Gridiron Politics

Well, the New York Times makes the blog two posts in a row! This time, the Grey Lady ran an op-ed from Geraldine A. Ferraro on why superdelegates know what’s best for the Democratic party. You might ask yourself, ‘Who is this woman and why do I care?’ Oh, well she was the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1984, playing sidekick to Walter Mondale as the two offered themselves as sacrificial lambs to the Reagan juggernaut. You might think with her experience losing to a moderate Republican, she would be happy to note that voters have turned out in the primaries this year in record numbers. You would think she would be happy that independents and even some Republicans are casting their primary vote for a Democratic candidate.

Nope. She’d rather keep the Democratic party as an insular group of labor unions, feminists and activists instead of broadening the tent and giving a voice to people who are dissastisfied with the dishonesty and hubris of the Republican party. Ms. Ferraro, I changed my registration to Democrat this year after being a Republican since I turned 18. But apparently, I’m not good enough for your party. Luckily, the superdelegates will be able to take care of my vote. Here are some choice excerpts from her article:

… [T]he delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated. If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

Translation: While Obama is on a 11-0 winning streak, remember that some states that favor Hillary haven’t voted yet (can you tell she’s a Hillary supporter?) Oh, and despite incredible turnouts for state primaries this year, the people who have voted are unable to create a “grassroots mandate” because the poor people who didn’t bother to participate in the process are now disenfranchised. We continue …

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses. In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed. He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.

So Ferraro really believes that a candidate is stronger if you only allow people registered in your party to vote for them. Here’s a question for you: How can you possibly counter partisan politics and unite a country when your only measure of support until the day of the election is the votes of people who are voting for anyone with “Democrat” by their name, no matter how weak a candidate or whatever qualities he or she may have as an actual leader. I understand you don’t want your party’s agenda hijacked by an outsider; but even if you select a candidate through open primaries (like I wish Oregon did), a Democrat-In-Name-Only will never be selected in a Democratic primary because the voters themselves won’t select such a candidate.

Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton. And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken. I may be a cynic, but I’m a fairly knowledgeable political cynic. If Mr. Obama wins the nomination, those members are undoubtedly concerned that they would be inviting a primary challenge in their next re-election campaign by failing to support his candidacy.

Ferraro’s problem here is she thinks elected officials (who comprise the majority of the 796 superdelegates) are better than the Democratic voters that elected them. Truly, she speaks wisdom: It would be a terrible thing for a Congressman to be voted out of office for overriding the wishes of his constituents, wouldn’t it?

But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party. Because both states went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in Florida and Michigan would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

Nice rhetorical finish. Remember in the last paragraph, Ferraro was talking about the dilemma of elected officials when they like one candidate but their constituents like a different one. If they REALLY want to represent their constituents, she says, they would fight to get Florida and Michigan delegates seated. What? Excuse me? So let’s say I’m a congressman from Georgia. It’s my job to make sure that Florida and Michigan get a full say in the process, even though their states broke party rules and Obama wasn’t even on the BALLOT in either state? Certainly, her suggestion is the epitome of democracy in action. Now, I agree, Florida and Michigan delegates SHOULD be seated … once those states actually hold a fair election where both candidates play by the rules. Have each state hold a caucus, or even a new election, and make it a fair contest. But don’t go whining in the New York Times that 1) Primary voters don’t represent the party, 2) Congresspersons are being held hostage by their constituents, 3) Make Florida and Michigan count by breaking the rules.

It is a great mercy that Geraldine Ferraro never got a chance to serve a heartbeat away from the presidency. And with a little luck, the party elite she claims to represent won’t get a chance to ignore the voters and prop up Clinton as the Democratic nominee.