Herding Cats

Since last fall, Pennsylvania has added 65,000 new Democratic voters to the rolls, an increase of 1.7%. This compares to the Republican increase of 0.1%. There are now 700,000 more registered Democrats in Pennsylvania than there are Republicans. I can't give you an exact percentage of the total electorate, because the PA Department of State, in releasing these numbers, did not include the number of independents. Therefore, I don't know what the total voter numbers are, and can't calculate a percentage. Nor did the state release county-by-county numbers, so we don't know where the rise is occurring.

**IF** there was no rise to the number of independents, the voter registration split would be 48% Democratic/39% Republican. BUT remember that there are over 750,000 registered Democrats JUST in Philadelphia (compared to a little over 150,000 Republicans) -- so the statewide numbers skew slightly.

For those of you who don't live here --- a lot of those Democrats are anti-abortion, Second Amendment types. I have never "gotten" that, but in the county where I live, Republicans outnumber Democrats almost 2:1, but it's a lot more liberal than the numbers would make it seem. Last night while running a personal voter registration drive at my local bar, I spoke to 3 black Republicans who looked at my Obama button and said to keep up the good work, I could count on them in November if Obama got the nomination -- but who didn't want to switch parties for the primary. Then again, I've got another week, and they're regulars….

Also -- pledged delegate numbers will change this weekend when California certifies their primary vote -- will be a +4 gain for Obama (I think, we'll know on Saturday). Ohio has yet to certify 2 counties. Obama also lost the popular vote but won the certified Texas delegate county by +5.

Good-bye to Eliot Spitzer -- hello David Paterson. Learn to say "no" David -- you've got budget problems, and not everyone can win.

Good-bye to Howard Metzenbaum, who passed away last night at the age of 90.

Hello Al Franken -- presumptive nominee running against Norm Coleman for the junior Minnesota Senate seat, since all your challengers have faded away.

And then we come back to the Clinton campaign. Geri Ferrarro stepped down, and in her note pointed out that she did so just so that she could continue to spew racist bile. She didn't call it that, but turns out she has a history -- she said the same things she's saying now about Obama with reference to Jesse Jackson 20 years ago.

As for the Clinton response, while I would have used less repetition and a slightly different tone -- Keith Olbermann said it best. View the text here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/, and view the video here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329 (IF the video link doesn't work, you can link to it FROM the text page.) Keith is in many ways a Clinton supporter: as he points out in his opening, when he started out with his "Special Comments", there was a lot of flack, and the Clinton family was a great source of support. (The early comments skewered Bush on Iraq in ways you rarely see on TV, and came close to crossing several lines, although I thought they were erudite and to the point) -- but he feels that the Clinton response to blatant racism was so unacceptable that despite any personal feelings he has, a comment was necessitated. Check it out -- there's a reason he's my favourite political commentator.

You may be wondering why I called this "Herding Cats". In Mensa, they talk about the diversity of the membership -- so independent and diverse that trying to get the group (national membership is somewhere around 50,000) to agree to one thing is a lot like herding cats. Much more frustrating for the herder then the cats.

The Democratic party is much the same: we're a REAL heterogeneous bunch. It's what happens when you have the biggest tent. Somehow someone or something has to find a way to herd us all back into one tent. And I'm telling you as a member of lots of Democratic demographics -- that tent's Platform better NOT in any way condone racism. Keith is right -- the Clinton campaign has to come out with something much stronger against the railings of Geri Ferrarro.

When I went to college, there was a group in South Boston called ROAR, which stood for "Restore Our Alienated Rights". Southie was integrating back in the 70's, and when the buses would deliver black children to grade school, ROAR groups used to pelt them with pebbles and rocks as they tried to get into the school building. A bunch of college students (and others) used to put on football helmets and pads and block the rocks as we ran the kids into the school. The bruises were worth it. Back then, we didn't so much self-identify as "Democrats" as we did as "liberals". But like I always say -- it was wrong then, and it's wrong now. (Usually I'm saying it about Vietnam, but it holds for a lot of other liberal causes.)

One final note -- Jack Kervorkian (Dr. Death), having completed his prison sentence, is filing papers to run for Congress. (Michigan 9^th). Some say he killed 130 people, and shouldn't run for Congress. I say Bush has caused the deaths of 4,000 American service men and women in Iraq. No contest. Jack helped suffering people find peace -- Baby Bush sent young innocents to invade a sovereign nation. McCain thinks Baby Bush didn't go far enough. What an election year…….the differences are stark.

Women

Yesterday, I "met" a young woman on a work conference call.

About 20 minutes before the conference call, I had gotten a cup of coffee, opened this week's issue of Newsweek -- and came across Jonathan Alter's opinion piece about his mother (who was the first elected woman EVER in Cook County.) At the time the conference call started, I was composing a nasty-gram in my head to Newsweek. Not so much about Jonathan or his mother -- but about the underlying idea that Hillary Clinton should be elected BECAUSE she is a woman.

I have thought about this "entitlement" thing for a while, and despite the fact that I consider myself an articulate person, I could never compose the essential thought.

Until the conference call.

Here's a young woman (I'm guessing 21 - 23) who is bright, driven, excited, engaged, direct, knowledgeable about her area, and truly committed to doing a good job. The kind of woman I hope I was when I was her age and working my first "real" job.

There are, however, some major differences. NO ONE will ever pat her on the head and say "Good girl, you did a good job". NO ONE will ever tell her to jump up on the desk and have sex now or be fired. NO ONE will ever pay her 10% less and tell her it is BECAUSE of her gender. NO ONE will ever say "Sure, that's a nice idea, but let's wait for a man to say it." She does not know, no one in her generation knows, THANKFULLY, what it was to be a ground troop in the fight for equality and meritocracy.

This young woman is the embodiment of what we stood up for. The kind of person I'm thrilled to work with.

I, and all of my women friends, put up with all sorts of indignities and dangers so that someday other young women would be hired NOT because they were female, but because they were bright and could do the job. Our hope was that the generation that came after us would have an equal chance with men to excel, to progress, to succeed. While I have no idea how this woman got her job, I have a gut sense that she had great grades in college, a terrific resume, and that she aced the interview. I do not believe that the company hired her to fill a 'female quota'. She EARNED the right to have this job. And the project will be better for that hire.

And this young woman embodies what we always hoped women would be -- EQUALS. Not better -- just EQUAL in terms of opportunity.

There are a lot of women today who support Hillary Clinton because of her gender. They feel she should break the political glass ceiling because she is first woman to ever get this close. These women are generally my age and older -- who remember what the old days were like. At my age, we remember that affirmative action would get our foot in the door, but then we had to prove ourselves IN ADDITION to what any position required. Women 10 years older than I remember fighting to get their foot in that door. Women older than that remember limited choices, and a sense that no matter what they did, it wouldn't be enough.

To vote for Hillary because of her gender is to denigrate what my generation worked for, it is to disparage this young woman's hire. That is -- if she was hired BECAUSE of her gender, then there was no point in having fought for equal pay for equal work, no reason to have stood toe to toe with misogynists and fought for the right to be seen and thought of as "human" and not "bra size". The fight was for equality and meritocracy -- not for automatic ingress.

The women who support Hillary Clinton because of her gender are no different then the men 30 years ago who worked to make sure women could not "get ahead". In both cases, all they saw was "girl". Interchangeable. All the same. In the vast majority of cases, to hire a woman STRICTLY because of her gender is to say the worth of the person doesn't matter. (The major exception I can think of is 'surrogate motherhood' when anatomy and physiology dictate a specific gender choice). If we select people to fill positions based exclusively on gender, it's wrong. It was wrong 40 years ago, it's wrong now. And whether that position is "wait person" "assembly line worker" "doctor" "lawyer" "accountant" "engineer" or "President of the United States" -- the choice should be based on character, ability, knowledge and above all being the best person for the job. Independent of gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, age, etc.

Character and Numbers, Round 17X

First, the numbers:

Since Mississippi went Obama -->

Pledged Delegates: Obama up by 150 - 160 depending on whose numbers you believe (and believe it or not, all of Ohio isn't in, and he pulled a few more in California as just last weekend they certified the results)

SuperDelegates -- Hillary up by 38, about to fall to 37 once Eliot Spitzer resigns. (And dammit, I lost the pool, I had 2:30 yesterday afternoon).

Total Delegates -- Obama up by 110- 120

Popular vote -- Obama up by close to 700,000

HHHMMM -- Seems we have an actual front runner…..

So now let's return to character.

Building on yesterday's dual definitions of "interesting to watch" and "of high moral standing" à

Let's start with CNN. Each network picks the stock photo they use to put up of candidates with the returns. On CNN they have great photos of ALL the candidates EXCEPT John McCain -- for some reason they picked a photo that makes him look like a caricature of the devil. In addition, they SERIOUSLY messed up their delegate counts.

Then on to Eliot Spitzer. The more news that comes out, the more appalling the whole thing is. My favourite tidbit was learning that while working in the prosecutor's office, he called FROM the office, to get a call girl. AMAZING.

Today's winner is a tough call between Geri Ferraro and Hillary Clinton. Who to pick for the greatest lapse of character? And in all honesty, I find this so appalling that there is no room for humour here.

Should we pick Geri Ferraro for saying Obama got where he is just because he is black? Not that she said it, but that she unapologetically believes it. When Paterson takes over the NY governorship later today or tomorrow, he will be the fourth black governor in our country's history. EVER. (You should be easily able to list 2 of the 3 others, the third you'll have to look up.) To get somewhere in politics, blacks need to be special. They need to work harder to achieve the same ends as whites. With the exception of Wilson Goode, John Street and Marion Barry, they need to be exceedingly competent. HOW DARE SHE denigrate someone who has put together an exemplary organization, out-raised every other candidate in history in total dollars and number of donors, and put forth a message we haven't heard since JFK?

Then again, what do you expect? Let's remember that Geri's parents were indicted for gambling when she was a kid. The indictments were dropped because her dad died. Her husband was indicted and pleaded guilty to a host of fun things including not paying his taxes, taking money from a women's and orphan's fund, renting warehouse space to pornographers, and a bunch of real estate issues. Geri herself was cited by the House for personal improprieties in the use of her campaign funds.

So OF COURSE this is the kind of person Hillary picks for her finance committee. It DOES pay to learn from the best…..and if you go back and read the time line of Geri's problems with her husband John Zaccaro's tax returns DURING the race, you'll see immediate parallels and understand why Hillary won't release HER tax records -- mostly because she files jointly with Bill. (Geri and John filed separately).

Or should we give the lack of character win to Hillary?

In EVERY situation, be it a political campaign, or a business, a group (PETA, Sierra Club, even the KKK) or even an extended family in some ways -- each individual is in some ways responsible for his actions. And if Geri wants to be a racist crook -- that's her business. In certain ways, if she does her job, it MAY be acceptable to an employer.

But it is true that 100% of the time -- tone, guiding principles, honor, and character come top down. If you run a business, a political campaign or a family it is incumbent upon you to set the framework within which people operate. Many years ago, I took a job doing consulting work in D.C. The major client was the US DOT. I worked there for 6 weeks and was asked to do something that indicated that the company was basically stealing money from government contracts. I was raised right, and I live on principle, so I went to the owner of the company, assuming that he didn't know what my immediate boss was doing. He explained to me that I was young, naïve, and didn't know how the system worked -- that government contracts were tailor made to be "used in the best interests of the people who know how to work them". I quit. 3 people were indicted. The company tone was that it was all right to steal.

Hillary Clinton has set a tone that says it is okay to lie, cheat, steal, rip the party apart, and appeal to fear. In certain ways, she is the Richard Nixon of our time -- don't believe me? She recently said that "AS FAR AS I KNOW" Barack Obama is not a Muslim. She knows he's not. We ALL know. But the line she used is a take on something Dick used to say all the time: "Well, OTHER people would say "x", but not me, I wouldn't say "x"" -- he got to make the accusation twice, shrug and wink. And folks, if Hillary is the Dick of our time, Geri could easily become her Bebe Rebozo.

And so, while I'd like to award lack of character to Geri or Hillary, it actually goes to the media. Certainly I'm not the only one who knows Geri's past, nor can see the Nixonian parallels -- so how is it that they don't bother mentioning it? Is collective memory that short?

Character

There is some TV station with the tag line "characters welcome" -- they use the definition of character as "interesting, fun to watch" people. Usually, though, we think of character as something good and worthy -- the idea that a person of character is someone who does the right thing, acts in an upstanding manner.

When I was a kid, I was taught by my parents that you treat people with handicaps with respect, they were people who might need a little extra help (e.g. hold the door for someone in a wheelchair) but they were just regular people. Except, my dad said, the MORALLY handicapped -- they were just plain fun to watch.

And yes, while there should be NO JOY in watching people implode, there is something to "how the mighty have fallen."

Good morning Eliot Spitzer. Run up status to Hillary Clinton.

First, Mr. Governor.

Everything in context.

A lot of times, the fact that someone does something "bad" is a function of who they are. Personally, I don't think there is something inherently bad about prostitution. I am NOT talking about the youth sex trade, I am NOT talking about people forced into prostitution. (Those are HORRIBLE things.) I'm talking about two consenting adults undertaking a fiscal transaction -- currently legal in some counties in Nevada.

When I was in college, I had a job selling encyclopedias door to door, and we would all be fielded out of the DC office, and driven in groups to the suburbs. After, I'd meet up in DC with the kids I carpooled with. Some nights, if my group returned to the office before my carpoolers, I'd talk to the local hookers. One of them once said that she saw no difference between taking money for sex, versus taking payment in the form of a nice dinner and perhaps jewelry. I've always thought about that…..

Point is, the act itself, is not all that horrible. (Mann Act notwithstanding -- transport is BAD.)

I know someone today who hooked tricks a bunch of years ago. If you met her, you wouldn't know -- she looks just like all the other suburban housewives.

But back to Governor Spitzer. The thing that makes this fun is that he PROSECUTED prostitution rings. (A bad joke would be to find out whether when he was with the woman, he gave her a driver's license….think back a few months and laugh along.) He ran for governor on a platform of ethics.

In politics, there are men who should really know better and NEVER get caught with a hooker à Jimmy Carter, Gerry Ford, Abe Lincoln, to name a few. HOWEVER, we would think nothing of it if there was actual art of Bill Clinton with a hooker. Or Gary Hart. Or even Sam Adams. It's all in what you say you are.

He'll resign soon -- and if you're keeping count, that's one SuperDelegate down for Hillary.

And speaking of Hillary -- she has a part in the character debate also. Hillary Clinton is running on her WHITE HOUSE experience, NOT her Senate Armed Services Committee experience. Listen to her stump speeches -- she talks about things from the 90's and NEVER mentions her A.S. experience except to apologize for her Iraq vote (sort of apologize…..) She actually can't -- her voting record would hurt her with the Democratic base. (And yes, I'll be posting her voting record -- probably this weekend.)

But she runs on her White House record, and yesterday she got caught. Twice. Just like Spitzer -- what she did wasn't bad -- but she set up the context, and then she lied.

First -- her claim that she brokered peace in Northern Ireland. From her web site: "She has continued to advance peace in Northern Ireland by maintaining close ties with Irish leaders and promoting business partnerships between Northern Ireland and the United States." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/security/

From the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

And then there was the trip to Bosnia. From A Clinton press release in 2007: "As First Lady she worked for reconciliation in the aftermath of wars and she led humanitarian efforts for Bosnia and on behalf of Kosovar refugees." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4573

Then again, to actually SEE what she did, check the art: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-willis/hillary-clintons-experi_b_90588.html where you will see that her refuge experience was limited to standing on stage at a USO show with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow, Sinbad, and an unidentified US Army officer -- SINGING.

There is nothing wrong with going on a USO tour, nor visiting Ireland. Just don't claim you worked on the peace process. ESPECIALLY if you're going to cite it AS your foreign policy experience.

And that isn't even my favourite lack-of-character hypocrisy. THAT is reserved for the PLO. That's (so far) the best failing fact check. Hillary Clinton has said many times that she is a great supporter of Israel. Yet she did something that NO OTHER U.S. politician has EVER done. She kissed a terrorist. And yes, there is art. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm. Back in 1999 Hillary listened to a speech by Soha (Mrs. Yasser) Arafat where Soha claimed that Israelis were gassing Palestinian children. Something that never has, and never could, occur. After the speech, Hillary kissed Soha on both cheeks. Check the picture.

Jessica's rule -- sure, run on your record Eliot. Run on your record, Hilary. But make sure it's a record you can actually live.

 

 

 

Why I am a Proud, Liberal Democrat

When she died last year at the age of 106, my grandmother was a proud Democrat who had never missed an election. I was born into a family that valued not only the Party and its principles, but the political process. In my extended family, if you were old enough to stand on a box and reach a table, you were old enough to stuff envelopes. I worked my first election at the age of 3.

But "because that's how I was brought up" is not reason enough to make the choice as an adult as to which party one wishes to belong. I am a proud, liberal, Democrat because of the ideals and principles involved in the Democratic Party platform and its proud history. While I may not always agree with all of the members of the party and what they stand for as individuals, one of the fundamental tenets of the Democratic Party has always been that many voices are better than one.

The Democratic Party is the oldest continuous political party in the US. The party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790's as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights, a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a weaker Federal government (relative to States Rights). Jefferson was elected as the third President of the US under the banner of the "party of the common man", officially named the Democratic-Republican Party. The party split in 1824, emerging as the Democratic Party with the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, Abraham Lincoln later being the first Republican president.

In the 20^th Century, the Democratic Party brought great change to America. Things that we take for granted today were codified by Democratic administrations and Congresses; including, but not limited to: the eight-hour work day, Civil Rights Legislation (integrated schools, voting rights, prohibition of discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin, and prohibition of housing discrimination), affirmative action, the lowering of the voting age to 18, and the repeal of prohibition.

But it is not just the elected officials who make a Party, it is the people who work for the party (formally and informally). The first US party platform was put forth by the Democrats in 1840. To this day, any registered Democrat can apply to be a part of the platform committee, and Democrats can also testify to make their feelings known to the whole platform committee. It is truly a big tent. The platform is the framework of goals and aspirations: what the Party views as imperative to make America better.

The 1840 platform was brief, and was concerned with limiting the powers of the Federal Government, including avoiding chartering a National Bank, and conferring most powers to the individual States, resolving that every citizen had the right to equality of rights and privileges, and to protection from domestic violence and foreign aggression.

The current platform, from 2004, is much longer then the first, and reflects a world which faces challenges inconceivable to the early Democrats. It is entitled "Strong at Home, Respected in the World" and answers not just to making America stronger in terms of reformed health, education and jobs programs, but also handling terrorism, nuclear weapons, the world-wide AIDS epidemic, renewable energy, and equality for all.

The final words of the 2004 Platform are as follow: "Members of our party have deeply held and differing views on some matters of conscience and faith. We view diversity of views as a source of strength, and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who seek to build a stronger America. We are committed to resolving our differences in a spirit of civility, hope and mutual respect. That's the America we believe in."

That is the America I believe in, and the Party I think has the best chance of getting us to where we need to be in a dangerous and difficult world. Democrats have a long history of being able to set lofty goals and then achieve them: FDR and his Kitchen Cabinet got us out of the Depression, JFK wanted a man on the moon in a decade, and that occurred sooner than expected, Johnson fought for a Great Society, and much was accomplished in those turbulent times. Were these men, and their associates, perfect? No, certainly not. But their intentions were true, and they made great strides.

I leave you with the words of two great Democrats, who espouse better than I ever could, why I am a Democrat. First, JFK, speaking to the Liberal Party of New York in 1960: "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" … [I]if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.""

And finally, his brother Ted, after losing the nomination in 1980: "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

 

Written by the blog author -- Reprinted by permission from the Mensa Bulletin, September, 2007.

 

Philadelphia -- More than cheesesteaks and pretzels

Today I'd like to rant about the media. But since most of them are called "talking heads" for a reason -- it probably isn't entirely their fault.

First -- Texas. Despite what you may have heard about Clinton winning Texas, she won the popular vote, but she LOST the delegate count. And in the same way as one can win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, the same holds in Democratic primaries. Don't like it? Change the rules -- but these ARE the rules for now. Finally tally of pledged delegates is Obama 98, Clinton 94.

But for some reason the media, DESPITE understanding the process, keeps referring to Clinton as the front runner. Obama is ahead by somewhere between 100 and 150 pledged delegates, ahead in the popular vote, and down on the SuperDelegate count by about 40. Add it all together, and just call me confused.

Here at Ground Zero, there was a big meeting in Philadelphia on Friday -- something called the City Committee. A place where all 60+ ward leaders for the party meet. Bill Clinton came to nail down an endorsement. Bill Clinton, one of the biggest guns in the party. He came with the support of Ed Rendell (PA Governor) and Michael Nutter (Philadelphia mayor). He spoke for well over an hour. The Obama surrogate was Patrick Murphy -- a first term Congressman. From the Philadelphia suburbs in Bucks County. Not the world's greatest speaker. Won his seat 2 years ago by virtue of being and Iraq vet. The City Committee yielded to Murphy's request that no endorsement be forthcoming. As an aside, both Hillary and Obama will be speaking IN PERSON to the City Committee in a few weeks.

Chris Matthews (currently an MSNBC pundit, a Philadelphia local, a speech writer for Tip O'Neill, and brother to a Montgomery County (again, a Philly burb) County Commissioner) -- talked about it. No one else that I could find on the news did. To give you an idea of how important the Philadelphia vote will be in the primary -- Philadelphia Democratic registration in 2007 was equal to 10% of the total (Democratic, Republican + Independent) registration for the entire state. More importantly, registered Democrats are 75% of the Philadelphia electorate. Herewith, the numbers, all based on November 2007 registrations, courtesy of the PA Department of State:

County        Where        Registered Democrats    Percentage of Total

Allegheny    Pittsburgh        542,036            61%

Berks        Phl burb        106,085            45%

Bucks        Phl burb        165,571            40%

Chester    Phl burb         92,317            32%

Delaware    Phl burb        132,783            35%

Montgomery    Phl burb        217,036            40%

Philadelphia    Phl            749,652            75%

 

 

 

Herman, Roosevelt, Roques-Arroyo - A Civics Lesson

Do you know those names?

Actually, the full names are Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr., and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo.

"Do you know me now?"

We'll come back to them; today's topic is Michigan and Florida.

But before we even get to that, I'd like to tell you about a brand new technology from Google called "Grand Central -- Call Me". Let's say you read this e-mail, or read it on my docjess.blogspot.com blog. And you're angry at something I said (as was the case yesterday with a bunch of you). You want to yell -- now, on my blog is a button that says "Call Me" -- click the button, and Google will call you, you'll hear the kind of ring that the old black dial phones had, and then you can leave me a message which will go immediately to my cell phone and my e-mail. It is INCREDIBLY COOL. End of commercial, back to politics.

Since we have 48 days until the Pennsylvania primary, there is a lot of time to consider all sorts of things about this year's contest. One of those things is whether or not the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated in Denver. It is an interesting conundrum because base Constitutional tenets are pitted against personal feelings.

My personal love of the Constitution knows no bounds. And the 10^th Amendment gives every state the right to set election dates on any day they so decide. HOWEVER the 1^st Amendment gives the DNC the right to say they wouldn't accept any date prior to the 5^th of February. Pretty simple. THOSE ARE THE RULES. And I'm a big believer in rules, ESPECIALLY where elections are concerned. Let's all harken back to 2000. Oh yeah, butterfly ballots in Florida. Katherine Harris. His Honour Chief Justice Rehnquist. Let the nightmare return. Back then, a lot of us wanted the popular vote to hold, but the Constitution said no -- it's the Electoral College, and then the court of last resort. Sucks, but without the rule of law, emanating from the Constitution, we have nothing.

From that perspective, the delegations do not get seated.

BUT

The DNC has said that the states can re-run the primaries. (And this time, in Michigan, they could actually put ALL the names on the ballot, unlike what they did in January.)

Also but --

To be seated at the convention, your credentials need to be approved by the DNC Credentials Committee. I bring you back to Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr., and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo. Meet the 2008 DNC Credentials Committee. They can accept the delegate slates, modify the slates, deny the slates. Those are the rules; it's up to 3 people. Out of the 12 million who have voted so far. (And if you're interested, you can Google the names -- they're pretty interesting people.)

A side problem is where the Michigan and Florida delegates would stay in Denver, since the DNC has a sub-committee that "owns" all the hotel blocks in the city -- and rumour has it they aren't handing any out to those delegations. Then again, if you've ever done ANYTHING political, you're familiar with room sharing.

So what do we do? An interesting addition to this relates to the Pennsylvania primary. The Clinton campaign never submitted a full delegate slate to the state, so if she wins, there is a question about which human delegates will represent her in Denver. And remember, as I keep harping, NO delegate, pledged or Super, is required to honour the candidate to which they committed. They can change their minds on the Convention floor.

What do you think? If you have a heart-felt opinion, you can write to the Credentials Committee. You can send a letter, or an e-mail, or call them. http://www.demconvention.com/contact-us/?lang=en
has all the contact information. The trick to politics comes from Tip O’Neill. (And if you don’t know who he was, PLEASE don’t ask me -- my heart can’t take it) -- He said “All politics is local” -- I say "All politics is retail” (Apologies to every English teacher I ever had. Honest.)

Things get accomplished in the political realm from both the top down and the bottom up. Politicians run for office. Some of them as often as every two years -- and if you open with “I have an opinion, AND I VOTE” -- they listen. From one end of the spectrum to the other, up to and including Rick Santorum, politicians normally vote their constituencies, provided those constituencies make themselves heard.

Whether the Michigan and Florida delegations get seated as they are, or with a different slate, or not at all, might affect the outcome of the nomination. Might not (it depends how one runs the numbers, and what the final delegate count is on June 7^th). But whether they are seated says a lot about process and outcome.

I have heard from a bunch of you who say “Yeah, but I’m one person, what I do doesn’t matter.” I’m one person. This e-mail goes to a distribution list with 220 names on it at last count. I know it’s forwarded. The email is posted on a blog which is read by another 40 or so people (that I know about). So let’s say a few other people forward the information, or share it. It might be that what I say reaches 300 people on any given day. Think that number doesn’t make a difference? Remember: Al Gore lost Florida by 533 votes.

Tell the DNC what you think. Tell your SuperDelegates what you think. EVERY sitting House and Senate Democrat is a SuperDelegate. More than 25% of the SuperDelegates are up for re-election 8 weeks after the convention. Trust me, they care what you think. Write your newspapers and magazines (if nothing else, it’s fun to see your name in the paper….) Be heard. How the Democratic Party nomination comes out this year is a function of participatory politics.

I leave you with a Margaret Mead quote à “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”