mycatharsis.com

Actually, yeah, I really like the Democrats proportional representation/delegate system.  Criticism of it has been rife lately, mainly because Hillary Clinton has been losing under this system since about February 5th.  And any system that does not allow the Clinton’s free rein over the Democratic party is immediately suspect.   Now the superdelegates, on the other hand, I certainly do not think that was a good idea.  But look at what has happened to this campaign under the current system.  Every state has become involved, and the candidate who adopted a 50 state strategy has the nearly insurmountable lead over the establishment candidate.  Turnout last night in Pennsylvania was great, and with the way delegates were apportioned, there was great incentive even for Obama voters, many of whom probably knew deep down he wouldn’t win, to get out there and make their voices heard. Even though their guy lost, their votes still worked to elect delegates who will represent them at the Democratic convention.  Perhaps the closeness of this race is partly a function of the proportional representation, but on the other hand, so is the 50 state strategy that now seems integral to winning the Democratic nomination.

This system forces their nominee to tailor a message suitable to all of America, not just the cities and college campuses they see as their strength.  And this, I think, could help them greatly in November.  They actually have to run a little to the middle now during the primary season, while the Republicans, who value loyalty and a clear winner, all had to line up behind the most unpopular President in history in order to get the nomination. And that’s going to be a central theme in the campaign against McCain.

Since Senator Clinton is losing this race, I expect a movement to start among her cronies to ‘reform’ the system and make it more ‘fair’ (politcalspeak for unfair, ironically) once all is said and done.  However, moving to a winner takes all strategy would reform nothing, and again only serve to tailor their message to the coastal big delegate states. In fact the Republicans should adopt this very same system as a way to get their message to all of America, although there’s virtually no chance that will ever happen.  Does it seem fair that, under a winner take all strategy, that a win by one of these candidates in PA last night would count more than a win by the other in Wyoming, Hawaii, Mississippi, Vermont, and Wisconsin combined? Or that the votes of the losers of all of these states would count for nothing? And under such a system, doesn’t it seem obvious that Pennsylvania would then also receive a greater amount of attention from the candidates than all five of these states combined?  Ok, so maybe that happened here, but that was more a function of Pennsylvania being the only primary within a two month time span.

Maybe the Dems should shorten the primary schedule for 2012, and it seems indubitable they should get rid of the superdelegates next time around.  But keeping the proportional delegate system should also be just as high a priority for them …

They really should preface Hillary Clinton’s public appearances with this disclaimer, because it sure seems she has no real point to dragging down Barack Obama every chance she can get.  Her ‘chances’ for the nomination just simply would not be ‘chances’ if the candidate was anyone else.  Yes, the delegate race is close, but not close enough.  It is entirely within Clinton-think to sabotage Obama now and actively, if perhaps not overtly, work for the election of John McCain in 2008 to preserve her an opportunity to run for President again, in 2012.  I’m sure her own mental calculus is that she can possibly run again in 2012 if Obama loses the general election. But if he wins it, she may never have another chance to run.  Obama would obviously run in 2012 and his VP would be the establishment candidate in 2016.  Observe Carville’s calling Bill Richardson “Judas” if you have any trouble believing the Clinton’s have the sense of entitlement necessary to pull off such a destructive course of action.  And if they do, they’re sacrificing the good of the country to advance their own personal ambitions, actions little different from Rush Limbaugh’s attempts to get his listeners to vote for the weaker Democrat.

Look how quickly Giuliani, Thompson, and even say-anything-at-all-to-win Mitt Romney got out of the race when victory looked merely improbable.  Even against a candidate that looked as weak as McCain did a few months back.  And the one establishment candidate who stuck in the race, Mike Huckabee, made a point to be gracious and effusive in his praise for McCain on the campaign trail.  Instead, we have Hillary unleashing the full Clinton playbook against Obama, including the gem of recycling a scandal just as it appears to be passing out of the public view …

 ”He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”…

I gotta say, as someone who watched the Clintons demonize the Republicans throughout the 90’s, there’s a part of me from that time laughing at watching the Clinton’s do this to their own party, the same party that excused basically every wrong they committed because they won.  That same part of me just also looks incredulously at this mess and sees the stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans in how they choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Barack Obama seems like a heckuva candidate, a scholarly and yet down-to-earth politician who can bring a vast well of intelligence to the job and yet not alienate either the working class or most other constituencies.  And it’d be more than just a shame to see him ground under the wheels of the Clinton machine.  The country would be much poorer, but at least the Clinton’s would have their precious power.

If McCain wins the presidency, he’ll owe Hillary BIG-time.   She’s been by far his most effective campaigner for the past month or so, and looks as if she’ll continue that trend for longer yet.   A month ago, I wasn’t sure I bought all the hype I was hearing about Clinton’s desperate refusal to acknowledge could kill their chances in the general election.  Now I have to say I’m starting to see their point.

Sorta the feeling I got tonight watching the results and speeches. Obama’s sweep into frontrunner status in what really feels more permanent than temporary. His speech at the Kohl center tonight here in Madison was a general election speech with a respectful but forceful shot at John McCain.  And again, he gives an exciting and inspiring speech even while I keep noticing that he really is liberal! But he also seems extremely smart and as free of the partisan pettiness as  a politician can get nowadays.   Can’t say I wish I was there, though.  Big migraine all day and the last thing I feel like dealing with tonight are crowds and parking.
I think what’s really interesting tonight is what a pivotal moment this must be in Hillary Clinton’s life.  She clearly has been planning this run for a very long time, and for perhaps the first time, she’s gotta be questioning her status.  Who has the lead isn’t clear, but who has the momentum is not in doubt.   Will she go all out in attacking Obama, taking a scorched earth policy towards winning at all costs? Or does she play the loyal Democrat and temper her rhetoric just enough so as not to  damage Obama’s general election chances?  Certainly this race is close enough that there will be attacks on both sides, and understandably.  But does she loose the hounds or merely fight an all out, but honorable, fight?