FYI........Lynn Woolsey is a superdelegate & has announced plans to support H. Clinton, even though Barack won both Sonoma & Marin counties. I am furious that my vote meant nothing after I spent a long time deciding for whom I would vote. I called her offices to tell them that she must follow the will of her constituents or we wil vote against her in the next election. I am very tired of the politicians & their indifferent treatment of the people.
If you wish to tell her the same, find her numbers & email address below...please help me tell her what we think of her character in this regard:
1. 707-542-7182-Santa Rosa office
2. 415-454-3316- her campaign office.
3. [email protected]
My main goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
Lenny
02-12-2008, 07:15 PM
That's the downside of being in a republic. She will say something like "voting her conscious".
Our response need be, "then you are outta here"!
:2cents:
Dynamique
02-13-2008, 11:31 PM
Bravo! It would be great to find an intelligent genuine progressive (a woman would be a plus) to replace Woolsey. For that matter, Calif. really needs someone fitting that description to replace Dianne Feinstein! Ugh -- she's really got to go.
More to the point with this issue, it is also time to get rid of this "superdelegate" garbage! It's these back-room deals that turn people off and have caused them to leave the "Demopublican" party.
FYI........Lynn Woolsey is a superdelegate & has announced plans to support H. Clinton, even though Barack won both Sonoma & Marin counties. I am furious that my vote meant nothing after I spent a long time deciding for whom I would vote. I called her offices to tell them that she must follow the will of her constituents or we wil vote against her in the next election. I am very tired of the politicians & their indifferent treatment of the people.
Zeno Swijtink
02-14-2008, 04:47 AM
Bravo! It would be great to find an intelligent genuine progressive (a woman would be a plus) to replace Woolsey. For that matter, Calif. really needs someone fitting that description to replace Dianne Feinstein! Ugh -- she's really got to go.
More to the point with this issue, it is also time to get rid of this "superdelegate" garbage! It's these back-room deals that turn people off and have caused them to leave the "Demopublican" party.
I have another take on this: The primaries are an internal process by which a party decides whom they support running for President. Primaries are in that sense very different from democratic elections, organized by the national government, with one-person-one-vote for each qualifying citizen. Rules for primaries vary from state to state as they express the customs and history of the party organization in that state. Given that, it is not odd that some people's opinion is given extra weight as Superdelegates as they are considered to be particular important for the party's organization.
I think it's amazing that the Democratic party generally allows Independents and so-called "Democrats," who only are Democrats because they say so, but otherwise do not contribute to the party, either financially or through year around political activity, to cast a vote in this internal party process.
Woolsey is a genuinely progressive politician and I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt for her preference for Clinton over Obama, or at least we should hear her out for her reasons for this preference which were likely formed a long time ago, before Obama started to create the winning streak he now appears to be riding on. Note that in many of the particular policy proposals, such as health care, Obama is less progressive than Clinton.
Dynamique
02-14-2008, 10:45 PM
Ms. Woolsey's support of Ms. Rodham-Clinton's candidacy is almost certainly based on stale 1970s women's movement sentiments and HRC's alleged plumbing, not her progressiveness, voting record, donations records or much of anything else about that particular candidate!
And while I agree that Woolsey is a genuine progressive, she's also kind of a ding-dong. She and Feinstein need to be put out to pasture.
"Politicians are like diapers. Both need to be changed frequently and for the same reasons." -- Anonymous
Woolsey is a genuinely progressive politician and I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt for her preference for Clinton over Obama, or at least we should hear her out for her reasons for this preference which were likely formed a long time ago, before Obama started to create the winning streak he now appears to be riding on. Note that in many of the particular policy proposals, such as health care, Obama is less progressive than Clinton.
amalia
02-15-2008, 07:54 AM
It is my suspician that Lynn Woolsey hopes to gain a political appointment by Hilary Clinton; same with Maxine Waters in spite of the opposing opinion of her constituents. Time to flood their offices with phone calls!
Lynn Woolsey: 415.454-3316
Zeno Swijtink
02-15-2008, 08:03 AM
"Politicians are like diapers. Both need to be changed frequently and for the same reasons." -- Anonymous
As an UN observer it always strikes me as odd that Americans combine a belief of living in the greatest democracy on earth with a total disdain for politicians who have to do the dirty work of keeping all the people's competing interests together.
theindependenteye
02-15-2008, 09:22 AM
>It is my suspician that Lynn Woolsey hopes to gain a political appointment by Hilary Clinton; same with Maxine Waters in spite of the opposing opinion of her constituents. Time to flood their offices with phone calls!
Is there any possibility that these people favor Clinton because they feel she'd be the best Democratic candidate?
The List of Names: California Super Delegates to the 2008 National Democratic Convention
By Frank D. Russo
Their names have been known to the media who are trying to keep tabs on their leanings for Clinton or Obama, but not known to most Californians, even those who take their politics seriously. Here is the list of “Super Delegates” to the 2008 convention that will nominate the Democratic candidates for President and Vice-President, adopt a party platform, and make other decisions regarding future rules and practices of the party.
California, the largest state and largest delegation to the Convention has Super Delegates based on the following:
33 Democratic National Committee (DNC) Members, 31 Congressional Members, plus the vacant Tom Lantos seat which should be filled prior to the convention, and 1 former DNC Chair, Charles Manatt. Actually, there are 35 Democrats in Congress (33 House & the vacant Lantos seat, plus Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein) but four of our Congressional Members are also on the DNC and therefore are counted as DNC Members.
Democratic National Committee Members from California:
Steven K. Alari CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Joe Baca MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Jeremy Bernard MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Rachel Binah CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Mary Ellen Early CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Maria Echaveste MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Edward Espinoza CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Eric Garcetti NAT'L DEMOCRATIC MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS CONFERENCE
Kamil Hasan MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Inola Henry CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Mike Honda OFFICERS
Alice A. Huffman CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Aleita J. Huguenin CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Carole Migden CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Bob Mulholland CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Mona Pasquil MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Christine Pelosi CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Nancy Pelosi CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
John A. Perez CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Robert Rankin CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Mirian Saez MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Garry S. Shay CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Christopher Stampolis CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Crystal Strait YOUNG DEMOCRATS OF AMERICA
Art Torres CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Norma J. Torres MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Keith Umemoto CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Alicia Wang CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Maxine Waters CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Vernon R. Watkins MEMBERS-AT-LARGE
Rosalind Wyman CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
Steven Ybarra CALIFORNIA DNC MEMBER
U.S. Senate
Barbara Boxer
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. House of Representatives
Xavier Becerra
Howard Berman
Lois Capps
Dennis Cardoza
Jim Costa
Susan Davis
Anna Eshoo
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Jane Harman
Tom Lantos
Barbara Lee
Zoe Lofgren
Doris Matsui
Jerry McNerney
George Miller
Grace Napolitano
Laura Richardson
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Linda Sanchez
Loretta Sanchez
Adam Schiff
Brad Sherman
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Mike Thompson
Diane Watson
Henry Waxman
Lynn Woolsey
Distinguished Party Leader
Charles T. Manatt FORMER DNC CHAIRMAN
What to do if YOU want to be a delegate (other than a Super Delegate):
If you want to become a pledged delegate from California for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, visit the California Democratic Party site, which has all the forms and information you need.
In the February 5 primary, two presidential candidates met the 15% threshold in each of California's 53 congressional districts, as well as statewide: Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. If you've already filed as a District-Level Delegate for any other candidate, you may re-file Form A before the deadline and pledge your support for one of these two candidates. (NOTE: Final Delegate counts for each candidate will not be official until March 4.)
Cont. at https://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/the_list_of_nam.html
Dynamique
02-16-2008, 06:25 PM
If they do, then their judgment leaves a lot to be desired.
But the point of the person who started the thread (thank you for doing that, BTW) is that these "superdelegates" are ignoring the will of their constituents to do whatever they damned well please, possibly to further their own political careers. Uncool and unacceptable!
>It is my suspician that Lynn Woolsey hopes to gain a political appointment by Hilary Clinton; same with Maxine Waters in spite of the opposing opinion of her constituents. Time to flood their offices with phone calls!
Is there any possibility that these people favor Clinton because they feel she'd be the best Democratic candidate?
-Conrad
theindependenteye
02-16-2008, 07:21 PM
>If they do, then their judgment leaves a lot to be desired.
But you ignored my question. You suggested that the only reason superdelegates might support Clinton was selfishly to further their own careers. I was asking if you truly believe that's the only reason anyone who currently holds political office would support Clinton.
>But the point of the person who started the thread (thank you for doing that, BTW) is that these "superdelegates" are ignoring the will of their constituents to do whatever they damned well please, possibly to further their own political careers. Uncool and unacceptable!
The superdelegates who are holding political office are, by general agreement, I think, pledged (a) to exercise their best judgement in execution of their duties and (b) to represent the will of their constituents. It's always a balancing act. Would you have your representative vote for something he found morally repugnant, e.g. racist laws, simply because the majority of his constituents were racists? Certainly they'd punish him at the polls, but would you say he's violating a sacred trust?
At the same time, I think the question I just posed is off the point. Superdelegates, as Zeno I think pointed out, are not "representing their constituents." They do that when they vote on congressional resolutions. These people are given their status, as representatives of the Democratic party, to exercise their best judgment toward the welfare of the party. They're being asked to exercise their own judgment as to what's going to benefit the broad aims of the Democratic party, as people who've given an enormous amount of efforts and who've themselves been successful in elections.
I grant you that this system was put in place as a compromise between old boss-brokered system and a process of total primary-selection, with the aim of providing a gyroscopic "balance" to prevent another McGovern disaster. In general, it probably tends to keep the Democrats a more centrist party. Personally I don't like that, and I feel that if indeed Obama wins the most delegates but the superdelegates throw it to Clinton, it'll be horrifically damaging.
But feeling that progressives are as prone to hormonal imbalances and image-based indiscretions as anyone else, I understand the logic of it. So I tend to cut someone like Woolsey a lot of slack, and I don't feel she's betraying her constituency by voting her conscience in this instance.
And it's terribly demoralizing that, more and more, every politician who ever farts out of tune is accused of having a secret deal and the worst motives.
Clearly, YMMV.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
Valley Oak
02-16-2008, 08:20 PM
This is an outstanding argument in favor of replacing our 'delegate' and electoral systems with the popular vote system used in European countries, who enjoy far better democracies than the old, antiquated american system.
Electoral reform in general is part of the massive change that we need in the U.S. and that no candidate for president will give us. If you want electoral reform and are willing to do something to earn it then please visit:
www.cfer.org
Edward
FYI........Lynn Woolsey is a superdelegate & has announced plans to support H. Clinton, even though Barack won both Sonoma & Marin counties. I am furious that my vote meant nothing after I spent a long time deciding for whom I would vote. I called her offices to tell them that she must follow the will of her constituents or we wil vote against her in the next election. I am very tired of the politicians & their indifferent treatment of the people.
If you wish to tell her the same, find her numbers & email address below...please help me tell her what we think of her character in this regard:
1. 707-542-7182-Santa Rosa office
2. 415-454-3316- her campaign office.
3. [email protected]
My main goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
Zeno Swijtink
02-17-2008, 05:33 PM
This is an outstanding argument in favor of replacing our 'delegate' and electoral systems with the popular vote system used in European countries, who enjoy far better democracies than the old, antiquated american system.
Electoral reform in general is part of the massive change that we need in the U.S. and that no candidate for president will give us. If you want electoral reform and are willing to do something to earn it then please visit:
www.cfer.org
Edward
This is comparing apples and eggs. The primaries here in the USA are party internal selection processes to decide who may run under the party's aegis for a political position.
In a parliamentary system with proportional representation primaries correspond to the process by which parties determine who may run on their list, and in what order candidates appear on the list.
If your name appears too low on the list you are unlikely to be elected to the body you are running for.
The process by which these lists are put together is often even less transparent and public as primaries in this country.
February 17, 2008
Old Clinton Ties and Voters’ Sway Tug at Delegates
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and FARHANA HOSSAIN
WASHINGTON — The dwindling group of elected officials and party leaders publicly undecided in the Democratic presidential contest — about 300 out of the 795 so-called superdelegates who may determine the party’s nominee — includes at least 30 who have a long and often personal history with the Clinton family.
But more than 100 of them are from states whose voters have spoken in primaries and caucuses and voted, often overwhelmingly, for Senator Barack Obama. And in a year where Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has drawn much of her strength from women, there are nearly twice as many men as women who remain undecided.
Even at a time when Mrs. Clinton is struggling to hold on to the superdelegates she has, both candidates view the remaining 300 delegates who have not taken sides as probably the most critical audience they are competing for in the months ahead.
The campaigns provided an internal list of their superdelegate supporters to The New York Times that, combined with interviews with many of the superdelegates and campaign and party officials, drew a portrait of an electorate — particularly, the remaining undecided superdelegates — that in many ways marks the final contest of the nominating battle.
The candidates’ targets — an elite electorate — are in flux. The superdelegates face a set of political crosscurrents, especially since Mrs. Clinton has surrendered her early status as her party’s clear front-runner, and with it the pressure she could exert on her party’s leaders to get on board early with her. And they are in an unaccustomed position because neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is expected to win the 2,025 delegates needed to claim the nomination before the end of the voting season, so they will need the support of superdelegates to get over the top.
The delegates are under no obligation to vote as they say they will. Already, they are showing a willingness to change their minds, as Mrs. Clinton was reminded when Representative John Lewis of Georgia switched course and said he would vote for Mr. Obama at the convention.
“I’m joining the witness protection program,” said Debbie Kozikowski, an undecided superdelegate from Massachusetts, a state that Mrs. Clinton won. “I told President Clinton on Sunday night when he called here that I remained uncommitted. I told him I appreciated him calling. But even he is not going to get me to do something.”
This universe of undecided superdelegates includes 46 members of Congress who have received a total of $333,900 in contributions from a political action committee set up by Mr. Obama. Yet it also includes a handful of Democrats who have been reliable donors to Clinton campaigns, giving Mrs. Clinton’s aides some hope as they plow through a daily roster of telephone calls.
Mrs. Clinton’s list shows the extent to which she has benefited from being part of the first family of Democratic politics for more than 15 years. Her superdelegate base includes 12 senators, compared with eight for Mr. Obama, and 72 House members, compared with 62 for Mr. Obama. And she has the support of at least five former leaders of the Democratic National Committee, along with nearly 150 Democratic National Committee members, compared with 86 for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton listed as superdelegates an array of past and current Democratic National Committee leaders, evidence of the extent to which she was, at least at one time, seen as the candidate of the party’s establishment. Those include Robert M. Strauss, Joe Andrew, Steve Grossman and Ken Curtis. (The chairman of her campaign, Terry McAuliffe, is also a superdelegate by virtue of being a former party chairman.)
Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates include some lions of the Democratic Party, including Walter Mondale, the former vice president, and two former House majority leaders, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Jim Wright of Texas. Her superdelegates also reflect her effort to recruit labor support, including Randi Weingarten, who is expected to become the new president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Gerald W. McEntee, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Mr. Obama is enjoying support from elected officials from red and swing states, reflecting what his advisers said was the political judgment of attuned Democrats in states like Kansas and North Dakota who are worried that having Mrs. Clinton at the top of the ticket could complicate things for their candidates. And while Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, has said she would not endorse, key members of her California Congressional circle have rallied around him, including Representative George Miller, a fellow Californian who keeps watch on Ms. Pelosi’s political interests.
That has hardly escaped the notice of the 86 House Democrats who have not announced their position.
Beyond that, Mr. Obama enjoys the support of almost the entire Illinois delegation, including the governor, Rod R. Blagojevich, and the House speaker, Michael Madigan. He also is listing as superdelegates supporters suggesting the potential breadth of his appeal — including Fred Harris, the former Oklahoma senator, and Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri. Mr. Carnahan’s father, the late Mel Carnahan, a former governor, gave Mr. Clinton a pivotal endorsement when he ran for president in 1992.
And for all Mrs. Clinton’s success with women voters, Mr. Obama’s list of superdelegates includes some of the most prominent women elected officials in the country, including Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington.
Based on the lists provided by the campaigns, Mrs. Clinton now has 256 superdelegates and Mr. Obama 170. That does not count superdelegates from Michigan and Florida, whose delegations are the focus of a dispute; the Democratic National Committee has said it would not seat delegates elected in those states because the states held their primaries early, in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules.
The battleground of undecided superdelegates also includes, at latest count, 10 governors and 26 senators, as well as most of the leaders of the 50 state Democratic committees. It encompasses about a dozen union leaders, as well as at least one farmer and one former president. That would be Jimmy Carter, who aides said would not make his preference known and was not available for an interview.
It also includes some powerful Democratic elders whose vote, should they decide to announce it beforehand, could well influence the votes of other superdelegates who are holding back. That includes Al Gore, the former vice president; George J. Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader; and Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who had sought, until he dropped out last month, to become the nation’s first Hispanic president.
Mr. Richardson, in an interview, would not say whom he would vote for, but he clearly sided with Mr. Obama in the philosophical debate over how superdelegates should decide how to vote.
“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. “It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.”
But if Mr. Richardson sides with Mr. Obama on what should drive the decision of the superdelegates, that position would seem to leave him more likely to become a Clinton superdelegate: Mrs. Clinton won New Mexico by a slight margin.
Mr. Richardson said he had not decided whom to support, or even when he would make a decision. “I haven’t made up my mind,” he said.
There are 795 superdelegates, with 76 yet to be selected. That means that there are about 300 delegates who are enjoying almost as much if not more attention from the Obama and Clinton campaigns as, say, Wyoming, where caucuses on March 8 will choose a mere eight delegates.
Being essentially political creatures, these superdelegates are more prone to factor political considerations into their deliberations than the voters these two campaigns have encountered since the start of the year.
That has been something of a problem for Mrs. Clinton. As Mr. Obama has swept to victory in primaries and caucuses over the past week, and as polls suggest that he is becoming an increasingly strong candidate, it has sapped the clout of the Clinton campaign as it has sought to nail down commitments.
Many superdelegates are holding fast in the face of fairly direct urgings from aides to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama that it is in their political interest to sign on now — when the candidates are hungry for endorsements — rather than later, when there might be a de facto winner.
“My sense is a lot of these people are going to be more swayed by who they think the ultimate nominee is going to be,” said Harold Ickes, who is running the operation for Mrs. Clinton. “The current situation is quite excruciating for them. They typically like to sign up fairly early.”
For their part, the delegates, in interviews, said they were trying to deal with the push-and-pull of recent days.
“I don’t know if there are any guidelines to follow,” said Scott Brennan, the Iowa Democratic chairman. He noted that Mr. Obama had won his state, but added, “I don’t feel like I’m obligated necessarily to declare for Senator Obama, though I may ultimately reach that conclusion.”
Christine Pelosi, an undecided superdelegate from California and a daughter of Speaker Pelosi, reflected the sentiment of many delegates in expressing satisfaction with both candidates.
“Barack won in San Francisco and Hillary won California; I think they are both great,” she said. “But I’m going to vote for the winner of the delegate vote; I just think the best thing for me to do is respect the view of voters.”
Kitty Bennett and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.
Valley Oak
02-17-2008, 08:02 PM
All true.
Ballots in Europe are normally one, long piece of paper with the political party's name at the top and a list of their members from 1 to many, in order of priority (the party's president is the first one). I've heard that some countries have open lists for their ballots where the voter have the opportunity to mark or not mark specific names on the party's list but I'm not sure how they go about counting those.
In Spain, people go to a voting location, much the same way as people do here, but they go to a large table where there are many piles of paper, each stack is a different political party. Voters pick one paper, from the party of their choice and deposit it in the box. I can't recall if they have to ask a poll worker for one and they are handed it.
But down to a more important issue: I prefer the system where political parties choose their own leader and voters choose the party on election day. Why? Because in our system here in the U.S. (which I believe is the ONLY one of its kind in the world) incompetent actors such as Reagan and Schwarznegger are used for their onscreen popularity and acting skills, and then the party and other interests use them as puppets. A small group of unelected Americans, many unknown to the public, are running the country. Bush Jr, for example, only became president (here in our system) because of daddy. That could never happen in the political parties in Europe because the son or daughter would have to demonstrate their competence to party militants. Fools like 'W' and other assholes we have had the misfortune of having in the White House can only become president under our current system. That's not to say the European countries don't have bad presidents/prime ministers, because they do (Italy's Berlusconi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi) but the level of incompetence and the frequency of those poor leaders is much, much lower than in the U.S. system of choosing party leaders through primaries.
Conversely, a truly good leader that speaks the truth and with the proper vision (Al Gore and his inconvenient truth) rarely makes it to the Oval Office because the public feels alienated by them. The Francois Mitterands, the Olof Palmes, the Willy Brandts, etc, can almost never become the federal executive in the U.S.
There are other excellent reasons why the primaries system is a horribly undemocratic process with great consequences but I'll stop here.
French political scientist, Maurice Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger), analyzed exhaustively the two party system we suffer from in the U.S. His conclusions are still accurate today. The culprit for the two party system is our voting method called "first-past-the-post."
Enough said,
Edward
This is comparing apples and eggs. The primaries here in the USA are party internal selection processes to decides who may run under the party's aegis for a political position.
In a parliamentary system with proportional representation primaries correspond to the process by which parties determine who may run on their list, and in what order candidates appear on the list.
If ones name appears too low on the list one is unlikely to be elected to the body one is running for.
The process by which these lists are put together is often even less transparent and public as primaries in this country.
MsTerry
02-18-2008, 10:48 AM
hmmm, disambiguation, where have I seen that word before...................
the dirty work of keeping all the people's competing interests together.
surely you are joking, ZG. since there are very few politicians who put the interests of all before the interests of money lobbying.
Do you think we would have this kind of environmental crisis right now if we put health before economics?
Who is you favourite politician?
As an UN observer it always strikes me as odd that Americans combine a belief of living in the greatest democracy on earth with a total disdain for politicians who have to do the dirty work of keeping all the people's competing interests together.
Dynamique
02-18-2008, 10:47 PM
Two items showed up in my inbox today that are related to this discussion and may be of interest to you.
1. Democracy Now story and interview:
"In Tight Democratic Race, Could Campaign Donations and Personal Views Influence Potentially Decisive Superdelegate Vote?"
https://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/18/in_tight_democratic_race
2. email from Democracy for America, a national progressive political group (www.democracyforamerica.com):
"First, I would like to wish you a happy President's day -- a great day to celebrate our democracy.
I also have an update on our Voters Decide campaign. We're already over 50,000 signatures and they keep coming in. Our issue was all over the Sunday talk shows and cable news networks this weekend because your action has had an impact. The media, campaigns and voters are talking about it. Super delegates are listening. And it's all because you are standing up and speaking out.
Let's keep the pressure on and continue to ramp up the campaign. Contribute $20.08 right now.
https://www.actblue.com/page/votersdecide
On Wednesday, we will join Moveon and their full page ad in USA Today. With your help, we'll deliver tens of thousands of signatures directly to each super-delegate. We'll organize letter writing parties and media events.
Together, we will make sure that our nominee is chosen by millions of Democratic voters in all 50 states, not less than 800 party insiders behind closed doors.
Contribute $20.08 today to help DFA take this campaign over the top:
https://www.actblue.com/page/votersdecide
Thanks for turning your contribution into action,
-Charles
Charles Chamberlain
Political Director
P.S. If you didn't see my other messages about this campaign, I have included the original message below.
Subject: Will party insiders overturn your vote?
This is an unprecedented year. Thirty-seven states and U.S. territories have already voted and we don't have a clear nominee. Senators Clinton and Obama are in a delegate race to the nomination.
There are a lot of ways that delegates get assigned to a specific candidate, but almost all of the allocated delegates are directly tied and bound by the actual votes in each primary or caucus -- all of them that is, except super-delegates.
Super-delegates are a contingent of almost 800 elected officials, party insiders, and current DNC members and they aren't required to follow the voters. In fact, after every Democrat has voted and the last allocated delegates are assigned, super-delegates have the power to overturn the popular vote and crown a different winner.
That's right, if super-delegates don't like who you choose to be our nominee, they can overturn your vote. We can't let that happen. Our nominee must be chosen by Democratic voters, not by back room deals of the party elite. Sign our petition now to let the voters decide:
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/VotersDecide
We must respect the 20 million Democrats who have already voted and the millions more who will vote before the convention. It's up to us to make sure the almost 800 super-delegates do the right thing.
Sign the petition today and we'll deliver all of the signatures directly to super-delegates.
And this is just the beginning of our campaign to let the voters decide. The longer it takes to win, the more we'll escalate the campaign. We'll write letters, make calls, and hold media events. Because when it comes to protecting the will of Democratic primary voters, DFA members know exactly where we stand.
www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/VotersDecide
Thank you for taking action today.
-Charles
Charles Chamberlain
Political Director
Paid for by Democracy for America, www.DemocracyforAmerica.com and not authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy for America are not deductible for federal income tax purposes."
Frederick M. Dolan
02-18-2008, 10:51 PM
Your political philosophy seems to come down to "Europe is better." If your argument is that the people who are elected in our system are "incompetent" compared with European leaders, I hardly know what to say -- we just don't live in the same world, I guess. Certainly no European I know believes they have benefited from especially competent leadership over the last few decades!
All true.
Ballots in Europe are normally one, long piece of paper with the political party's name at the top and a list of their members from 1 to many, in order of priority (the party's president is the first one). I've heard that some countries have open lists for their ballots where the voter have the opportunity to mark or not mark specific names on the party's list but I'm not sure how they go about counting those.
In Spain, people go to a voting location, much the same way as people do here, but they go to a large table where there are many piles of paper, each stack is a different political party. Voters pick one paper, from the party of their choice and deposit it in the box. I can't recall if they have to ask a poll worker for one and they are handed it.
But down to a more important issue: I prefer the system where political parties choose their own leader and voters choose the party on election day. Why? Because in our system here in the U.S. (which I believe is the ONLY one of its kind in the world) incompetent actors such as Reagan and Schwarznegger are used for their onscreen popularity and acting skills, and then the party and other interests use them as puppets. A small group of unelected Americans, many unknown to the public, are running the country. Bush Jr, for example, only became president (here in our system) because of daddy. That could never happen in the political parties in Europe because the son or daughter would have to demonstrate their competence to party militants. Fools like 'W' and other assholes we have had the misfortune of having in the White House can only become president under our current system. That's not to say the European countries don't have bad presidents/prime ministers, because they do (Italy's Berlusconi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi) but the level of incompetence and the frequency of those poor leaders is much, much lower than in the U.S. system of choosing party leaders through primaries.
Conversely, a truly good leader that speaks the truth and with the proper vision (Al Gore and his inconvenient truth) rarely makes it to the Oval Office because the public feels alienated by them. The Francois Mitterands, the Olof Palmes, the Willy Brandts, etc, can almost never become the federal executive in the U.S.
There are other excellent reasons why the primaries system is a horribly undemocratic process with great consequences but I'll stop here.
French political scientist, Maurice Duverger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger), analyzed exhaustively the two party system we suffer from in the U.S. His conclusions are still accurate today. The culprit for the two party system is our voting method called "first-past-the-post."
Enough said,
Edward
Frederick M. Dolan
02-18-2008, 10:58 PM
As an UN observer it always strikes me as odd that Americans combine a belief of living in the greatest democracy on earth with a total disdain for politicians who have to do the dirty work of keeping all the people's competing interests together.
In my experience, it's American Leftists who have this view, not Americans in general. In my world, and I realize this will come as a shock to some here, there's a great deal of appreciation for people who engage in public service. Relatedly, people I know don't feel that they are somehow excluded from political participation. There are oodles of opportunities for people to participate if they want to. But if you're profoundly alienated from the society, as many here seem to be, you'll naturally find it more attractive to bemoan the politicians while doing nothing yourself or convincing yourself that running a veggie car is somehow more relevant than taking a stand and doing something in the public realm.
Frederick M. Dolan
02-18-2008, 11:04 PM
The point is that in a pluralistic society, there will be various perspectives on what constitutes the interests of all. When a particular theory of the general interest begins to imply that some people will have to do without something they've come to rely on, those people tend to put forward alternative ideas as to what constitutes the general interest. Speaking very broadly, our politicians represent actually possible compromises among these various perspectives. It's easy to feel contempt for a politician for not speaking what YOU regard as the Truth, but just try actually running something sometime and see how far you get by imposing one general idea on people who think they have as much right to order the world as you do.
hmmm, disambiguation, where have I seen that word before...................
surely you are joking, ZG. since there are very few politicians who put the interests of all before the interests of money lobbying.
Do you think we would have this kind of environmental crisis right now if we put health before economics?
Who is you favourite politician?
theindependenteye
02-19-2008, 12:36 AM
>In my experience, it's American Leftists who have this view [disdain for politicians], not Americans in general.
Not in my experience. Leftists indeed. But whence cometh the standardized notion of the candidate who prides himself on not being a politician, who's running against the "insiders"? That spans the spectrum — even the guys with flag lapels on their butts. Likewise the notion that government can't do anything right. Even the catch-phrase "politically correct" carries the implication that the Far Left has taken over the political discourse and is somehow enforcing a Leninist conformity on the body politic.
I grew up in the rural Midwest, rock-solid Republicans all, and I never heard a good word about any politician except Eisenhower, who, in their view, wasn't a politician, or Nixon, who convinced our local universe, with his Checkers speech, that he was a good, honest, clean-cut young man whose wife wore a "good Republican cloth coat."
I think the more conservative majority have a split personality. On the one hand, they deeply distrust government in general and politicians in particular; and on the other hand, they have a visceral reaction against anyone criticizing the government if they sound remotely left-wingy. They'll trust the President to spend a trillion bucks on a war but not a dime on health care.
So I think you're absolutely right, but also totally wrong. Like our flag, which represents a glorious hope but colorwise is an aesthetic disaster.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
MsTerry
02-19-2008, 09:13 AM
you are speaking in theories now, and they don't make sense in real time.
We are evolving (remember that word?) into an environmental crisis with no way to turn the tide.
to focus our attention on that and that alone would be in the interest of all.
instead the talk is about how we can afford it
afford it???????????????????
we can find 600 BILLION to create an environmental and human disaster across the globe, but not a penny for to save our home; the planet Earth?
Frederick where do you suggest we go or evolve into when the planet becomes smaller and smaller or inhabitable for most of it?
I like to know who you are referring to when you say "taking a stand and doing something in the public realm."
The point is that in a pluralistic society, there will be various perspectives on what constitutes the interests of all. When a particular theory of the general interest begins to imply that some people will have to do without something they've come to rely on, those people tend to put forward alternative ideas as to what constitutes the general interest. Speaking very broadly, our politicians represent actually possible compromises among these various perspectives. It's easy to feel contempt for a politician for not speaking what YOU regard as the Truth, but just try actually running something sometime and see how far you get by imposing one general idea on people who think they have as much right to order the world as you do.
MsTerry
02-19-2008, 09:22 AM
I know plenty of Europeans who feel that their system gives them the opportunity to correct mistakes by the government.
The fact that multiple parties rule rather than just 2, makes it possible to reflect a true compromise of ALL peoples.
The Europeans, I know, also don't gripe about taxes because they can see how it is an investment in their own future.
Your political philosophy seems to come down to "Europe is better." If your argument is that the people who are elected in our system are "incompetent" compared with European leaders, I hardly know what to say -- we just don't live in the same world, I guess. Certainly no European I know believes they have benefited from especially competent leadership over the last few decades!
MsTerry
02-19-2008, 09:25 AM
or convincing yourself that running a veggie car is somehow more relevant than taking a stand and doing something in the public realm.
I would love to see somebody do something in the public realm that has a bigger impact than looking for and using alternative fuels.
Looksgood
02-20-2008, 10:41 AM
If you are going to try to present an alternative to the "Leftist" (your word) point of view that is represented by most of our contributors here, I think you are going to have to do better than this. You have seriously misrepresented Edward's post in this response. He did not say that people who are elected in our system are incompetent compared with European leaders, he said that our system has a tendency to allow (even encourage, but that is my addition) the election of incompetent but charismatic leaders, whereas some of the election systems favored in Europe allow for competent but less charismatic figures to get elected, who would probably not be electable here. This is a much more nuanced statement, and deserves a more nuanced response.
Actually I do know Europeans who think that on the whole their leaders are quite a bit more competent than the present leadership in this country. But then most of them look beyond the blanket "black and white" arguments that seem to be favored by many on the political right. The unfortunate fact is that life is lived in an infinite number of shades of grey, requiring us to actually think about solutions rather than simply applying a standard set of rules to everything. No system for electing leaders is perfect, but in my opinion the one used here in the US could use quite a bit of improvement, and some of those potential improvements can be found by examining how it is done in other countries.
Patrick Brinton
Your political philosophy seems to come down to "Europe is better." If your argument is that the people who are elected in our system are "incompetent" compared with European leaders, I hardly know what to say -- we just don't live in the same world, I guess. Certainly no European I know believes they have benefited from especially competent leadership over the last few decades!
Frederick M. Dolan
02-20-2008, 11:16 AM
If I did misrepresent him, I stand corrected. Still, the claim that greater competence is merely possible seems rather weak. Surely the point would have to be that greater competence is actually achieved. Of course, in politics, how competent someone is is a matter of opinion. My own sense is that the general opinion is that the European democracies have not enjoyed especially competent leadership over the past couple of decades. Needless to say I could be mistaken: everyone's circles are to some extent narrow. For example, contra MsTerry, I know plenty of Europeans who complain about taxes! I guess one would have to take a poll to get real answers here.
If you are going to try to present an alternative to the "Leftist" (your word) point of view that is represented by most of our contributors here, I think you are going to have to do better than this. You have seriously misrepresented Edward's post in this response. He did not say that people who are elected in our system are incompetent compared with European leaders, he said that our system has a tendency to allow (even encourage, but that is my addition) the election of incompetent but charismatic leaders, whereas some of the election systems favored in Europe allow for competent but less charismatic figures to get elected, who would probably not be electable here. This is a much more nuanced statement, and deserves a more nuanced response.
Actually I do know Europeans who think that on the whole their leaders are quite a bit more competent than the present leadership in this country. But then most of them look beyond the blanket "black and white" arguments that seem to be favored by many on the political right. The unfortunate fact is that life is lived in an infinite number of shades of grey, requiring us to actually think about solutions rather than simply applying a standard set of rules to everything. No system for electing leaders is perfect, but in my opinion the one used here in the US could use quite a bit of improvement, and some of those potential improvements can be found by examining how it is done in other countries.