Surely, the DNCC jests...

Finally, after a week and half the DNCC has published its "official" state-by-state tally of the bogus roll call held in Denver. On its face, the tally itself is not particularly interesting. The folks at DemConWatch have dug a bit deeper and give a good analysis of the Clinton delegates in each state that abstained, where the most delegates held strong for Clinton (cheers for Puerto Rico), and the states where the pressure and persuasion for pledged delegates to flip on the first ballot worked best. That last group includes NJ, NY, PA, OH, FL, and MI.

If you live in one of those states and you voted for Senator Clinton, you were robbed. And if you live in FL and MI you were robbed for the third time - once in May by the RBC, again by the Credentials Committee which did not seat your delegates as you voted for them, and now by whoever pressed Clinton delegates from your state to desert on the first ballot.

While I applaud the delegates who resisted the pressure, I do not judge harshly those who did not. I have been told how state party chairs and other high ranking Democrats sat there and told delegates that if they did not flip they personally would be responsible for the downfall of the Democrat presidential effort this November.

The people at fault, and who I fault for their lack of their political acuity and I disdain for their absence of integrity, are all the party leaders who thought that a good way to win the general election was to appoint a nominee rather than elect one. The only Democrat I do not fault is Senator Clinton herself, who had been put in the position of having to urge support for Senator Obama even though, as she argued all throughout the primary season, he was much less likely to be able to beat John McCain than she was. But Senator Clinton would have been reviled and attacked by her own peers and many rank and file Democrats if she had persisted in pressing her candidacy, a candidacy that probably would have succeeded, in the face of being told for the umpteenth time that pressing for the best nominee - as in the one most likely to win and the one with the most democratic, Democratic, and smartest ideas - was particularly wrong coming from her, the person who happened to be that candidate.

Nor do I think it any coincidence that the DNCC released its tally today, just as many in the party are demanding that Senator Clinton do even more to bail out a nominee who is sinking in the polls, and bringing down downticket Democrats right along with him. The DNCC and the DNC now wants us to think that the 1/3 of delegates who voted for Senator Clinton indicates that the DNC wants to show that Senator Clinton had serious support - that is serious enough support to show that the DNC and the Convention was not riddled with sexism - but not serious enough support to win the nomination- oh wait, Senator Clinton did have enough support to win but that support could not be allowed to translate into a real vote with a real tally because then Senator Clinton might have become the nominee. Yes, it is enough to make one's head spin.

Or to make one even more determined to reclaim the Democratic Party for those who are politically intelligent enough to win presidential elections and who are clearly dedicated to the fundamental principles of the Democratic Party as redeveloped by Franklin Roosevelt Jr. and, at the Presidential level, carried on by President Kennedy, President Johnson, and - most notably - President Clinton. It is no accident that the political intelligence it takes for a Democrat to win the White House lines up with with a commitment to the best traditions of the Democratic Party. And it is a shame and a tragedy that this year's DNC and its preferred candidate so clearly do not meet that standard.

We as Democrats must fight for principle before Party, and demand that downticket Democrats make it clear that they do meet the standard and then we must give them our wholehearted support, especially those who could end up creating a robust and seriously Democractic Congress, one that can keep the best of the Democratic Party's vision alive at the federal level of our goverment.

Then in 2012 we must make sure our Party succeeds in nominating a candidate worthy of being called a Democrat but more importantly worthy of our trust to excecute the office of the Presidency with good faith and integrity.

Comments

[kcowley]

Hear, hear!! Excellent post as usual. Happy Birthday Heidi!!

[adamonis]

Keep fighting the good fight for us all Heidi Li!

[adamonis]

Happy Birthday to you!

[PuppyDogMom]

It's your birthday? Have a great one!

Thanks for this post. And for all the others. I think the only thing that the DNCC can do, with any credibility at this point, is to admit to what they did. All of these other transparent efforts will only make them look more and more ridiculous.

[Donna Mohler]

I will vote against all delegates that sold out to obama here in OHIO! The Primary was Fixed,We all Know that! So All of u super delegates that went against our vote,when u come up for re-election,i will vote against YOU!!!

[lynne]

thank you for all you do!
i am very grateful.

[Liz]

Right. Makes terrific sense. Senator Clinton's home state delegation was pressured into changing votes. Grow up, please. You're veering off into the Twilight Zone. As a New Yorker, I personally am proud my state puts country over party and will fight to defeat the Republicans. And I am proud of Senator Clinton's vigorous support of the nominee. SHE understands the danger of another four years of Republican rule. So please don't speak for her because she has made her wishes VERY clear.

[jeannie, North Carolina]

You are awesome Heidi. I love your site,and your intellect. Thanks for all the informed information you give us.

[tessa gordon]

As a cynic- and a very angry one-I had the thought that perhaps Hillary should wait until Obama sinks to an all time low and then jump in to save him..
I continue to be unimpressed
a) with Joe Biden as the VP choice (it did nothing to boost thepresidential candidate)
b) the ineffective convention,which, despite all the hoopla and crowds at the final speech, appeared to do very little to help Obama
c) Obama's decision against Hillary for his VP running mate. HRC on the ticket would have likely assured a Democratic victory in Novemeber
d)By Obama's response or lack thereof, to the Palin choice..

And, of course, his mistake in deciding to flip on campaign finance

The debacle that is the 2008 election continues

[tessa gordon]

As a cynic- and a very angry one-I had the thought that perhaps Hillary should wait until Obama sinks to an all time low and then jump in to save him..
I continue to be unimpressed
a) with Joe Biden as the VP choice (it did nothing to boost thepresidential candidate)
b) the ineffective convention,which, despite all the hoopla and crowds at the final speech, appeared to do very little to help Obama
c) Obama's decision against Hillary for his VP running mate. HRC on the ticket would have likely assured a Democratic victory in Novemeber
d)By Obama's response or lack thereof, to the Palin choice..

And, of course, his mistake in deciding to flip on campaign finance

The debacle that is the 2008 election continues

[12SpeakOut]

How can anyone support a Democratic Presidential nominee who used organized bullying,intimidation and voter suppression to win?

If they are rewarded with the Presidency,imagine how they will abuse power to strong-arm, bully and threaten legislators and citizens who may disgree with them.

I am very wary of gangland-style politicians, and want a Democracy...not a Koolaid-cult Theocracy!

[SergeiRostov]

Right. Makes terrific sense. Senator Clinton's home state delegation was pressured into changing votes. Posted by: Liz | September 09, 2008 at 09:56 PM

It's evident it was, if you look at the facts (which have been presented over and over)but then, Obamabots such as yourself have never been much on facts.

As a New Yorker, I personally am proud my state puts country over party

So putting country before party means throwing out the principles the country was founded upon, and principles which the party supposedly supports, in this case, democratic elections free of intimidation, threats, lies about oneself and one's opponent, false character attacks, voter suppression, and fraud? Interesting.