A Clever Sheep, Jr.

I think I'll go to Denver to claim MY delegates...

I didn't even realize that I was entitled to any delegates in this Democratic primary until around 7 p.m. yesterday. If you didn't win a state's primary election and your name wasn't on the ballot, you might be entitled to some delegates, too! Follow along and I'll explain.

See, yesterday, I watched the meeting of the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which was seeking to resolve the question of what to do about the delegations from Michigan and Florida -- two of the states which violated party rules by holding their primaries earlier than allowed. The final decision was to seat all of Florida's delegation, but give each delegate half of a vote, and to seat the Michigan delegation, giving Senator Clinton most of the delegates she earned and giving the delegates for "Uncommitted" -- plus some extras -- to Senator Obama, with each delegate only worth half a vote.

At first, I was very angry with the decision -- particularly about Michigan -- because it seemed like a decision which goes against the basic principles of the modern Democratic Party, where voting rights are supposed to be sacred, and where the results of an election are supposed to be a fair reflection of the expressed will of the voters. There were points raised prior to the meeting which challenged whether the Democratic Party's Charter would allow any delegates to be stripped of their full vote, but that argument was brushed aside. And then, in the name of "the rules", the rules themselves were brushed aside.

It was pretty amazing -- almost Bush-like -- the way the Rules and Bylaws Committee just totally invented a rule out of thin air, giving themselves the power to override the votes actually cast by the public. Using a suggestion from the Michigan State Democratic Party, they divided up the delegates based not just on actual ballots cast, but also on:

• those wonderfully accurate exit polls from Michigan's primary day
• polling from the day Michigan's primary was supposed to be held
• a fudge factor which presumed to divine the intentions of the registered Democrats who didn't vote

So the outcome is, the tea-leaf readers on the RBC have interpreted the will of the voters to mean that:

• not everyone who voted for Senator Clinton really meant to
• everyone who voted for "Uncommitted" really voted for Senator Obama, and
• more of the voters who didn't vote would have voted for Senator Obama than for Senator Clinton

Instead of Senator Clinton getting the 73 delegates her vote count should have entitled her to, and the other 55 delegates going to the convention uncommitted to either candidate, the RBC took 4 delegates from Senator Clinton, then gave those 4 plus all the others to Senator Obama. Final tally: Clinton - 69 delegates, and Obama - 59 delegates. They didn't even really have to run the election, since the RBC totally made up the results, anyway.

When Senator Obama's political ancestors in the Chicago Democratic "Machine" used to fix elections, at least they made the dead people actually cast a ballot! And when the Republicans stole the 2000 Presidential election, at least the dispute was over counting ballots. This way is so much more efficient and flexible for getting the result you really should have gotten if only those pesky voters had done as they were expected to.

Anyway, I got to thinking: Senator Obama got 46% of the delegates in Michigan, even though no one voted for him and his name wasn't even on the ballot. Well, no one voted for me in Michigan and my name wasn't on the ballot either! In fact, no one voted for me and my name wasn't on the ballot in all 50 states! I think I've got a pretty good case to make in Denver, and I won't be greedy: the Vice Presidency is just fine with me!

April 4, 1968

As soon as the school-day started on Friday morning, April 5, 1968, my first-grade class at elementary school P.S. 183 in Rockaway Beach, New York listened as the principal told us the news that everyone knew. His voice came through the speakers next to the large clock in every classroom. "A great man was killed yesterday, but it wasn't just by a bullet. It was by the hatred in the man who shot that bullet from his gun."

Or, that's what my memory tells me the principal said. Memory is faulty, and it could have been something I heard or read during any of the 40 years since. But it's one of my only memories of that school where I was one of the white minority. The principal asked us to bow our heads and observe a moment of silence in honor of Dr. King. The picture is as clear in my mind as a snapshot: a couple of dozen kids in required white shirts and blouses, gray slacks and skirts, boys and girls, black faces and white, all with our heads down on the desks, sniffling and crying in the strangely quiet school.

 

Hillary: Help me understand why you hate her

I must confess: I just don't get it.

Since long before I was eligible to vote, I've always been an avid follower of politics, politicians and policy. There's probably a picture of me somewhere at 7 years old with my "Bobby!" button from Robert Kennedy's tragically shortened presidential campaign in 1968. I spent innumerable hours in the Spring and Summer of 1973 watching the Senate Watergate hearings, live on TV, and I spent nearly every Fall weekend during Junior High School and High School knocking on doors, leafleting at supermarkets, and making GOTV calls for my father's friends and associates who were running for local political office.

In every election since reaching voting age -- national, state, local, and primaries -- I have cast my vote based on careful study of the politicians and issues. Somehow, although I can never seem to get birthday cards in the mail to my relatives on time, I've never missed an absentee ballot deadline. I read newspapers, magazines and websites, write letters to editors and my state and national representatives, I blog and comment on blogs. All this because participating in and understanding politics is a vitally important part of how I engage with the world.

Yet with all this knowledge and analysis and awareness, I don't understand the visceral hatred, the vitriol, and the ill-will directed at the Clintons -- Hillary in particular -- even (or especially) by people in their own party. They arrived on the national political scene full of confidence, competence and political and personal achievements. At the same time, there appeared a fully-formed opposition assailing them with a load of unfounded accusations, vile rumors, and allegations of such spectacular wrongdoing which not even the Kennedy family, with nearly a century in the political spotlight, had been able to amass. In the 16 years since they've been a part of the national political scene, that body of hatred has continued to grow, out of all proportion to anything they could possibly bear responsibility for.

I'm not naive or oblivious to scandals and faults. I read the same newspapers and websites as many of my friends and contemporaries who maintain this disgust of Hillary (and Bill), I go to the same rallies and protests, I live in the same states and neighborhoods, I work at and patronize the same businesses as some of her vocal detractors. Yet somehow, I admire her -- them -- for their intelligence, skill, and dedication to participating in what they believe is the betterment their country.

I just don't get it.

So, I'm asking anyone who reads this to help me understand. This isn't specifically about this election; however a lot of the negativity from within her own party is really coming to the front during this campaign. I know this will be ugly, and I know that the hatred is not always rational. I'm hoping, however, that maybe we can all learn something here about political motives, expectations, tactics, and personalities which can explain what can earn one person such animosity.

Please. Help me understand.