I see this is the attempted angle to diminish the Richardson endorsement, and it's quite amusing because (A) Richardson said superdelegates should "pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying" which is exactly what a superdelegate is doing when they see a virtually split electorate and then decides with their judgment which candidate would be better (not to mention, this is also precisely the entire theory behind the national superdelegate view of Hillary Clinton, one that could, if Hillary were able to narrow the delegate/popular vote gap with Obama, actually result in superdelegates seeing the essentially split electorate and possibly deciding she would be the better candidate even though, as the article put it, "a win is a win" for Obama); (B) Richardson as an endorser is also serving as a former Democratic presidential candidate, and is making his decision in the same way we'd expect John Edwards to make his decision (not necessarily tethered to the votes of North Carolina, but certainly in consideration of the outcome...and, clearly, Edwards is not currently a politician of North Carolina while Richardson is in New Mexico, but I think the point still holds with Edwards being a rooted figure of North Carolina); and, (C) it's interesting how every time a superdelegate on either side of the Democratic primary says one thing and then does another, the media loves to to be shocked and amazed when the superdelegate system, an aspect of the Democratic electoral process seemingly grounded in nothing more than the whims of politicians, ends up being governed by...nothing more than the whims of politicians.
And, while I wouldn't do an entire post about this topic because I'd really rather spend my time supporting Obama than criticizing the Clinton campaign, I will say that if we're going to talk about a politician saying one thing about the electoral process at one point of the campaign and then doing something that contradicts that statement, I seem to remember a certain Hillary Clinton being quoted a year ago saying that the election contests in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count for anything in the Democratic primary process; I'm pretty sure the Clinton campaign knew the role of Florida and Michigan in the general election when she made those comments, so somethings tells me her recent shift in rhetoric to "every vote counts" has a less than wholesome motivation. This certainly seems like a much more significant and contradictory change of political attitude regarding this election process than what a former candidate says and does with his endorsement.
The Clinton comments on Michigan and Florida are obviously politically motivated, as are Obama's opposition to them. Of course, her comments were that they WOULDN'T count, not that they SHOULDN'T, and we can have a debate on that point, but I'd rather go back to our earlier point on Richardson.
I totally agree with you that the Clinton campaign (and, I think, most of the people actually involved with the creation of the superdelegate system) agree that superdelegates are supposed to use independent judgment, and are beholden to nothing. Furthermore, I agree with Richardson's right to do it. The part I have a problem with is Richardson coming forth with this bogus principle, one he didn't have to espouse publicly, but in doing so I think bound himself to. He could have just endorsed when he wanted to and explained his personal rationale. Instead, he intentionally came forth with this overtly pro-Obama rationale -- I think he'd been ready to come forward for Obama for weeks and the Clintons get him to hold off -- and I think that if this is the principle you're going to espouse publicly, you should follow it. There's no reason to say they should "pay attention to what their voters are saying" -- which in the context of this election CLEARLY sounds to all of us like he's saying they should be bound by the choice of their constituencies -- unless he was trying to drum up support for that view. If it's really the fuzzier version you put forth (and that Richardson immediately tried to take when questioned on his original position) that superdelegates just need to "pay attention" to voters, but not actually follow them, then that's just dumb -- obviously they need to pay attention to a lot of things. I just don't buy that's what the man meant.
He can support whoever he likes, but I think binding himself publicly to this view and then going against it is hypocritical.
3 comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/a-few-unanswered-question_b_92751.html
I see this is the attempted angle to diminish the Richardson endorsement, and it's quite amusing because (A) Richardson said superdelegates should "pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying" which is exactly what a superdelegate is doing when they see a virtually split electorate and then decides with their judgment which candidate would be better (not to mention, this is also precisely the entire theory behind the national superdelegate view of Hillary Clinton, one that could, if Hillary were able to narrow the delegate/popular vote gap with Obama, actually result in superdelegates seeing the essentially split electorate and possibly deciding she would be the better candidate even though, as the article put it, "a win is a win" for Obama); (B) Richardson as an endorser is also serving as a former Democratic presidential candidate, and is making his decision in the same way we'd expect John Edwards to make his decision (not necessarily tethered to the votes of North Carolina, but certainly in consideration of the outcome...and, clearly, Edwards is not currently a politician of North Carolina while Richardson is in New Mexico, but I think the point still holds with Edwards being a rooted figure of North Carolina); and, (C) it's interesting how every time a superdelegate on either side of the Democratic primary says one thing and then does another, the media loves to to be shocked and amazed when the superdelegate system, an aspect of the Democratic electoral process seemingly grounded in nothing more than the whims of politicians, ends up being governed by...nothing more than the whims of politicians.
And, while I wouldn't do an entire post about this topic because I'd really rather spend my time supporting Obama than criticizing the Clinton campaign, I will say that if we're going to talk about a politician saying one thing about the electoral process at one point of the campaign and then doing something that contradicts that statement, I seem to remember a certain Hillary Clinton being quoted a year ago saying that the election contests in Michigan and Florida wouldn't count for anything in the Democratic primary process; I'm pretty sure the Clinton campaign knew the role of Florida and Michigan in the general election when she made those comments, so somethings tells me her recent shift in rhetoric to "every vote counts" has a less than wholesome motivation. This certainly seems like a much more significant and contradictory change of political attitude regarding this election process than what a former candidate says and does with his endorsement.
The Clinton comments on Michigan and Florida are obviously politically motivated, as are Obama's opposition to them. Of course, her comments were that they WOULDN'T count, not that they SHOULDN'T, and we can have a debate on that point, but I'd rather go back to our earlier point on Richardson.
I totally agree with you that the Clinton campaign (and, I think, most of the people actually involved with the creation of the superdelegate system) agree that superdelegates are supposed to use independent judgment, and are beholden to nothing. Furthermore, I agree with Richardson's right to do it. The part I have a problem with is Richardson coming forth with this bogus principle, one he didn't have to espouse publicly, but in doing so I think bound himself to. He could have just endorsed when he wanted to and explained his personal rationale. Instead, he intentionally came forth with this overtly pro-Obama rationale -- I think he'd been ready to come forward for Obama for weeks and the Clintons get him to hold off -- and I think that if this is the principle you're going to espouse publicly, you should follow it. There's no reason to say they should "pay attention to what their voters are saying" -- which in the context of this election CLEARLY sounds to all of us like he's saying they should be bound by the choice of their constituencies -- unless he was trying to drum up support for that view. If it's really the fuzzier version you put forth (and that Richardson immediately tried to take when questioned on his original position) that superdelegates just need to "pay attention" to voters, but not actually follow them, then that's just dumb -- obviously they need to pay attention to a lot of things. I just don't buy that's what the man meant.
He can support whoever he likes, but I think binding himself publicly to this view and then going against it is hypocritical.
Post a Comment