Dear Barack Obama,I have solved the Democratic delegate crisis of 2008. I have crafted an elegant solution to handling both the Michigan and Florida delegations. My solution will not cost the states, parties or candidates anything. My solution will not require a re-vote. The John Brown solution fixes the whole mess instantly.
Just give Hillary what she wants.
Seriously. He should let her have her precious little phony Florida and Michigan victories and move on to bigger and better things. Like winning the nomination without them.
You aren't going to need them. You've done the math. Just hand 'em over with a smile. Explain your preference for focusing on bigger national issues and America's well-being, as opposed to intra-party bickering.
If you're playing one-on-one with someone and you're whipping them, there's no reason to worry about cutting them some slack when they travel or claim BS fouls. You're gonna win either way, you might as well silence the whining in the process.Plus, there are other advantages to the John Brown plan. How many superdelegates are gonna screw the gracious guy? Who's going to back Hillary into winning when she's only marginally close because you were the bigger person? No one.
You'll go from being the leader to the presumed nominee immediately. Oh, and the Jeremiah Wright thing will disappear for at least two weeks' worth of news cycles.
Give her Florida and Michigan. Everyone will know she doesn't deserve them. They'll count in her favor on paper, but they'll weigh her down with negative karma.
If you do it just right, she'll look like shit and you'll be the champ. The trick is in the presentation, but I think you can handle it. Hand 'em over and tell her to meet you in Denver if she plans on dragging this mess out until then.Then, stop talking about her. Period. Make her a ghost at the debates and don't utter her name again until you toss some love her way during your acceptance speech. Your only opponent right now is John McCain.
READER EXERCISE: Consider the proposition "John Brown is just kidding about giving Florida and Michigan to Hillary". Mentally outline reasons why this proposition may or may not be true. Determine whether he is joking or serious. Explain your conclusion.
Technorati Tags: florida, michigan, elections, primaries, democratic party, barack obama, Clinton, hillary clinton, campaign, Flickr Tags: florida, michigan, elections, primaries, democratic party, barack obama, Clinton, hillary clinton, campaign, Furl Tags: florida, michigan, elections, primaries, democratic party, barack obama, Clinton, hillary clinton, campaign
That's definitely my instincts, John. And God knows I'm tired of this stupidity.
ReplyDeleteI would favor that route if:
1) It really was the fairest route out of this mess. If Clinton had won those states, outright, with no serious concerns with that win, I'd say, "Clinton gets the votes. That puts her over the top (there are 366 delegates, at stake, I believe, in Florida and Michigan, and Obama has a lead of 133 total delegates. He does have a lead in pledged delegates of 168 and he has a marginal lead in the popular vote, 49.5-46.9%. But fair's fair and Clinton gets the bump with the delegates."
Now, if those elections had been fair and everyone was on that ballot, that's exactly how I'd feel about that election, even if Clinton wins. And it has nothing to do with the goddamn rules, which got us into this mess, in the first place. It's because I take seriously the idea that each one of those votes of people who bothered to come out and do their civic duty matters, and no favored candidate should overturn that. I really mean it when I say that each vote should count and we should take the popular vote seriously, as opposed to those posers in the Democratic party.
Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence in either of those elections since none of the other candidates were on the ballot, and seems like a slimy way to decide an election. Not that I'd put that beyond Ms. Clinton. I just expect something better for America.
2) If Obama had enough of a lead that he could just give those votes to her and it would make for a clean win with no sliminess to taint the whole thing. I would totally prefer this option, if it was feasible. But I don't think it's a good idea, given the current situation.
I think what the Democratic party or the parties in Florida and Michigan need to do is one of two things:
1) Pay for new primaries, of some type, including a mail-in primary, as they have been discussing. Or...
2) The state parties pay for new primaries/caucuses/something that enfranchises these voters. Or...
3) Some other group pays for new voting that is free and fair. Or...
4) Everyone decides, "You know what, we're good. We don't need another election. Things don't have to always be perfect."
That last option sure would work in Obama's favor, which it is very likely that the state party in Florida is counting on. Michigan's gonna stick with this, right now, it looks like. I don't care how they do it. But I do think it needs to be fair on not just the "appearance of fairness," or whatever bullshit that clever politicos have conjured up to favor their preferred candidate.
I do think superdelegates should give Clinton some shit for her weasling on this one and I would have no issue at all if that meant that they gave a nod to Obama.
I am a little troubled, though, John, about what this says about the Democratic party. I was with them screaming about the bullshit in Florida in 2000. I thought it was bullshit, too. I still think it's bullshit. It was well within the rules. That was the arguments Republicans were making at the time. And they were right. I just knew the distinction between the rules and something more honest and not such bullshit.
This party has lost its way, John. They've actually always been a little slimy. I just have a higher expectation of all of them, these days. And Democrats need to find their way before the general election because they're contending with a guy who has broad popular appeal and a position on the war I think it is more favorable, personally. If they disagree, they need to be making a better argument, and, in the meantime, they need to cut out the bullshit.
But your instincts are exactly mine, John. What I really want to is kick back, have a cold one, and be done with this whole goddamned affair on get on with something more substantive and important.
I don't know if I'm feeling more hopeful, John. But I know that we got to do better, whether I'm hopeful about it or not. Because this shithole stinks, I don't care how much we've gotten used to the smell.
How about them Hawks, though? And fuckin' K-State, 11-seed, is up by 10 on USC, 6-seed, at the half. I want to say that there's just something about Kansas, and then I remember that I root for the Royals. We've got to talk about what they've decided to do without Sweeney, by the way. I'm convinced that they need someone who will come in with a 5-6 year plan for winning a World Series ring. I'm eager to hear the news from someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about.