Super Delegates?

Chicago 1968 Democratic Convention

What's that wonderful line? If you can remember the sixties you didn't do them. Well, technically I didn't in that sense. I was this terribly serious student that got involved with the political issues of the time but not the sex, drugs, and rock and roll part. I came very late to that party. So I really remember the 1968 Democratic Convention. The party of inclusion blew it and called out the cops . . . or as we referred to them in those days . . . the pigs.

The end result was long lasting. The Democratic Party ended up deeply divided. Many of us young Democrats defected to the SDS, the Communist party, and later alternatives like the Green party. We are not easy to get back in the fold. I worked for Republican Senator Charles Goodall in the 70's because he was against the war in Vietnam. To this day my party registration depends upon the demographics of where I live. I like to vote in primaries so I register with whatever party gets me the best slate of candidates. Here in northern New Mexico that is Democratic.

But I vote my conscious. Which is a phrase I am sure both the Republicans and Democrats do not like hearing. And I align behind candidates because of issues I am deeply concerned about. Since McCain's stance on illegal immigration effectively nullifies that issue in the Presidential campaign I am in the Democratic camp because of Iraq and the economy and gas company profits.

But I digress. The subject of this blog was to be Super Delegates. After the disastrous 1968 convention and the subsequent lost White House to the Republicans the Democrats, to give them some credit, decided to mend their ways. And that was basically to oust the smoked filled room way of choosing a flag carrier and give more people a voice in picking standard bearer for the party. Ergo our current, and evolving, primary system. Mind you there is nothing in the constitution regarding primaries and they do not have to be democratic, small d. In 1982 the Democrats, capital D, came up with the super delegate concept but it has been largely under the radar until this election.

Last night I tried to explain this to a slightly younger friend of mine who did do the 60's. And is still endowed with that moral outrage that led to the fighting in the streets of Chicago. He wants this whole process to be transparent and democratic, small d. What are super delegates? Personally, I think they are the vestiges of those smoke filled rooms buffed and fluffed to be presentable. Will they ignore the popular vote, elected delegates, states carried, and will of the people? Only if they want 1968 all over again.

And the Democrats have been so great thus far this election. They conducted every primary with paper ballots or machines with a paper trail. The Republicans continued to use the electronic ones with no backup. They have let all the candidates play this out long after it would have once been called up short. And those voting in the primaries have turned out in record (and thus far peaceful) numbers. But as we near the end it is all going back to that smoked filled room of the party bosses - the Super Delegates. The ball is in your court. Are you going to play fair?

Election Reform - a modest proposal

With ll the mudslinging going on out there in the Democratic primary process I just had to step back and ask myself if there was a better way. There must be. It has been more than 200 years since our founding fathers set the basic rule down for our republic. But despite the constant call for change by even the candidates themselves the American people seem to not want change. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Well, I frankly think it is broke. At the very least you have to ask yourself what could be achieved if we took all the manhours, money, energy and creative thinking being spent to get one person elected above another and directed it toward just one problem like global warming or the economic crisis.

What if instead of going all out to gather delegates we gave each person running for the highest office of our land the task of making some measurable improvement on just one national problem. The various pressing problems could be written on a slip of paper and tossed in a hat. Each presidential hopeful would pick just one piece of paper. They would then take their staffs, all the money donated by the people, and set out to tackle the problem.

The news media instead of rehashing over and over what one candidate said about he other and how many ways the popular vote, the pledged delegates, and super delegates could report on the progress of the staffs of the candidates in defining the problem, blue-skying a few outside the box solutions, and steps taken to move forward.

The candidates would have to constantly assess the success of their staff and make staff changes to facilitate progress toward the solution. Even seek out and hire experts in the field. Isn't this what we ask of our presidents? We have currently a president unwilling to make any staff changes or modify his failed plan in anyway or listen to any voice other than his own. We want a new president that will behave differently. One that will not be concerned with his legacy but with whether or not he left this country a better place to live in. Not Iraq. Our country. Not that he has done better with Iraq.

By reforming our election process in this way we would not only be able to pick the candidate able to lead and not just run for office. We would also accomplish something toward the improvement of the major problems we face in the future. The election process would actually benefit something other than just the advertising firms and media commercial markets.

I don't want another president with "all the answers." I want one willing to admit he does not have all the answers and willing to listen to experts who just might have the answers. I want a president who is good at something other than running for office.

We are electing an attitude

In the early 1970's I worked for a United States Senator in Washington, D.C. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life and the most educational.

Senator Charles Goodall of New York was appointed to fill the remaining term of Senator Robert Kennedy. He got the office and the staff that Kennedy had built. They were a dedicated and intelligent group of youth who and followed Kennedy's lead for change. Had he lived and been elected president they would no doubt have been on his presidential staff.

In those years leading up to the embarrassment of having a leader of our country resign because of crimes against the country I had two examples of what is good and what is bad in government. Goodall listened to his staff and Nixon dictated to his staff.

There is no way any one person can know every aspect of every issue facing a state as large as New York or Illinois or Texas let alone the United States of America. There are those that would argue we have become so large and diverse we would function better as a federation of nation states. The only way to attempt to do what is best for this country is to listen to trusted advisers that have at heart the good of the citizens of this country. To do that you need to have an open mind and an ability to inspire, not rule.

Our present president wants to rule. It is his way or the highway. He listens to only those few advisers he refuses to replace regardless of the advise they give him. And I am not that sure if at the moment he listens to them. We do not need another eight years of someone that is so damn sure they are right that they argue with everyone about everything.

Now more than ever in the history of this country the leader needs to listen. Listen to the woes of the citizens, listen to the division in our country and the world, listen to other world leaders, listen to scientists and educators, and come to a decision about the direction to be taken and inspire the congress and the people of this nation to follow him or her.

We need someone that can build consensus, rally the various factions to work together, and open dialog with the enemies created by G.W.Bush. The days of leaders like Teddy Roosevelt is gone. There is no San Juan hill to be charged up. We need leaders with a predisposition to listen and negotiate and change if necessary or change the opinions of the electorate if that is necessary. We need leaders that can pick staff and advisers for their intelligence and knowledge; not for their ability to click their heels and salute.

The primary process is meant to be difficult and prolonged. some say it be nice if we could all vote in a national primary on one day, but would we have learned enough about those running in that short time? Our primary system stresses our candidates so we get to see how they behave under pressure. How their staffs behave under pressure. How well everyone works as a team. If you cannot make nice with your opponent how can you negotiate with a potential enemy to avoid a war. Bombing them, with words or weapons, is the easy choice. Reducing everything to a one liner like Flip Flopper is taking the easy way out. We want and need someone this time around that cannot only talk and inspire, but listen and find common ground.

We are not seeking a Republican or Democrat, woman or man, white or black. We are seeking a leader with the right attitude; one that is well aware they do not know everything.