Black-Issues Group: Price To Pay If Clinton Wins Through Superdelegates

[democracy1st]

The Clintons are using the Southern Strategy against Barack Obama


Black-Issues Group: Price To Pay If Clinton Wins Through Superdelegates
Sam Stein


One of the nation's largest Black American grassroots advocacy organizations is drawing a line in the sand for Democratic leadership: if Hillary Clinton is awarded the nomination by overturning the pledged delegate count there will be a political price to pay.

Color of Change, which has a reach of more than 400,000 people, is organizing a petition campaign to persuade superdelegates and congressional leaders that a Clinton win through the hands of party insiders would "disenfranchise millions" and constitute "a shocking attack on voting rights and democracy."

"Following this course," the letter reads, "would give your seal of approval to an 'electability' strategy executed by stoking race-based fear and division among voters. We expect that from the Republicans; we fight them on it every year. But now the leadership of the Democratic party is poised to cosign this strategy of division and disenfranchisement. This could be the worst mistake the Party has ever made, yet it's being talked about as a legitimate way for this campaign to end.

"The voters who have come out in record numbers to participate in the Democratic Party won't allow this to happen, and as the most visible leaders of the Party, you must reject the idea that the nomination can be won with a strategy that preys on racism, sows division, and disenfranchises millions of voters."

The letter campaign -- which appears to be the first organized effort to influence superdelegates on the part of an African-American-based group -- is designed to create a sense of political consternation among those undecided insiders considering bucking the pledged delegate tally. Superdelegates are, by definition, allowed to cast their votes by any metric they deem fit, whether it be the popular vote, elected delegate totals, or the perception of electability. Several party officials, however, have warned that the pledged delegate total should be preeminent in their decision making process.

Previous Color of Change petitions have had their effects. In response to the Jena Six scandal, the group generated responses from more than 300,000 members, roughly the equivalent of all voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.

In this instance, they may have more political persuasion. The campaign plays off of an already existing concern within the party that a Clinton primary victory could leave the African-American community deeply distraught and less willing to offer its general election support.

On Thursday, McClatchy reported, "Many black voters are making it very clear: They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November."

Officials with Color of Change said their concerns were spurred by comments by DNC Chairman Howard Dean that the Democratic primary was "essentially a tie," as well as the "tone" and "strategy" of the Clinton campaign.

"Ideally what needs to happen is that this concept of there being a possibility of a Clinton win without disenfranchising people needs to stop," said the organization's communications director, Mervyn Marcano. "We want to let know that people are watching and that folks are pretty upset about this. There is a false perception based on how people are jiggling the numbers that Clinton can win... and among black voters this will be problematic."

Color of Change's petition drive will direct "open letters" to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, and superdelegates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/02/black-issues-group-price_n_99759.html



The petition

http://www.colorofchange.org/dems/

[bluestateguy]

1. I hope this is the last primary with superdelegates

They should be gotten rid of for 2012.

[livingmadness]

2. I signed that petition a few days ago! nt

[Double T]

3. Agreed. ALL states MUST VOTE in straight up election primaries on the same day.........

of the election year. Caucuses, open elections and crossover primary voting must NO be allowed. This election should NOT be ABOUT RACE.

[Skidmore]

7. Aren't the formats of the primary set by state legislation?

I live in a caucus state. I like our caucus process. I want to keep it.

[Double T]

10. Caucuses are easily manipulated and therefore IMO fraudulent.

Primaries should be about an individual voting WITHOUT the influence of others when a ballot is cast.

[DerekJ]

11. Caucuses are easily manipulated?!! On what parallel universe do you live?

I want some of what you smoking.

[Double T]

12. Glad YOU asked........

Now what were YOU saying?

[DerekJ]

20. Exactly.. Because you’re full of shit. We know damn well, that in caucuses the voters are witnesses

to the process. How can you manipulate that without thousands of witnesses coming forward? Compare that to machines that you have no clue how they work, or paper ballots that can easily be manipulated.

Go back to your pipe.

[Double T]

21. The witnesses have a mob mentality and directly influence OTHERS VOTES.

The election process and the ability to cast a vote without pressure from peers is paramount; caucuses completely defy and deny this.

[DerekJ]

22. Peer pressure?!! Wtf , are they 5?!! What!! Is someone going to go and kick you in the butt to sign

your name for the candidate you don't prefer?

And how does that amount to fraudulent elections, you called it fraudulent?!!

Edit: forgot "your"

[Skidmore]

26. Not my experience of caucuses.

I've found the whole process to be extremely respectful. The one time I did see a little pressure attempted was with Gephardt's union guys in 2000 and they were promptly told to knock it off.

[Double T]

30. Peer pressure EXISTS BOTH overtly and covertly at caucuses.

A voter should cast an actual vote WITHOUT any outside pressure or influence.

[Skidmore]

31. Then we should just do away with campaigns and interacting with

one another. Period.

[DerekJ]

37. Crazy shit!! Hey some voter talked to another voter and convinced him to vote for his candidate..

WOW , that must be undemocratic, and fraud :sarcasm:

[Lyric]

27. In caucuses, voters can bully and intimidate other voters.

They can cajole, persuade, convince, present false information--in other words, they can do everything that the political parties themselves are utterly forbidden to do within a certain number of feet of a polling place.

Nobody should be permitted to campaign at a polling place, and that is precisely what caucuses permit. So long as we have caucuses to skew the minds of voters, we need superdelegates to override the process if needed.

[DerekJ]

35. Goodness!! What a ridiculous argument. What?!! Do they take your hand and make you sign in the wrong

column?!! Or do they pull a gun to your head, or threaten to shoot your babies at home?!!
WTF do you mean by bully and intimidate, do they hold a knife to your throat?!! Or do they promise you cash?!!

Are you NUTZ?!!

[gaspee]

38. Just like

The person you're responding to is trying to bully you.

I agree caucuses are undemocratic.

[DerekJ]

39. What kind of comparison is that?! Ok I'll bite, let's assume we’re actually on the caucus floor and

we had this conversation. What's next?!! She will go vote for Obama Because of me?!! How did I undemocratically change her vote?!!

Can one of you explain to me, or do you just like to repeat "caucuses are undemocratic", so you might feel better about your loser candidate?!!

[Skidmore]

15. As opposed to relying on a voting machine which can be hacked

or programmed to do creative counting.

[Double T]

19. I put my bet on the voting machines OVER manipulative humans.

[Skidmore]

24. Manipulative humans program voting machines.

[Double T]

29. True. I'll still choose one voting machine over mobs of manipulative humans..........

influencing OTHERS VOTES.

[DerekJ]

36. How do you influence other voters?!! What's wrong with a voter influencing another voter?!! It's

the manner in which I influence you, do I hold a gun to your head and ask you to sign in the wrong field?!!
 

[Rageneau]

4. Do these people have a problem with the rules -- like Florida and Michigan do?

I suppose they'd have no trouble seating the Fl and Mich delegations then -- if the rules don't count.

[Freedom Train]

5. So they'd rather have McCain win? Fine, now I know where they stand.

By the same argument, there'll be an even higher price to pay for nominating Obama: We can kiss blue-collar support goodbye, and with that the election. Fuck this blackmailing the party by any interest group. You either vote for whom we put forth, or go fondle McCain's low-hanging balls for the next 4 years.

[cali]

6. Put down your cheap faux crystal ball, hillarite

predicting the future is a fool's game.

[DFW]

8. That's in different terms than I would have expressed it, but I totally agree

With an emphasis on "ANY interest group." There are and will be a LOT of interest
groups within our party, some with unfortunate but unavoidable conflicting interests,
for the sole reason that so few interest groups are represented by the Republicans:
all they have is religion, weapons, and money.

We can either learn to live with our diversity and make it work for us, or we can let
it tear us apart and leave the Republicans to wreak further damage on the country and
the world. The choice is ours, and I'm having a hard time swallowing the fact that so
many would prefer to see our ship go down than keep it sailing, even if the captain isn't
the one of their dreams. If we let McCain be captain, the ship goes down anyway, and we
go down with it. I'm totally fed up with this eternal "corporatist vs. elitist" crap.
We are better off with either HRC or BHO in the White House than with John McCain, and
any peripheral arguments are just background music when it comes November.

[livingmadness]

17. This petition and the 'interest group'

as a few of you interestingly choose to put it, is made up of ALL people, yes of all races, that object to machinations that would award Clinton the nomination if Obama were to finish the primaries with the required number of delegates (including superdelegates) - the metric that according to the rules determines the nominee. Similar to those other 'interest groups' (though I doubt they would be labeled as such) protesting, writing petitions etc. AND SOME threatening to vote McCain, because of the debacle in Florida/Michigan. Freedom of speech is an issue then? Read the article, this group is NOT threatening not to vote, merely pointing out that a concerning number of AAs may choose that option.

[DFW]

47. It seems that you are automatically labeling me as a partisan of one candidate

You're wrong there. I'm a partisan of the party. I'm all for the one with the most
delegates winning the nomination. But in the article, where it said, "Many black voters
are making it very clear: They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the
Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his......" I am not as
cynical. I don't think Obama will be denied the nomination if it becomes rightfully his.

If Clinton thinks she can pull off an upset victory, then it is her prerogative to try for
it (within legitimate means, and I doubt she will ignore that) until it proves impossible.
I only object to the concept that if Clinton comes from behind to take the nomination, that
it can only be due to fraudulent machinations. The same goes for Obama. I find 95% of all
arguments, no matter for which of the two, to be laden with anger and other ugly emotions
that I usually associate with Republicans. Schadenfreude and smugness ill become us, and
that's mostly what I see here. I see far less of them in both Obama and Clinton, which I
find more encouraging than any poll. It's unusual that I perceive any one candidate to be
better than their supporters, but in this case it frequently seems to be the case. Neither
Obama nor Clinton has made a hint of telling any of their supporters, should they lose the
nomination, to not vote for the other. Nor will they. Nor should we.

[DemVet]

23. It's kind of like....

...rioters protesting by burning down their own neighborhoods.

They don't want to vote? Fine.

Let's see if McCain takes care of their interests.

[Yossariant]

9. Southern strategy? LOL! The "black vote" cannot deliver the South to the Dems. The South is GOP.

"They're concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November."

WOW!

Talk about a sense of entitlement.

[CatsDogsBabies]

13. really rude post

I am white and I feel the same way as black voters in this article. When you have people like Ed Rendell saying stuff like a black man won't win in PA, you have members of the Democratic party giving a "wink-wink" to voters who may have negative racial biases. ANd the whole Rev. Wright thing is trying to create negative racial biases even where there may be none. The Democratic party has always depended on black voters, it is disgusting that more democrats are not condemning the blatant negative racial biases that are being encouraged in the democratic party during this primary. It is disgusting, as is your "sense of entitlement" comment.

[Yossariant]

14. Saying that "the nomination is rightfully his" is a sense of entitlement

You may not like it, but get over yourself.

[CatsDogsBabies]

16. another stupid comment

you just can't stand the thought that the nomination is rightfully his.

[livingmadness]

18. Here here

the poster is twisting entitlement to imply a belief that Barack is entitled just for being Barack. Which is clearly not what the article says, but those damn facts can be such pesky things, and words like 'entitlement' twisted to suit a poster's devious purpose.

[Maribelle]

33. Wrong. The poster is correctly implying that Obama has not won anything yet.

[ruggerson]

50. that's "hear hear"

unless you were calling your dog.

[Maribelle]

32. Clue: The nomination is not rightfully anyone's until they win.

[livingmadness]

34. And they can win based on super-delegate support

This group is communicating to the super-delegates that they would need good justification for promoting the 2nd placed candidate over the 1st, whom many will perceived, based on leads in delegates, popular vote, states won etc. aka the 'entitled' candidate. Now if those metrics are somewhat spread between the candidates, no such entitlement exists. Hence the coming month is crucial. Quite a different concept from a 'sense of entitlement' that was applied above, but I'm sure you're bright enough to get that.

[Maribelle]

40. Oh really - - since when does anyone in this country need 'justification' for their vote?

Not only do you want to change the rules for certain voters, you want to create additional rules which will force them to justify their vote????????

And if they break your new rules what is the punishment??????

We Americans now have punishments if we don't justify our votes.

Do you even see where you are bringing this nonsense?

[livingmadness]

43. Stop twisting words to suit your purpose

There is no talk either in the article or in my post that talks of 'forcing'. If you want to play games and purposefully ignore the point of my post knock yourself out.

[Maribelle]

46. I am not hardly playing games. All this talk about justification is not a game.

Try to get back to the subject and put away your little toys.

[aquart]

42. "Rightfully?" Divine right, maybe?

Oh, let's just declare him king and stop all this fussing with democracy.

[Maribelle]

45. I am truly amazed with these anti-democracy advocates.

[Maribelle]

25. Obama will fail to win this on pledged delegates. Threatening super-delegates to

pretend he did win this on pledged delegates is specious activity at best, an attempt to stir up negative feelings or even provoke further negative actions on the face of it.

Super-delegates should not be forced to pretend Obama won on the pledged delegates by threats based purely on the political abject bias of those making the threats.

Has this Black-Issues Group gone to bat for the voices of hundreds of thousands of African-Americans in Florida that voted on January 29th? No? Why not? Rules are rules? Then stop trying to change the rules for the super-delegates. And do try to get that forked tongue sticking out of your political bias stitched back up. Please.

[leftofcool]

28. threats threats threats

[aquart]

41. Aww. Threatening a race war for pure spite.

Makes me feel ever so comfortable. Nothing like electing a uniter not a divider...unless he doesn't get exactly what he wants exactly when he tells you he wants it.

So how does our black population feel about being used to put this man in power?

[seaglass]

44. Will they send a letter to Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick asking them

to respect the voters of MA and change their support to Hillary or does this only work one way?

I actually don't have a problem with any of these 3 SDs voting for Obama but if some are allowed to vote using their own criteria then ALL should be able to do so.

[BklnDem75]

48. I agree

To take two highly respected black men and use spin to destroy both will not go unnoticed in the black community. People can call it a process all they like, but it's the means of how people achieve their goals that's most focused upon. Now being from New York, I voted for Hillary twice. Was still on the fence when New York had it's primary. It's what I've seen in the weeks after that really turned me off to her brand of politics. It speak volumes that the media would use a few speeches to encompass a man's entire career just to attack Obama, then work overtime to debunk something that may be harmful to Hillary. To twist someone's words around to make him look elitist/uppity.

Right now the media is in full panic mode. They never imagined anyone, especially someone with a Muslim sounding name, would make it this close to the White House. They're not even pretending to be neutral anymore. I have to hand it to Barack, some of the things I've seen pulled in the past 3 months were outright blatant, yet he keeps his cool demeanor. He's a much better person than I am. With Hillary and her followers spreading disinformation, can't really be surprised why some people reached the point where they'll never vote for her regardless of the outcome. If you try to nuke a good man, don't be surprised by the fallout. In this case, McCain getting elected would be the least of the problems to come. I expect a mass exodus from the democratic party.

[nicknyc]

49. Racists are hijacking n/t

[BklnDem75]

51. I know...

and I suggest they stop with the bs and stick to the issues.

[IsItJustMe]

52. I am white and I say screw racism. You throw black people under the bus Democratic Party, you throw

me under the bus. This party once stood up for minorities. The DLC is starting to make that a joke.

[Ddan]

53. This is reality

I could care less about the racist bastards that won't vote for Barack because short of changing his race, they wouldn't get his vote in the first place. ON THE OTHER HAND, black voters had no problem with voting for Hillary IN OCTOBER! Things have changed since then: her husband's stupid mouth, Ferraro, her "I take him on his word if he claims he's not a muslim comment", sniper fire (she joked about it and I'm still pissed about that), and gas tax holiday bullshit. After all of that you'd be hard pressed to find a black person that hasn't been offended or put off by at least one thing the Clinton's have done during this campaign. We may be able to win without racist support but It's going to be pretty damn hard to win without black support. Call it stupid but I refuse to vote for someone that will throw me under the bus after claiming to be just like me for so many years.

Like it or not Obama has won more states, more of the popular vote and has more delegates than Clinton. It is almost mathematically impossible for her to pass him. FL and MI DID NOT FOLLOW THE RULES therefore the fact that their delegates will not be seated is THEIR FAULT!!! Because of this Clinton winning the nomination is a recipe for disaster.

[dana_b]

54. yep. It is reality and those who say

"oh, they'll pout for a while and then come around" aren't facing the truth. You cannot take away a deserved nomination and then say "thems the breaks, kids" and expect those people to support it.

Oh, and I know that noone hads gotten to 2025 delegates yet! So please, don't give me that. However Obama will be getting closer quicker than Hillary will and we all know it (except for those who are still in denial).

[KaptBunnyPants]

55. If Barack Obama is denied the nomination he won on the basis that he was too black to win,

Why would Black people, or even just people who disapprove of racism, find that acceptable? You can try dress it up anyway you want about electability, but if you're argument about electability comes down to Barack is unelectable because he is black then it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

[dogday]

56. I don't think we have the right to demand how these delegates vote..

Yes they should vote they will of the voters, but they don't have to, and they certainly don't need to be petitioned to do so... I am against this as there is a plan set in place... Why do we want to change the rules everyone was so quick to follow? There are rules set in place and those rules will be followed...

[IsItJustMe]

57. K&R