the Party.
It has too many “Top Spots” and like controlling the power of the old Soviet Union, it’s nice to control all the chairs. But that is yet another problem that gets the firing squads fingers to itching. No good deed goes unpunished around here.
Controversy also could erupt over superdelegates if party officials appear to be lining up against the candidate who won among ordinary primary voters, Devine said. "Everybody's got to be very careful about what they do and how they do it."
It’s that how do it thing that constitutes the act of locking and loading. Why not do nothing; like follow the rules, let the primaries play out and if the will of the people is clearly defined, then do the will of the people, instead of assuming we are assholes who don’t know what we’re doing and that even if we get pissed off for a bit, we’ll fall in line and vote right in November, because after all we’re all obsessed with wanting the White House back on any terms just like the “almighty leaders”. (Ed.)
Heading into the next primaries, Obama holds an advantage starting Saturday with Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, followed by a "Potomac Primary" in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Wisconsin, an important state historically for Democrats, follows a week later.
The schedule gives Obama time for more of the retail politicking that vaulted his campaign into contention in Iowa. Saturday, As You Will See Later, Went Well For Obama.
I’m Going To Repeat This Link Several Times In This Post For Your Reference Convenience. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com
Obama also demonstrated his national appeal Tuesday, sweeping 13 states to Clinton's eight. He can tap a deep vein of financial support from small donors flocking to his Web site.
Clinton relies more heavily on large donors, many of whom have hit their legal maximum. She said Wednesday that she would loan her campaign $5 million.
The Obama camp hopes to gain the lead among pledged delegates, the ones chosen by voters, to claim to the nomination. Right now, Clinton leads in pledged delegates, 811 to 794, according to the Associated Press.
That is an astonishingly tiny 17-delegate margin after nearly half the nation has voted. Clinton is leading in superdelegates, 210 to 170. But a lead in superdelegates is uncertain because they are free to change their minds. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com
Polls put Clinton ahead by large margins in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, as well as giant Pennsylvania, which does not hold a primary until April 22; long after this nomination is expected to be decided. Clinton demonstrated an iron grip Tuesday on the Democratic base: Latinos, women and seniors. Those hard-core voters secured her victories in four of the six biggest states Tuesday, including California, the linchpin of Democratic hopes in November. "No question she's got the built-in advantage that normally produces Democratic nominees: women, seniors and now Latinos," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.
Obama relies more on African Americans, men, young people and independents. "African Americans are good," Sabato said, "but men are greatly outvoted by women.
Young people are greatly outvoted by seniors, and Latinos are apparently totally impervious to Barack Obama's appeal."
(This is a good reason for Barack to reach out to Richardson for endorsement and his selection for Vice President…I’ll bet I’ll hear from some of you on that one!) (Ed.)
Latinos give Clinton a powerful edge going into Texas. If she continues to roll up wins in the big states, she might take the lead in delegates. More important, she can leverage those big-state victories to persuade superdelegates that she has what it takes to beat Republicans in the fall.
The Clinton campaign is banking on just that. Top Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn conceded Obama's "significant advantages" in the smaller states that are up next.
He called Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania "absolutely critical for us."
Mark Penn is also one who will cut any deal, anywhere, anytime and you can put money down on the fact that he knows where the “firing squad” is at every moment and has ammunition in good supply. (Ed.)
But between today and Texas lies a minefield of party caucuses in smaller states where Obama has proved his traction. The big danger for Clinton: Obama might rack up delegates and develop the perception that he is a front-runner in smaller states before Clinton can land a knockout.
"The key to this segment is to win a series or sequence of states, so that for two or three weeks, the news that people hear about you is that you've won," Devine said. "They hear the analysis of why you won, and perhaps they catch your victory speech, versus you lost and why you lost and what's wrong with your campaign. That affects voters in later states."
Hence Clinton's big push for superdelegates, which gets her delegate count up, and where she began with an advantage as the leading contender.
"What exists of a party establishment still tends to support her," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University. "That's what superdelegates are. They're a throwback to the era of party conventions, and she still thinks she has them in her hold."
Yet, relying on superdelegates risks making Clinton appear to be the beneficiary of machine politics.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com
On Wednesday, Clinton strategist Penn tossed the establishment label on Obama, dismissing "his establishment campaign of big endorsements, money, ads on the Super Bowl" while painting Clinton as the underdog.
(He has his gyroscope working. Ed.)
Although superdelegates might be a throwback to smoke-filled rooms, their purpose is to resolve just the kind of split among primary voters that appears to be shaping up - before the party gets to its convention, said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas.
The idea was to be able, should a tie occur, to bypass impassioned primary voters and have "some wise heads, some grownups, some political pros, to have some input" to assess which candidate they feel would do better in the general election. "There's nothing illegal or unsavory about it," he said.
"The intent is to protect the larger interest of the party in the upcoming general election."
(Maybe a bit pompous, arrogant and elitist and certainly fraught with potentially dangerous consequences. Ed)
Obama is running better than Clinton against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, in head-to-head polls, at least for now, Buchanan noted. "In fact, he beats McCain and she doesn't in some polls.
And there are certain structural advantages: She doesn't do well with independents. McCain does. So does Obama." "I think this thing is going down to the convention one way or the other," said former House member and Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta, a Clinton supporter and president of the Panetta Institute in Monterey.
"There is going to be a lot of lobbying on superdelegates, there's going to be a lot of push on remaining primaries, but I think in end this thing may very well come down to the issue seating these other delegations from Florida and Michigan”.
Clinton's insistence on "counting all the votes" in Florida is already reminiscent of the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore, also centered in Florida.
Both sides could make a case: Clinton that the voters should not be disenfranchised, especially in critical states for Democrats in November, and Obama that changing the rules after the fact would be stealing the election. "It's not the way you want to enter a general election campaign against John McCain," Buchanan said.
"You have a situation somewhat like Hubert Humphrey had coming out of the convention in 1968, a bitterly divided party that thinks there's been a breach of faith, and the possibility that in a really tough election people might stay home in a way that gives what should have been a Democratic year to the Republicans."
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com
CNN) – In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-California, explained and defended the involvement of so-called “superdelegates” in picking her party’s presidential nominee.
Superdelegates were established, Pelosi explained, in order to allow grassroots Democratic activists to attend the nominating convention without having to compete with high-ranking Democratic party officials for a coveted spot on the convention floor. “So, again, I don’t think that members of Congress, governors and senators are not attuned to what’s happening in their states and in their districts,” said Pelosi.
(Do I have to comment on this Pelosi babble? (Ed.)
Asked by Blitzer whether she would be troubled by a brokered Democratic convention where superdelegates tipped the ballots in favor of either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama, Pelosi defended her party’s system.
“These superdelegates are all part of their state delegation, so that state will speak,” Pelosi said, when its delegation participates in the convention. The superdelegates “work out their preference working with the people of their state,” she added.
Pelosi refused to weigh in on talk of a Democratic “dream ticket” involving both Clinton and Obama but she did note that roughly 15 million Americans voted for either Clinton or Obama on Super Tuesday.
“The vitality of these two campaigns is attracting so many people,” said Pelosi.
That “Dream Ticket/Fiction” ticket would have to be Clinton/Obama. Does anyone believe for a moment that there could be an Obama/Clinton Ticket? If you do you had better stop smoking whatever it is you have there! (Ed.)
Of course, there are also the superdelegates, who make up about 14% of the delegate total. The candidates began courting the superdelegates well over a year ago -- long before primary voting began. Although Clinton currently leads Obama by about 2 to 1 in superdelegate endorsements by some counts, many are still up for grabs or could switch allegiance.
And Then There Is This Sort Of Thing: White men may be key to The Democratic election outcome
http://www.scrippsnews.com http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/30566
At some point in time we are going to have to come to grips that amidst all the hype, hope and Rhetoric there are large number of Liars, Sexists and Racial Bigots who will simply stay in the shadows, and then they will Vote! Let me see you find them and poll them! (Ed.)
Stories In The News Ketchikan, Alaska (A Nice Readable Version of The LA Piece)
Let’s Look at those delegate counts and line ups again. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
Clinton wants Florida, Michigan delegates to Democratic convention reinstated. (Of Course she does, but do any rules about anything anywhere mean anything anymore? And are there consequences for making the original bone head mistake; and then simply raping the rules to perpetuate the “Old Guard” Establishment. They don’t think so; they’ve done it so often and we’ve tolerated it!
That is the problem with accepting lowered expectation and political corruption and manipulation. The lower we go and the more we swallow the more they get away with! (Ed.)
By Stephen Ohlemacher,
Associated Press Last update: January 26, 2008 - 4:00 AM Washington –
In a bit of political theater, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Florida Democratic Party clamored to restore convention delegates that had been stripped by the national party.
At stake: 185 delegates in a state where Clinton leads almost 2-to-1. The presidential candidate said Friday _ just four days before Florida's primary _ that she wants the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan reinstated.
The national party eliminated all the delegates from those states _ more than 350 in all _ because they broke party rules against holding their primaries before Feb. 5.
All the major Democratic candidates also made pledges not to campaign in those states before their primaries. Clinton could claim most of the Michigan delegates because she won that state's primary after the other major candidates pulled their names from the ballot.
"I know other campaigns have tried to downplay the significance of these two states," Clinton told reporters in South Carolina Friday. "I think that is not a good strategy for Democrats or any of us who cares about the outcome of this election." In an earlier statement, Clinton said, "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan," she said.
(This is like supporting God, Motherhood, Country and Apple Pie…I just want these good folks to participate and it’s not their fault their state party leaders were jerks!) (Ed.)
Clinton, a New York senator, called on the other candidates to join her.
Instead, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign manager accused Clinton of pandering. "No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party's standard-bearer than Senator Obama," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.
"Senator Clinton's own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a contest for delegates, and Florida is a contest that offers zero," Plouffe said.
"Whether it is Barack Obama's record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election."
Many Democratic insiders believe the eventual nominee _ whoever it is _ will work to reinstate the delegates at the convention to promote party unity going into the general election, despite two overwhelming votes by the party's rules panel to strip them.
Under the rules for the Democratic convention, the candidate with the most delegates at the convention will control who gets seated _ if the delegates follow the candidate's wishes. "I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision," Clinton said in the statement.
"But I hope to be president of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention." Both political parties penalized early voting states in an attempt to gain control over an increasingly chaotic primary calendar, but they did it differently.
The Democrats allowed New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada to hold early nominating contests, while stripping all the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
The Republicans stripped just half the delegates from five states for holding early contests: New Hampshire, Wyoming, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida. Iowa and Nevada avoided the penalty because those states do not technically award delegates at their caucuses.
The Republicans did not impose a ban on campaigning in those states, and GOP candidates have been traveling throughout Florida for much of the week.
Some Democrats have complained that their party is neglecting an important state while the Republicans are waging a spirited campaign there. "The notion that you disenfranchise a large number of people in these two states is a terrible idea," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told reporters on a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign.
Florida Democratic Chairwoman Karen Thurman said in a statement, "We thank Senator Clinton for her support and commitment to the Sunshine State." She added, "The nation needs Florida, and Florida is ready to deliver." Florida had a total of 210 delegates, including 185 that would have been at stake in Tuesday's Democratic primary. Michigan had a total of 156 delegates, including 128 that would have been at stake in its Jan. 15 primary.
Clinton would have won most of the Michigan delegates after the other major candidates had their names removed from the ballot. Still, she received only 55 percent of the vote in the Michigan primary, with "uncommitted" garnering about 40 percent. Most of the Michigan voters who chose uncommitted backed Obama or Edwards, who pulled their names from the ballot to avoid angering Iowa and New Hampshire, which didn't like other states crowding to the front of the election calendar.
Clinton leads Obama in the overall delegate count, 237 to 140, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates.
A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.
To Add To The Confusion Media and Candidate Methods of Counting Delegates Vary and So Do Totals!
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com
How best to account for the results of the caucuses has long been a subject of intense debate. Rhodes Cook, a nonpartisan political analyst who once covered elections for Congressional Quarterly, said he “was driven nuts by the delegate count” when trying to analyze the caucuses, and generally steered clear of predicting the outcome of subsequent intra-state conventions. “
I tended to do a conservative count and not project delegates from caucus states until the process had run its course,” Mr. Cook said. “At each stage of the process — the county conventions, the state conventions — you can get an altered count.” Adding to the confusion this year is that the Democratic National Committee stripped the delegates from two populous states, Florida and Michigan, as punishment for those states moving their primaries up to a date earlier than party rules allowed.
While voters went to the polls in those states, and Mrs. Clinton claimed victory in both, she earned no delegates as a result. The fluidity of the delegate count is intensified by the presence of so-called superdelegates, party leaders and elected officials who can support whomever they choose independent of the caucuses and conventions. Of the 796 superdelegates nationwide, just 303 had publicly pledged support for a candidate as of Friday, according to a survey of the delegates by The New York Times and CBS News; other news organizations have their own methods of accounting for superdelegates, which may yield different results.
The vagaries of the process are on display in Iowa, where Mr. Obama was widely reported to have won the most support of caucus goers in January.
Fifty-seven delegates are at stake in Iowa, including 12 superdelegates. In just the last few days, one superdelegate moved from being uncommitted to backing Mr. Obama, and another switched to Mrs. Clinton after having supported John Edwards, who has since dropped out.
As for the remaining Iowa delegates, they will not be officially pledged to a candidate until after the party completes its county conventions on March 15, the district conventions on April 26 and the state convention on June 14, said Norm Sterzenbach, political director of the Iowa Democratic Party.
“Essentially, we start all over again at the county, the district and the state levels,” Mr. Sterzenbach said, adding that representatives of the Clinton and Obama campaigns remain in Iowa preparing for the coming conventions.
Analysis: Dems' Dilemma Over Fla., Mich.
CBS News - New York,NY,USA
Clinton flew in the night of the primary for a victory party in an effort to blunt Obama's momentum after his win in South Carolina. ... But on the Democratic side, Obama has swept the Nebraska caucuses, Louisiana, Washington state, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Team Hillary put out their spin a little after 6 p.m.: Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins.
According to a spreadsheet that was obtained by Bloomberg News, the Obama campaign predicted big victories in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana. The Obama campaign has dramatically outspent our campaign in these three states, saturating the airwaves with 30 and 60 second ads. The Obama campaign has spent $300,000 more in Louisiana on television ads, $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Washington. Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
In other words, "we didn't try that hard, and these states don't matter that much." The damage to Hillary's chances will be partially mitigated by the proportional allocation of delegates. But if Obama sweeps the Potomac Primary states on Tuesday, I wonder if we see a momentum shift in his direction, and whether he starts to pull away a bit... ON the first Wednesday in June, the morning after the last day of voting in the 1984 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, the long, drawn-out battle that began with Gary Hart’s stunning victory in New Hampshire ended — but only after one last plot twist.
I was Walter Mondale’s delegate counter, and I had stayed up all night to estimate the delegates won and lost in the five states, including California and New Jersey, that had voted the day before. I realized we were in big trouble. Mr. Mondale was not going to deliver on his pledge to be over the top in the delegate count by noon on the day after the last primary. He fell 40 delegates short of a majority.
We began a frantic morning of telephone calls to superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who only two years earlier had been given 15 percent of the vote in the Democratic nominating process. By noon, the former vice president had persuaded enough delegates to ensure himself the nomination. The superdelegates did the work they were created to do: they provided the margin of victory to the candidate who had won the most support from primary and caucus voters.
Now, a quarter-century later, the Democratic Party is once again engaged in a nominating process — this time between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — in which the margin of victory will be achieved only with broad support from the superdelegates, the nearly 800 party leaders and elected officials who become delegates not on the basis of votes cast in primaries and caucuses, but because of their status under party rules. Democrats created these superdelegates after the 1980 election with several purposes in mind. Party leaders had been underrepresented on the floor of the 1980 convention, which was the culmination of a bitter contest for the nomination between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy that left our party deeply divided and contributed to the party’s loss of the presidency that year.
Many party leaders felt that the delegates would actually be more representative of all Democratic voters if we had more elected officials on the convention floor to offset the more liberal impulses of party activists.
But the superdelegates were also created to provide unity at the nominating convention. They are a critical mass of uncommitted convention voters who can move in large numbers toward the candidate who receives the most votes in the party’s primaries and caucuses. Their votes can provide a margin of comfort and even victory to a nominee who wins a narrow race.
The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.
The party’s leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the two remarkable candidates who are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today.
The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come. (It’s not a myth…Ed.)
The damage would be amplified if African-Americans or women, two of the party’s key constituencies, feel that a candidate who represents their most fervent hopes and aspirations is deprived of a nomination rightfully earned by majority support from voters. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and their campaigns, are pressuring superdelegates to pledge support to them before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions.
But Democratic leaders need to let the voters sort out which one of these two remarkable people will lead our party and, we hope, the nation. After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.
Washington — Seeing a good possibility that the Democratic presidential nomination will not be settled in the primaries and caucuses, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are lavishing attention on a group that might hold the balance of power: elected officials and party leaders who could decide the outcome at the convention in August.
There are 796 of them, and if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton emerges from the primary season with the 2,025 delegates necessary to secure the nomination, they will in essence serve as tiebreakers. That is a result both sides see as increasingly likely. Known as superdelegates because they are free to cast their votes at the convention as they see fit, they are the object of an intensifying and potentially high-stakes charm offensive by the candidates and their supporters.
“We have all been bombarded with e-mails from everybody and their mamas,” said Donna Brazile, a senior member of the Democratic National Committee. “Like, ‘Auntie Donna, you’re a superdelegate!’ My niece called me today to lobby me. I didn’t know what to say.” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and Mrs. Clinton, of New York, are setting aside hours each week to call superdelegates, and their campaigns have set up boiler rooms to pursue likely targets.
The Clinton campaign has established a system, overseen by one of the party’s most seasoned behind-the-scenes operators, Harold Ickes, to have superdelegates contacted by carefully chosen friends and local supporters, as well as by big-name figures like Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state.
For particularly tough sells, the campaign has former President Bill Clinton or Chelsea Clinton make the call. Mr. Obama has enlisted Tom Daschle, the popular former Senate majority leader, as well as Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party’s 2004 presidential nominee. “You know there is something interesting going on when you pick up your cell phone and see all those out-of-state phone numbers,” said Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who reported getting calls from Ms. Napolitano and Mr. Daschle.
A survey of the superdelegates by The New York Times that was completed a week ago found that 204 had decided to back Mrs. Clinton, 99 backed Mr. Obama and the rest said they were undecided or did not respond.
The survey came before the coast-to-coast contests on Tuesday, and the superdelegates can change their minds at any time. Surveys by other news organizations have shown Mr. Obama in a stronger position, underlining the difficulties facing news organizations — and campaigns — trying to get a firm count from this group of delegates.
The superdelegates include all Democratic governors and members of Congress, as well as officials and other prominent members of the party. In interviews, some said they were grappling with how to use their power if it comes into play, especially if their judgment does not match the will of a majority of voters. Should they ratify the decision by regular delegates and vote for the candidate who is ahead in June, no matter how small the lead?
Are they obligated to follow the vote of their constituents in primaries or caucuses? Or should they simply follow their conscience and vote for whomever they think is the best nominee? Superdelegates, created in 1982, were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, tempering the zeal of party activists. About 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at Democratic conventions are superdelegates.
In the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984, superdelegates overwhelmingly supported Walter F. Mondale, helping to secure his defeat of Gary Hart. This year, the competition is more intense, and the superdelegates’ support more evenly divided. Mr. Obama, talking to reporters in Seattle on Friday, said he believed superdelegates should follow the will of the voters. “My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters,” Mr. Obama said. “
I think it is also important for superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November and who will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold.” Mrs. Clinton, campaigning Saturday in Maine, disputed Mr. Obama’s interpretation of how superdelegates should make their decision, arguing, as her aides have in conversations with superdelegates, that they should make an independent decision based on who they thought would be the strongest candidate and president.
She brought up Senators Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; both men have endorsed Mr. Obama, but Mrs. Clinton won that state on Tuesday. “Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment,” she said at a news conference in Maine, according to MSNBC. “But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry.” Chris Redfern, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman, said he did not intend to pledge his vote until after all the primaries were completed.
“You want to make the convention interesting, don’t you?” Mr. Redfern asked. He said Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had sought his support, as a superdelegate and as the head of the Ohio party. Neither offered him any inducements, he said, “not even a T-shirt.” Democrats, including aides to both candidates and party leaders, said they were concerned about a summer-long fight should the primary voting end in June without a clear winner.
“It is going to be an enormous train wreck unless by June 3 a candidate has a majority,” said Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who supports Mrs. Clinton.
“I don’t think we want to go back to those wheeling-dealing, smoke-filled back-room days.” The prospect that the nomination could be decided by party insiders rather than by the voters has stirred unease among many superdelegates as they weigh potentially conflicting loyalties to their constituents and to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Several legislators said they would stay neutral as long as possible, hoping to be spared a decision. But, they said, they are prepared to step in and try to push the party to a decision as soon as the voting is over. “Once the primary season is over, I am hoping we will have a nominee,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland. “If those of us who are uncommitted can help bring that about, then I think we should try to do that.”
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is neutral, said she would not stay on the sidelines for long once the voting was over. “I will not go through the summer, I can tell you that, without endorsing a candidate,” she said. “I am not a big believer in smoke-filled rooms.” Aides to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama said it had been increasingly challenging to lock down supporters as they traded victories in primaries and caucuses.
Under Democratic Party rules for primaries, delegates are allocated proportionately — rather than winner take all — which complicates the candidates’ efforts to build up a big lead. “The people who were initially inclined to either candidate got on board early,” said Mr. Ickes, a 40-year veteran of Democratic National Committee battles who is running the operation for Mrs. Clinton out of her headquarters in Virginia. “But at this point, it’s getting harder to get people — especially if they now think there is no front-runner.”
Some of Mr. Obama’s supporters signaled they might battle hard to keep any advantage Mrs. Clinton maintained in superdelegates — in part a dividend from the long relationship of the Clintons with the Democratic National Committee and elected officials — from overcoming any advantage Mr. Obama might have in pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses. “My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,” Mr. Kerry said.
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he had not taken sides, partly out of the hope that the fight would not end up on his plate, but also because he needed to work with both candidates in the Senate on health care legislation. “I want to spend my time doing as much as possible to have this teed up for a Democratic president,” Mr. Wyden said of the health care plan. “That being said, if this goes until the very end, I am going to have to swallow hard and make a judgment.”
Democratic Party Super Delegates: Super Headache in the Making
There is great interest in how super delegates are selected by the Democratic Party since there is a possibility they could determine the party's presidential nomination. One of the better explanations as to how the super delegates came into being and how they work is Tom Curry's article, April 26, 2007
The key thing is this. There are 842 of these delegates who hold the position by virtue of being an established or retired elected political or party leader. They make up almost 40% of the delegates needed to win the nomination, or 20% of the total delegates.* That means a candidate who comes to the convention with 12% of the delegates from the primaries and the caucuses could get the nomination if that candidate got all of the super delegates.
One super delegate who is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton. A Wisconsin super delegate voting for Barack Obama will be Governor Jim Doyle; Clinton gets the support of Representative Tammy Baldwin (Wis-2).
Some super delegates will undoubtedly cast a ballot consistent with their state's preference, particularly in a winner-take-all state. For an ongoing list of super delegates, who they support, and the excerpts from the Democratic Party Rules that create the super delegates check out 2008 Democratic Convention Watch: Here's a list of super delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention that have officially announced who they plan to nominate. If you know of any others or are a super delegate please post a comment.
According to this website, various news organizations put Clinton's super delegates between 193 and 209, Obama's between 106 and 118.
By the numbers as of Wednesday, February 6, 2008: AP puts Obama at 765 delegates, including the supers AP puts Clinton at 845 delegates, including the supers 2025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination The Democratic Party will have a serious problem if the convention outcome does not reflect the popular selection of delegates for the candidates. For example, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination based on significant support from super delegates, no amount of explaining will satisfy the young and independent voters brought into the process as reflected by the recorded primary turnout, inspired by the spirited race between herself and Barack Obama.
Super delegates may sink the Democrats - Los Angeles Times
Jan 19, 2008 ... The existence of super delegates would compound the problem. The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the ... Super-delegates were created after the insurgent outsider campaigns of then Sen. George McGovern, D-SD, and former Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia, secured the Democratic party nominations in 1972 and 1976, respectively.
The idea was to return some power to party officials. Political scientist Rhodes Cook has said super-delegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries." Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted, "if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken.
Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination." Obama suggested "the argument we would be making to super-delegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then I think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty important when it comes to the general election." Said Super-delegate Donna Brazile to CNN, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."
The DNC’s Florida and Michigan Delegate Problem
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) punished Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries earlier than allowed by refusing to award any delegates for those contests. They were right in doing so. But now that the majority of the convention delegates have been selected the DNC needs to work out a solution to allow delegates to be awarded to these two large states. The process needs to be fair. Awarding delegates from the non-sanctioned contests would run counter to fairness.
In Michigan, only Hillary Clinton’s name was on the ballot. The only other choice those voters had was uncommitted. It cannot be presumed that all the uncommitted votes would have gone to Barack Obama, and it cannot be presumed that if other names were on the ballot that Clinton would have won as many votes.
With Florida, none of the candidates campaigned in the state, and it is likely that many voters did not show up because they knew their votes wouldn’t count towards delegates.
The LATimes reported today on the real possibility that the 796 Super Delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be the deciding factor in the selection of the Party nominee. This makes resolving the matter of Michigan and Florida delegates even more important.
The Democratic nomination appears poised to come down to the 796 party insiders, who are free to vote for whomever they choose. The delegates’ importance depends on Florida and Michigan.
By Peter Wallsten and James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 9, 2008
Washington – In a year that has seen Democratic voters flock to the polls but produce two evenly matched candidates, some party leaders are becoming alarmed that the process for deciding an eventual winner is in disarray, and that the decision may come down not to ordinary voters but to the group of 796 insiders known as “super delegates.”
Contributing to the tension is a continuing battle over the roles of Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their participation in the party’s national nominating convention due to a fight with the Democratic National Committee over the primary election calendar.
Now, with the prospect that neither Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Barack Obama will win a clear majority in the delegate count, a discussion is reemerging over whether voters in those states should return to the polls and help pick the nominee, voting this time in an election formally sanctioned by the party. Click Here for the entire LATimes story.
The DNC needs to come up with a way to award delegates to Michigan and Florida. They need to do it fairly, and they need to do it soon.
Send an email to Howard Dean at the DNC and urge him to work with party leaders to resolve this matter before the Democratic National Convention in August.
Let me get this straight– you want to enforce rules against 3 million voters who did went out and voted and had no role in breaking this stupid rule but you don’t want to enforce a rule that many people complied with and was used in the 2004 election?
If you and Chairman Dean feel the need to punish anyone, punish the State Party officials(although In Florida the GOP really pushed this up). Don’t punish the voters.
The DNC has their head so far up their keisters it’s not funny. Why don’t we just kiss off Michigan and Florida’s electoral votes in November, all because of a desire to maintain a calendar that caters to Iowa and New Hampshire. I’ve heard of self-inflicted wounds before but this takes the cake.
What are they smoking at the DNC? And you say the DNC was right to do this? Wipe out the will of over 3 million Democrats? Yet you want to change the rules and allow votes for voters who didn’t follow the rules?
Open Left:: Super Delegates To Determine Nominee
From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. .. It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the Democratic Presidential nominee this year. Here is the current situation: With Michigan and Florida removed from the equation, 2,025 delegates are required to win the nomination, and there are 3,253 pledged delegates. To date, four states with a combined 137 pledged delegates have held nominating contests.
Currently, Barack Obama is projected with 63 pledged delegates, and Hillary Clinton is projected with 48 (source). On Super Tuesday, 22 states and a couple territories with a combined 1,688 pledged delegates will hold nominating contests. From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available.
Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.)
As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75).
That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining.
Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates.
Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
The Conventional Wisdom narrative now is that Clinton and Obama are deadlocked, and the nomination may not be decided until the convention, which will put the party and the nominee in peril because the GOPer nominee--almost certainly John McCain--will have several months head start campaigning.
There is some substance to this analysis, and some problems with it.
The substance is this: If Paul Kane of the Washington Post is right about the math, neither candidate can win enough delegates to secure the nomination in the primaries and caucuses to come.
In that sense, it is a mathematical deadlock, assuming that both candidates get their usual share of the delegates in the contests between now and June.
If neither mathematically eliminates the other, and neither withdraws, then it's up to super-delegates and probably the convention, since the delegates belonging to Michigan and Florida may make the difference to a majority, and so the decision to seat them or not will determine the nominee.
What's wrong with this picture?
Even as Super Tuesday votes were being counted, party chair Howard Dean was warning of the possibility that neither candidate would win a majority. He is right to say a protracted fight to the convention would be a disaster for the Democratic Party, and not just because the nominee would be playing catch-up against McCain. Some Democrats feel strongly that the time has passed that party insiders--the super-delegates--should name the nominee.
Donna Brazile said if that happens she would quit the Democratic Party. I am probably not alone in feeling just as strongly that seating Michigan and Florida delegates that reflect the outcome of their bogus primaries would be such a travesty that I would quit the Democratic Party. (I might still vote for the Democratic candidate in November, but not as a Democrat.) If those primary results are honored, it would in itself create chaos within the party, beginning possibly with the resignations of Howard Dean and other party officials, since they ruled that these delegates wouldn't be seated and candidates other than Clinton honored that decision.
We had eight years of calamitous consequences thanks to the debacle of the 2000 election, and to me this is just as serious a travesty. Both of these situations would be disastrous. The only other possibility I can think of--and perhaps Howard Dean was contemplating--is that one of the candidates would withdraw for the good of the party.
Presumably it would be the candidate with the lesser number of pledged delegates. As for the so-called "dream ticket," it's in somebody else's dreams; I don't think there's enough enthusiasm to pressure the candidates to accept it, and I would be shocked to learn that either of them wants it. A Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket seems very unlikely.
Deadlock or Tie? And the Future
But, as I said, the idea that Obama and Clinton are deadlocked itself has some problems. While it's true that at the moment they appear to be tied, there are more contests to come. It may be that what Super Tuesday showed is that Obama is moving up while Hillary is slipping down, and they happened to be even on that day. We'll get some evidence about that soon.
It's possible that the delegate count will wind up being very close between them by mid-March or the end of April. But it's also possible that it won't be--that there will be a clear leader. So let's think this through now--especially you super-delegates. If there is a clear leader, isn't it likely to be Barack Obama?
He is more likely to win the lion's share of delegates in the February caucuses and primaries, and he is likely to win close to half the delegates in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, even if Clinton wins a few more in each state than he does. It is less likely that Clinton will have a substantial lead in delegates at that point. While you are contemplating that, think about which candidate is more likely to win in November, and which candidate is likely to be better for the Democratic Party then and for the long term.
The answer is the same: Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is divisive. The Republicans are praying that she is the nominee. They raise money on the very idea that she will be.
They can't wait to run against her. The Republican Party is in disarray now. But there is one thing that can unite it: Hillary as the Democratic nominee. Clinton and others criticized Obama for suggesting that in recent elections, the Democrats had 46% and the Republicans had 46%, and everybody fought for the remainder, and the winner can't govern. Now look at the polls--most specifically the latest Time Magazine survey:
Clinton 46%, McCain 46%. (Obama got 48% to McCain's 41%.) Various polls over at least a year have shown Clinton's favorables and unfavorables have been about even. Clinton is divisive within the party. Many commentators have said openly that her campaign has used race against Obama.
They've also said openly that she uses the woman as victim image for electoral advantage. Right now her campaign is whipping up a frenzy over a tasteless analogy used by a newsperson to galvanize and solidify white feminist support that has been peeling off. Obama on the other hand has appealed to black voters and young voters with his message of unity. His campaign is not divisive. It has brought together established and insurgent elements of the Democratic Party, and it has brought thousands of new participants and millions of new voters.
When Obama says that he will keep the votes of people who are voting for Hillary, but she won't get all the votes of people voting for him--who can really dispute this? And what will happen to the voters Obama has energized and galvanized in what he calls a movement as well as a candidacy? If he is not the nominee, much of that energy and many of those voters will be lost, perhaps for a long time. It's not that African American voters and young voters will go to the polls to vote for McCain.
It's more likely that those who haven't been going to the polls before this year, won't go in November. And if the perception is that Hillary has won the nomination through arm-twisting deals and bogus delegates from Michigan and Florida--then many of those young voters in particular will be lost to the party and the process for years to come, perhaps forever. Obama had demonstrated a profound ability to get support from Independents and Republicans. He is attracting rural voters in Red States.
He is attracting young professionals who may be Republicans. He is even capable of being strongly pro-choice and attracting pro-life voters who agree with him in other important ways. No other Democrats had demonstrated the breadth and depth of the voting groups and voters he can attract. As for how this translates into actually governing, Bangor Daily News expresses this well in an editorial that echoes many others throughout the country: "Though Sen. Clinton has worked with Republicans, she would be a polarizing president. Whether deserved or not, the Clintons -- the senator and former president -- incite many Republicans to savage opposition, a response that could impede her ability to govern.
Sen. Obama, a fresh face who must present more details of his proposals for addressing health care, the economy, climate change and other issues, stands a much better chance of working for a new agenda to tackle new problems, and finding common ground with Republicans. These are important considerations for Democrats this weekend."
So if you're a super-delegate who cares about the Democratic Party and its future, who wants to win the presidency in November and a lot of congressional seats besides, as well as state and local offices, and if you really want the new Democratic President to be effective in governing-- I don't think it's brain science to see that you're much better off with Barack Obama as the party's nominee. So what's a nervous super-delegate to do? I'm not suggesting that you subvert the democratic process. But you can participate in it. Clearly super-delegates who have endorsed a candidate plan to vote for him or her. More of them should find the right time to endorse Obama.
More of them should make these arguments in their states, because these are persuasive arguments for those who care about this election and the future. Beyond that, a protracted, ugly struggle that is all too synonymous with "politics" to many Americans truly does look like a nightmare that could hand the presidency to John McCain, who at the moment seems to be running to the Rabid Right of G.W. Bush.
If he is that kind of President, kiss the country goodbye. And remember, Hillary is at best a 50%+1 candidate. It won't take much to erase the +1. But there's still the possibility that getting a nominee may not turn out to be that messy.
While I have little confidence anymore in the honor of the Clintons, perhaps some honorable solution will be found to save the party's and the country's future.
In the meantime, work the hope--get Barack Obama so many delegates that he can't be denied. Well, whatever folks.
I think most readers will agree that recapturing The White would be a lot easier if there weren’t vulture in the wings ready to pick the carcass of Howard Dean, if the candidates weren’t driven by the history of our party’s system, if we didn’t see the firing squad preparing to lock and load for a suicidal shootout. The visual image of a dead Blue Donkey outside the fence of The White House on the sidewalk with everyone standing around pointing fingers and yelling” “It’s your fault!” is an ugly piece of visual imagery.
We have been there; we have done that. Have we learned nothing?
And Then There Are Those Who Have No Use For ANY Candidate Running!
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment