Open Letter to Super Delegates - Democratic Underground

poomie123

(20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Feb-19-08 09:09 AM
Original message

Open Letter to Super Delegates

Edited on Tue Feb-19-08 09:28 AM by poomie123

Dear Madams and Sirs:

For your respectful consideration, as a concerned Democrat, I raise and analyze
this issue:

Who would give us the best chance to recapture the White House, Obama or Clinton?

Today, most pundits and media, say Obama. And, not surprisingly, many republicans SAY they agree.

That they join the chorus, is telling. They WANT us to pick Obama.

But for reasons stated below, contrary to what they publicly say, the republicans really believe beating Obama would be easier than taking on Hillary.

So, to help get Obama nominated, republicans are voting for him in open primaries. A few days ago, I heard some interviews of a few such republicans on NPR. They intend to vote for Obama in Wisconsin’s February 19 open primary. Though they didn’t say this directly, they implied: "We’ve got our guy, so let’s help get him the opponent he can whip."

Thus, unexpectedly and amazingly, republican cross-over voting has become a bonanza for Obama. It gives him momentum. It helps him get more primary wins, including thus far eight straight, and more elected delegates. But the fact is in November all these extra-republican votes will go to McCain.

In any case, for now, Obama astutely is using the benefit of these extra votes to tout himself as an unstoppable juggernaut sweeping the country. It lets him say to super delegates: "The people are speaking, so, why don’t you join the bandwagon." But reality says but for republican votes, he would not have gotten as many primary wins and elected delegates. It’s a misleading scenario, which as explained below, could lead us to a third-in-a row defeat.

Now, as to pundits and media: as said, most likewise say Obama would do better against McCain; supposedly because Hillary polarizes. They also cite guessing-game-polls, pinnacles of unreliability, which by a hair speculate Obama stands the best chance to beat McCain.

The above said, let’s move to the crux of this writing: the crucial dilemma we face. It’s a pivotal question we just have to answer:

Should we pit:

A black against a white; or

A woman against a man?

Deciding that is like choosing between two dirt roads to a destination. One is appealingly straight and smooth. But somewhere along its path is embedded a hidden improvised-explosive device, an IPE. If we choose that route, we risk never arriving.

Or put it this way: We have in our parlor a two-headed hydra. One head is race and the other, gender. Right now we’re ignoring both, hoping neither will rear its ugly head. And if someone were to discuss the monsters and utter something the least bit controversial, wham: That person would be labeled a racist or sexist. No wonder the media holds its tongue on this crucial issue.

Nevertheless, this self-proclaimed pundit intrepidly will charge on.

First off is the black vs. white aspect, or Obama against McCain. The nagging question involved is: how much progress have we made in eliminating racial prejudice? Publicly, as shown by the caucuses, we’ve come a long way. Moreover, we’ve seen no ads playing race cards.

But this is a family struggle, democrat v. democrat. So far it’s been relatively amicable. In November, it will be all out war, against the enemy, the republicans. And for those guys, it will be no holds barred. Moreover, right wing radio-talk shows will pound us incessantly.

Remember, the 2006 senatorial campaign in Tennessee? The republicans or entities in their behalf, launched subtle, but vicious race cards repetitively on TV and radio against, Harold Ford, Jr., the black democratic candidate. He lost.

That shameful campaign, only 15 months or so ago, shows that in the 21st century racial prejudice still is alive. We see it regularly. To anyone who says not so, tell that to the black man who late at night has problems getting cabs to pick him up. Or consider how blacks are treated in the criminal justice system, how many compared to whites are sentenced to die, or have been wrongfully convicted.

So, in a contest between Obama and McCain, will it be decided strictly on the capabilities and character of the two, as well as on the economy, Iraq, need for change, security, et cetera? Or will prejudice rear up like it did in the 2006 Tennessee campaign?

Well, what argues it will, is that voting will be done secretly in booths. Those who harbor prejudice will be able to vent it with impunity and not have to worry about provoking disapproving grimaces from others, as is the case in caucus voting.

And if the monster does surface in November, it could be decisive. Sadly, this country is not yet sufficiently color blind. The republicans are counting on this reality. They think it will get them 8 more years in the White House, a 16 year domination. And among other not-good-for-America things, they can stack the Supreme Court for another 40 years or so with more Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas types.

All that said, how about gender-prejudice against Hillary? How does it stack up in comparison to racial prejudice?

In other words, which one is stronger, more formidable? Well, reality argues racial prejudice is the greater ogre. The terrible things cited above support this, especially, the disproportionately high percentage of blacks wrongly convicted and imprisoned or who get the death penalty.

In contrast, prejudice against women pales. These days, it amounts to: lower pay for equal work and glass ceilings. Also, some think women are less capable emotionally than men to make tough decisions.

So, there you have the analysis. And its conclusion argues racial prejudice would give McCain a real leg up on Obama. It would be enough that when combined with McCain’s likableness, brimming ingenuousness, prisoner of war-hero status, age-wisdom advantage, plus extensive experience, he’s likely to beat Obama.

But no doubt some will argue Obama would overcome those things. They say what would carry the day would be his positions on Iraq and need for change, along with his Messianic aura and talent to inspire and mesmerize with words. Well, to you, I say: Shamefully, the prejudiced are blind to pluses.

Bottom line: Because of racial prejudice’s menacing specter, Hillary is the far safer pick for us.

That said, it’s been tough here to have to bring out the disgraceful reality of racial prejudice. But if we choose to ignore it, like everyone seems to be doing, we could rack up another frustration. In 2000 we lost because of uncounted votes, questionable tallying, and a political decision by the Supreme Court. In 2004 Bush’s demagoguery did us in. And this year, if we don’t get real, as said, we could give those other guys a 16 year run, enough time to do oodles more bad things, like the one mentioned: put the Supreme Court into a 40 year pit.

So again, here’s the nitty gritty: We have to nominate the person with the best chance of winning. And to do that we cannot run away from a nasty reality by deluding ourselves that if we nominate a black person, it would not adversely influence November results, just because morally and legally it SHOULD NOT.

Hopefully, however, by 2016 that vile factor will have mollified so a black person would have an equal chance to win the presidency. By then, Obama will be only 54 years old. And then he will have what he so critically lacks today, sufficient experience.

Yes, in 2016, Obama should be ready for America and she for him. But today, neither is ready for the other.

Again, here’s the bottom line: For 2008, Hillary is the far safer pick.