Geraldine Ferraro is an arrogant ass and needs to shut the hell up
Overview
I had meant to write this particular post before the end of February, but the Ann Richards endorsement from the grave deal got me more worked up.
Anyhoo, on February 25, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Geraldine Ferraro entitled "Got a Problem? Ask the Super," in which she explained and tried to justify the role of superdelegates in general and as a key part of the Hillary campaign in particular. In that op-ed, Ferraro brilliantly displayed the arrogance of the Hillary campaign.
For those who missed them, I have several posts discussing my distaste for superdelegates and Hillary's plan for them:
A little history--according to Ferraro
Ferraro began by explaining how and why superdelegates were created.
Anyhoo, Ferraro explained that 1) unifying the party was the objective, 2) it was thought that having members of Congress being active participants in the national convention would be a way to achieve unity, but 3) "Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics." Remember that last part, for I will use it to show just how stupid and hypocritical Ferraro is.
So the solution was to make members of Congress--and others--delegates without requiring them to be elected as such. And this made perfect sense because...?
The "little people" should not decide anything.
One of my major complaints about this Ferraro op-ed is that she displays a high degree of arrogance and dismissal of the wishes of anyone but the power elite.
For Ferraro, "the party" is all about the power elite, not the people who voted to put those people in power. As proof, check out this portion of the op-ed:
And don't think Ferraro is the only person in Hillary's campaign who has expressed that view. As noted in Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary, Mark Penn said one month ago that of all the states Obama had won, only Illinois was a "significant state." And two days later Harold Ickes, who is in charge of Hillary's superdelgate campaign, offered these nuggets:
And now, for something completely not different--hypocrisy and bullshit.
Ferraro wants people to think that she is really for mandates from the rank-and-file and/or the grassroots, but a simple analysis shows she is not. After noting that "pundits and many others" say that the rank-and-file should determine the nominee rather than the superdelegates, Ferraro wrote that "Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." Gee, that sounds just like what Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, etc. have been saying when trying to dismiss and marginalize those primaries and caucuses won by Obama. Ferraro went on to say that
Apparently, Ferraro has either forgotten or does not care that in America, we have a democracy in which the public--the "rank-and-file" or the "grassroots"--chooses people to be their representatives, not their rulers. It would also seem that Ferraro has forgotten that elected officials in this country serve at the pleasure of the public. In other words, if the public feels that a given official has not actually represented them, the public can--and often does--boot that official out of office, primarily through the election process. Oh, but she has not forgotten...Remember that Ferraro said that superdelegates were created in part so that elected officials would not have to become regular delegates by "running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate" because that "is not exactly good politics."
Which brings us to the last bits of Ferraro's steaming pile of op-ed bullshit.
Ferraro then segues into a plea to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, with her main point being
Conclusion
Ferraro's op-ed shows plainly that she is arrogant, hypocritical, and either not too bright or guilty of believing her own bullshit (or both). If her statements and behavior were attributable only to her, they would be largely irrelevant, especially since she is no longer officially with the Hillary campaign. However, statements and conduct remarkably like Ferraro's have been committed by Hillary and her top campaign staffers. Thus, Ferraro's op-ed is a direct reflection of Hillary's views and how she operates. You want a President that is arrogant, condescending, hypocritical, and doesn't care what you or the public at large might think? Then join Geraldine Ferraro and vote for Hillary.
Otherwise, wake the hell up.
I had meant to write this particular post before the end of February, but the Ann Richards endorsement from the grave deal got me more worked up.
Anyhoo, on February 25, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Geraldine Ferraro entitled "Got a Problem? Ask the Super," in which she explained and tried to justify the role of superdelegates in general and as a key part of the Hillary campaign in particular. In that op-ed, Ferraro brilliantly displayed the arrogance of the Hillary campaign.
For those who missed them, I have several posts discussing my distaste for superdelegates and Hillary's plan for them:
- A recent Hillogism: Obama is the "establishment" candidate. (Part 3: Superdelegates) (February 14, 2008)
- Let's talk about superdelegates. (February 20, 2008)
- Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary (February 24, 2008)
A little history--according to Ferraro
Ferraro began by explaining how and why superdelegates were created.
After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting.(emphasis added). Ferraro seems to have forgotten that many Democratic members of Congress had "walked away" from Carter long before the 1980 campaign. As I said earlier, "I have long felt that a major reason he was largely ineffective as President was because the Democrats in Congress actively worked against him." So what was done about this "walking away" problem?
In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.Well, what do you know? Ferraro was in charge of creating the superdelegates in the first place. So I guess she will be able to give a completely "fair and balanced" analysis of the need for the superdelegates...
Anyhoo, Ferraro explained that 1) unifying the party was the objective, 2) it was thought that having members of Congress being active participants in the national convention would be a way to achieve unity, but 3) "Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics." Remember that last part, for I will use it to show just how stupid and hypocritical Ferraro is.
So the solution was to make members of Congress--and others--delegates without requiring them to be elected as such. And this made perfect sense because...?
These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.And now let's take a closer look at this "reasoning."
The "little people" should not decide anything.
One of my major complaints about this Ferraro op-ed is that she displays a high degree of arrogance and dismissal of the wishes of anyone but the power elite.
For Ferraro, "the party" is all about the power elite, not the people who voted to put those people in power. As proof, check out this portion of the op-ed:
Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.(emphasis added). See? Mere voters and citizens cannot be expected to know what is best for the country. Only the superdelegates can do that. And mere voters and citizens cannot be trusted to choose who will run for President. Only the superdelgates should be allowed to make that determination.
But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.
And don't think Ferraro is the only person in Hillary's campaign who has expressed that view. As noted in Superdelegates, arrogance, and hypocrisy from Hillary, Mark Penn said one month ago that of all the states Obama had won, only Illinois was a "significant state." And two days later Harold Ickes, who is in charge of Hillary's superdelgate campaign, offered these nuggets:
"Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates (superdelegates) than Obama," Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is "irrelevant to the obligations of (superdelegates)."Thus, Ferraro is not just showing her own arrogance and disregard for mere voters and citizens, she is reiterating Hillary's attitude that has been consistently on display in her campaign.
And now, for something completely not different--hypocrisy and bullshit.
Ferraro wants people to think that she is really for mandates from the rank-and-file and/or the grassroots, but a simple analysis shows she is not. After noting that "pundits and many others" say that the rank-and-file should determine the nominee rather than the superdelegates, Ferraro wrote that "Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats." Gee, that sounds just like what Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, etc. have been saying when trying to dismiss and marginalize those primaries and caucuses won by Obama. Ferraro went on to say that
Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.Well, guess what? Having a small group of power elites potentially overturn the will of the electorate as expressed in large-scale democratic processes is even freakin' further from being a grassroots mandate. And yet that is precisely what Ferraro is defending and promoting.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
Apparently, Ferraro has either forgotten or does not care that in America, we have a democracy in which the public--the "rank-and-file" or the "grassroots"--chooses people to be their representatives, not their rulers. It would also seem that Ferraro has forgotten that elected officials in this country serve at the pleasure of the public. In other words, if the public feels that a given official has not actually represented them, the public can--and often does--boot that official out of office, primarily through the election process. Oh, but she has not forgotten...Remember that Ferraro said that superdelegates were created in part so that elected officials would not have to become regular delegates by "running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate" because that "is not exactly good politics."
Which brings us to the last bits of Ferraro's steaming pile of op-ed bullshit.
Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.Perhaps??? Give me a break...And for your information, you elitist asshole, my problem with superdelegates is that they can be "unrepresentative" to the extreme. As I wrote before,
As a practical matter, the superdelegates might not exercise their power in such a way as to thwart the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses. I would certainly hope that would be the case--even if Hillary manages to regain the lead in pledged delegates by the time of the convention. Having a relatively small group of establishment players determine a "democratic" process in a most non-democratic fashion could spell disaster for the Democratic Party for years to come.(emphasis added). But for Ferraro, the only possible people who object to superdelegates are Obama supporters, and the only possible reason they complain is because many superdelegates support Hillary. And Ferraro must know better than me or anyone else, because she is, after all, a superdelegate herself. But wait, there is more arrogance and hypocrisy...
And I am watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton — I assume because she was the leader they felt could best represent the party and lead the country — now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.Let's see...Running against a constituent to become a delegate is bad politics, but taking action that would nullify the votes of thousands of constituents is all right? Following the desires of the people you are supposed to represent is bad and disappointing? What kind of twisted bullshit is that? Let me put this in terms that Ferraro might understand: if the superdelegates vote against their constituents, then many of those constituents might not just walk but run away from the party. But wait, there's more...
Ferraro then segues into a plea to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, with her main point being
The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.So, for Ferraro it is bad to effectively disenfranchise voters from two states won by Hillary, but it is perfectly fine for superdelegates to nullify the votes of and effectively disenfranchise voters in the 28 states (out of 43, counting D.C.) won by Obama.
Conclusion
Ferraro's op-ed shows plainly that she is arrogant, hypocritical, and either not too bright or guilty of believing her own bullshit (or both). If her statements and behavior were attributable only to her, they would be largely irrelevant, especially since she is no longer officially with the Hillary campaign. However, statements and conduct remarkably like Ferraro's have been committed by Hillary and her top campaign staffers. Thus, Ferraro's op-ed is a direct reflection of Hillary's views and how she operates. You want a President that is arrogant, condescending, hypocritical, and doesn't care what you or the public at large might think? Then join Geraldine Ferraro and vote for Hillary.
Otherwise, wake the hell up.
posted by WCharles @ 3/14/2008 09:56:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home