Thursday, August 14, 2008

Once again, things are periously close to being what they were

As I have been saying for months now, as an individual and as co-founder of The Denver Group, a rigged election is no election - at least not as understood by anybody who takes democracy and the franchise seriously. There is no such thing as a "symbolic" vote. There is either a vote or there is not a vote.

At the time of this writing, neither candidate, nor the DNC, has formally said that a deal has been cut to ensure having a roll vote will not disturb a predetermined rigged outcome. But neither candidate, nor the DNC, has said a word as more and more major news outlets interpret the statement issued today as one that evidences just such a deal.

This silence is starting to speak volumes. It is certainly allowing the perception that today's announcement that Senator Clinton's name would be placed in nomination and a roll call vote means much less than it could mean, and much less than it must mean if the Democratic Party is to stand a chance of coming out of this year's convention with a nominee who can carry the day in November.

Pretending to do the right thing is more offensive, in some ways, than simply refusing to do the right thing. Certainly it is more pernicious and deceitful. The only way to do the right thing, is to do the right thing. To be authentic, a vote or election or roll call ballot must actually be the mechanism that decides the question on the table. If a country or an organization uses the trappings of a vote to whitewash a predetermined result, that country or organization either does not understand or does not respect the essence of true voting and real elections.

Democratic Party leaders must make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they not only understand what an authentic vote is, but that they are committed to holding an authentic vote at their convention. Unless they do, the impression being created - that the current arrangement is just another charade - will not only stick, it will stick because it is correct. And Americans, regardless of their usual political affiliations, will not turn out in November to vote for a candidate by a party that does not itself take the idea of voting seriously.

21 Comments:

Anonymous kavala007 said...

Heidi, you are just so good it is almost frightening.
Bravo!!! It is a privilege just to read your postings.

August 14, 2008 at 11:05 PM  
Blogger Phishmelt said...

I wonder who Hillary will choose as her vp. please get the excitement and discussion started. will it be an obama supporter. who can you think of who obama threw under the bus?

we have to make sure she picks vp. please start the chatter that brings excitement.

August 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM  
Blogger democraticjack said...

You express my thoughts perfectly.
I wonder how they will rig the general election if this coming convention is nothing more than kabuki.

August 14, 2008 at 11:14 PM  
Anonymous 48 said...

Heidi,

I agree with everything you said. I have been furious all day while others have been celebrating and I didn't understand what was being celebrated.

The current arrangement (if we are assuming correctly) is not only an insult to Senator Clinton but to her delegates and supporters as well.

Obama's team is no doubt combing the anti-Obama blogs for reaction and what they are seeing is a victory for them, not for Clinton.

We need to continue to make noise and call this BS arrangement out for exactly what it is.

Whew, that felt better.

Thank you for all that you do.

August 14, 2008 at 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's play this out. The roll call vote is Wednesday night. Suppose Senator Clinton wins. The VP nominee speaks shortly thereafter. Who gets up there? What does that person say? "Yeah, well, I knew all along this might happen so I have a speech ready to go."

Roll the tape forward a day. The Invesco venue is set and ticketed. Senator Clinton is going to deliver her acceptance speech in front of thousands of angry Obama supporters, televised by 6+ major news outlets and replayed over and over. Again, what does she say? "Yeah, I know I've been supporting Obama, but I thought I'd spend countless hours on an acceptance speech for the hell of it."

That's the kickoff for her, and the downstream ticket, in the 2008 campaign?

It's not 1932. Like it or not, major party conventions are highly scripted, made-for-TV events designed to showcase the party and confirm the nominee chosen in the primaries and caucuses. Not to mention being events that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars in TV time.

For the moment, please set aside "make the Democratic Party democratic" and other slogans. What, pragmatically, do you and the Denver Group think should happen at this convention that won't render it a complete circus?

Thanks.

(Apologies if this double-posts. Server issue.)

August 14, 2008 at 11:37 PM  
Anonymous 48 said...

Anonymous,

If something were going to change the script for the convention it will be obvious in the days leading up to it.

There would have to be a major scandal or a major drop in the polls showing buyer's remorse before Hillary would have a true fighting chance for the nomination. They media would have to report that all is not well in the land of Obama ahead of the convention and the public (and the DNC) would not be caught unaware.

August 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

48,

I don't understand. You say that "there would have to be a major scandal or major drop in the polls" before Senator Clinton would have a significant chance. That means, based on the information we have today, there will not be a "change in script." Yet you are "furious" about "the current arrangement" and that you want to "continue to make noise and call out this BS arrangement."

OK. What is the noise that needs to be made? The state of things today is by far the most likely state of things on August 25. Multimillion dollar events with thousands of people don't plan themselves.

The convention starts in 10 days. What specific, concrete steps should the DNC take that will make this not a "BS arrangement" in your view?

August 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM  
Anonymous 48 said...

anonymous,

I was responding to your comment about the DNC not knowing what to do if suddenly and unexpectly Hillary would win the nomination when everything is set up for Obama.

What I was trying to say is that it won't just happen. If nothing changes between now and the convention Obama will be the nominee. Still, Hillary deserves a true roll call vote and not this "BS arrangement" that they are currently promoting. If Hillary releases her delegates ahead of the vote the whole thing becomes a charade intended to boost Obama.

If Hillary has a true fighting chance, meaning SD's flipping, we will know ahead of time because something will have to have happen to cause them concern.

August 15, 2008 at 12:15 AM  
Anonymous BAJ said...

General Wesley Clark for VP?

Gov. Rendell of PA?

Others?

August 15, 2008 at 12:44 AM  
Blogger CognitiveDissonance said...

Heidi, I share your concern. I've been hearing the word "symbolic" all day. To me, that just means a dog and pony farce that won't fool anyone, much less PUMA's. They are showing an absolute contempt for the intelligence of voters that will be thrown right back in their face in November. I am truly stunned at their incompetence and inability to see what is right in front of their noses!

August 15, 2008 at 2:06 AM  
Anonymous Mirlo said...

The only really honest thing I can think of is to take the chance at the convention and in case Hillary wins, she can decline, if she really thinks, Obama's nomination would be the right thing for the country and the party at this time. I doubt that Obama will agree to take this chance though, as it would be a humiliation for him, something he is not prone to endure voluntarily.

The damage to the party is done, the cheating has not only been tolerated by the leaders, but they openly participated in it. It will furthermore tell a lot about the party leader's understanding of Democracy how they are going to solve this.

It will take at least as much courage as shown by The Denver Group and other groups to stand up against the obvious rigging. Any chance of that courage suddenly appearing? Not until the party will be purged of it's weak leaders, imho.

The rise of part of the base is only the first, but the most important step. It looks to me like the Boston teaparty will take place, if there is no insight by the party leaders before.

It is not up to the candidates, but to the party leaders to put this right, isn't it?

August 15, 2008 at 5:05 AM  
Anonymous Sally said...

Heidi, your concern is mine, too.

I'm a strong supporter of Senator Clinton but am somewhat disappointed that she is going along with the unity charade. I have no idea what the consequences would be for her--and for her supporters--if she somehow laid bare the facts about how the nomination was stolen from her. The Hillary-haters would up their venom but the democratic ideal would be the winner over the corrupt Democratic Party. It's simply not enough to say the Democratic candidate is the lesser of two evils, a mantra I question when one of the "evils" is mostly unknown.

Thank you for your vigilance in comparing what is being said with what is being done.

August 15, 2008 at 8:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To argue that the wedding gifts have already been received and the reception planned and the people are waiting in the church so the wedding must go on is just as foolish as to argue that we must coronate Obama as the "selected nominee" just because he rented a stadium. I don't really care if his "special day" is ruined. This isn't democracy, it doesn't represent the voters, and he is a candidate that won't be able to win for us. So to "save face" on wedding day and get a divorce in 3 months doesn't make sense.
Lisa

August 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM  
Anonymous athyrio said...

I agree this symbolism is an insult and a sham...Not acceptable at all...

August 15, 2008 at 10:18 AM  
Anonymous susan h said...

NBC News in Chicago (Obama country) last night was reporting that Obama made a concession to Hillary and was now ALLOWING her to have her name placed in nomination at the convention. The two announcers then laughed about how that was so fair of Obama to do so, as if he was in charge of it all and granting her some favor since he is so magnanimous a ruler. Do reporters and/or journalists have any obligation to report FACTS rather than FICTION? Nothing was mentioned of the FACT that it is in the Rules that a candidate with 1900+ delegates should have her name placed in nomination with a proper roll call to take place. Mr. Obama is not the nominee until that happens but these two did not realize that fact nor were they giving the public correct information about how democracy works.

Needless to say, I wish I could have reached inside the television set and wrung their necks for the charade, stupidity, pretense going on and misinformation being given to the American people.

August 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM  
Anonymous ainnj said...

As always you speak for me Heidi. Powerful post, thank you!

ainnj

August 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM  
OpenID roofingbird said...

Even if all that can be done, is to memorialize the horror of this election, it will serve as banner and touchstone to what we do next. People will listen to facts, when they can find them. Those that carry the banner will have cache. The very fact that the DNC doesn’t want to change the caucuses for 2012, means we will be revisiting this issue and Obama will be completely in charge. This upcoming coronation isn’t going to be an end to the charade. This will be proof!

August 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM  
Blogger gendergappers said...

Here's the thing.

BO's sinking in the polls as more voters are not liking what is coming out in books and being turned off by his hubris.

Superdels notice, start thinking they are backing a loser and turn to consider HILLary.

BO needs to stop this so he "magnanimously" [him, really?] allows a roll call vote for her.

He has tipped off his pals in the media and knows what their reaction will be.

Right! They will go after Hillary with gusto. "Oh, she is taking the Convention away from Obama. For shame.

Cafferty [CNN] was apoplectic, all veins in his head popping. MSNBC - vemon in overdrive. FOX News getting it and laughing their asses off at the media knee jerk reaction.

ObamaDROIDS, as BO figured, stepped up their hate and nastiness vowing not to vote and/or wage riots if she upset BO's coronation.

Superdelegates shudder and think that it's too late. Hillary cannot win as the media will crush her.

So much for BO's great gesture. A move planned like all his actions are - to make himself look good while his media and boyz sink their knives in, doing his dirty work.

Sure wish it were different.

August 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM  
Blogger Lynne said...

gendergappes - yeah that's one scenario for sure. but what if there are enough of us there - enough to make even the media think twice?

August 15, 2008 at 10:36 PM  
Blogger unbelieveablerigamarolejusttocomment said...

Great to visit this blog to see that things are not as simple as media reports say. It reminds me of the Russians saying they are pulling out of Georgia but reporters find that they are going deeper in. BBC reported that Hillary's name will be placed in nomination, simple as that. It's good someone is checking for the reality.

Great point, Lisa.

About the stadium, Obama rented it, so there's no reason for Hillary to go there. He'll have booing crowds lined up there, people who love him who'd waited hours. She's no fool. She won't walk into a trap. The news'll report what a big miscalculation Obama made. I hope Hillary does get nominated, since she can actually win the election in November.

August 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM  
Blogger marille said...

Heidi, I agree completely.
to anonymus saying if nothing happens: something has happened. see below: 2 things happened.
1) the polls
the DNC and BO know it, otherwise they would not suddenly talk about nomination and of course this is symbolic. delegate intimidation goes on.
we need to hammer the polls into them. Imagine Hillary would sit home or in the senate and not work for his campaign, imagine where the polls would be.


MORE ON ELECTABILITY: PLEASE NOTE THE COMPARISONS AND TRENDS


WA
SurveyUSA -
08/11 - 08/12 (Obama +7)
Obama - 51%
McCain - 44%

07/13 - 07/15 (Obama +16)
Obama - 55%
McCain - 39%

NY
Rasmussen
08/06-08/06 (Obama +19.0)
McCain - 36%
Obama - 55%

06/30 - 06/30 (Obama +31.0)
McCain - 29%
Obama - 60%

VA
(McCain +1)
08/08 - 08/10
McCain - 48%
Obama - 47%

Source 1: SurveyUSA
Source 2: RCP

MI
Rasmussen
08/07 - 08/07 (Obama +4)
McCain - 45%
Obama - 49%

07/10 - 07/10 (Obama +8)
McCain - 42%
Obama - 50%

NV
Rasmussen
08/11 - 08/11 (McCain +3)
McCain - 48%
Obama - 45%

07/16 - 07/16 (Obama +2)
McCain - 45%
Obama - 47%

MA
Suffolk/7News
07/31 - 08/03 (Obama +9)
Obama - 47%
McCain - 38%

06/08 - 06/10 (Obama +23)
Obama - 53%
McCain - 30%

CO

Rasmussen
08/14 - 08/14 (McCain +1)
Mccain - 49%
Obama - 48%

07/21 - 07/21 (Obama +3)
Mccain - 47%
Obama - 50%

MN
Rasmussen (Obama +4)
08/14-08/14
McCain - 45%
Obama - 49%

07/22 - 07/22 (Obama +13)
McCain - 39%
Obama - 52%

NC
08/15-08/15
Rasmussen (McCain +6)
Mccain - 50%
Obama - 44%

07/15 - 07/15 (Mccain +3)
Mccain - 48%
Obama - 45%

2) the document on caucus fraud is out and they just fired the discussion from the platform.
see www.lynettelong.com/CAUCUSFRAUD/

which is info to read the entire weekend, then the info on money for the superdelegates and money from Pelosi to downstream democrats in favor something 3 or 4 to 1 for Obama supporting candidates.

If the DNC and the supers want to stick their head in the sand, they should not be so sure the country is doing that.
the republicans were smart enough to pick the only candidate who could win this year and we are supposed to pick the only candidate who cannot win.
marille

August 16, 2008 at 1:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home