Elected delegates obviously should vote their commitments, as I believe should “superdelegates” who have already endorsed. Uncommitted at-large and “superdelegates” should vote their consciences using whatever factors seem appropriate. For the sake of unity I call on the convention to pass a resolution such as the following before any roll call vote on a nominee:
WHEREAS Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois have each received millions of popular votes in Democratic primaries and caucuses;
WHEREAS both candidates have generated unprecedented passion among the American voters, many of whom are voting for the first time;
WHEREAS either candidate would serve the United States with distinction in the presidency; and
WHEREAS supporters of both candidates working together will be formidable political force this election year;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION that the Vice Presidential nomination be offered to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, whomever of those is not nominated for President;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Convention calls upon the Senator so nominated to accept the nomination for Vice President of the United States;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Convention calls on all supporters of the two candidates to campaign vigorously for the Democratic ticket this year; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Vice Presidential nomination be recorded by unanimous consent immediately upon the conclusion of the roll call for presidential nominee.
I decided early on that a ticket including both Clinton and Obama would be a force to be reckoned with, but was indecisive as to which order. I thought that Clinton-Obama would be better for governing, but Obama-Clinton would be better for campaigning. I ultimately decided that governing was more important. Clinton is the policy wonk and better at details while Obama is better at appealling to the people and bringing us together. In other words, if the US were a constitutional monarchy, Obama would make the better King, Clinton the better Prime Minister.
it will be a SEVERE mistake, in my opinion, to not combine these two mammoth political forces into one ticket. It won’t be stopped and, if it’s broken up, I really do fear that potentially millions will be turned off… and we can’t risk that. We need to keep both camps fully engaged 24/7, all the way through November, to ensure victory.
so much with which I agree, so much with which I disagree.
<
p>
<
p>So if it turns out that Barack Obama likes to drown puppies and then eat them raw under the approving eye of Louis Farrakhan, his already-endorsed supers should stand by him? If Hillary has been secretly popping pills with Rush, snorting coke with Coulter, and playing with O’Reilly’s loofah, her supers should support her?
<
p>Nonsense. Just as you or I are free to change our minds up until the moment we vote, so are superdelegates. It’s important not because I fear BHO or HRC have despicable secrets, but instead because it forces them to stay above board — if either candidate goes ugly, the supers can pull the rug out from under that candidate, eliminating his or her chances for the nomination. HRC and BHO have my delegates from MA — Mass no longer has direct influence… except that we have 28 superdelegates, and their ability to change allegiances helps to keep BHO or HRC from scorching the Earth.
…that in extenuating circumstances a swtich might be justified. This was based on the assumption of all else being equal.
<
p>(BTW, thank you David for promoting this diary.)
has anything to gain from the above fantasy scenario.
<
p>And I am insulted by the assertion that someone who, taking their vote very seriously, decides to not vote for one of the two major presidential candidates is a sulker who has forfeited their “right to complain.”
Only someone who abstains has really forfeited his right to complain. Though mathematically in some states a third-party vote is tantamount to an abstention I do not feel those voters have given up their right to complain. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I do believe, however, that we are and should be a two-party system, which basically guarantees someone a majority. Such systems tend to be more stable and effective than multiparty systems. Left-leaners should compete in Democratic primaries and right-leaners in Republican primaries.
You really think that we should be a two-party system?
<
p>The reason certain multi-party systems (like Italy) are less than stable is because they are also parliamentary systems that have votes of no confidence and coalitions of multiple parties that come together and fall apart will-nilly. If the leading coalition splinters, the PM must step down.
<
p>In our system, even if there were six parties with representatives in Congress, all that would be necessary is at the start of each session, voting happens to determine who is the speaker and “majority leader” in the House and Senate. Once that’s done, we’re effectively set, especially since our head of government (the President) is not subject to coalition-building. If the coalition in Congress changes, then the speaker might change, but our government would not fall apart.
<
p>There have been plenty of times in bygone years that we’ve had multiple major parties in Congress and the country has not fallen apart.