April 18, 2008

Should Howard Dean step down?

An increasingly firm Howard Dean told CNN again Thursday that he needs superdelegates to say who they’re for – and “I need them to say who they’re for starting now.”

“We cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time,” the Democratic National Committee Chairman told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We’ve got to know who our nominee is.”

After facing criticism for a mostly hands-off leadership style during much of the primary season, Dean has been steadily raising the rhetorical pressure on superdelegates. He said Thursday that roughly 65 percent of them have made their preference plain, but that more than 300 have yet to make up their minds.

The national party chair, who has remained neutral throughout the primary process, said again it’s his job to make sure both candidates feel they are treated fairly – but not to tell either of them when to end their run. (Political Ticker)
Howard Dean's words appear to violate the spirit, and indeed the law, of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States (pdf). Actually, the charter has lots of charges to the Democratic Party, one of which is:
"Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, the formulation of policy, and the conduct of other Party affairs, without prejudice on the basis of sex, race, age (if of voting age), color, creed, national origin, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, ethnic identity or physical disability, and further, to promote fair campaign practices and the fair adjudication of disputes.[Article I; Section 4] (empahsis mine)
Huh. I don't see any where in the charter where it says that a nomination should be decided before all participants have had a chance to make their voices heard. Howard Dean's job is to make sure ALL Democrats get to participate. This should be his highest priority. If it's not, he should resign.

For the first time in decades, states that have not previously had a say in selecting our Party's nominee have a chance to have an influence, and I will be damned if their voices will be silenced because Howard Dean is worried about healing staffing phone banks, conducting precinct walks, ordering campaign materials and raising money.

Furthermore, and a lot of people may not realize this, but it is the National Convention which is the highest ruling authority of the Democratic Party, not the National Committee. In fact, this is true at the county, state and national level.
The National Convention shall be the highest authority of the Democratic Party, subject to the provisions of this charter. [Article Two, Section 2]
On the other hand, the National Committee
...shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of the Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. [Article Three, Section 1]
So, why is the national chairman of our party trying to take the nominating process out of the hands of Democrats, and worse, out of the hands of the delegates to the National Convention? If we must know who our nominee is now, why bother with holding a convention at all? If we must know now and start campaigning now, then the Convention will be nothing more than a collossal waste of money orchestrated under the authority of the DNC, rather than the DNC operating under the authority of the National Convention. Gosh, we could just save ourselves time and money and get on with using that money for ad buys. Or campaign lit. Or phone lines. I mean, really, why bother if the nominee is predetermined?

One of the most exciting things about our county convention was NOT knowing the end result. When all was said and done after a long day in Lyon County, we split our delegates right down the middle, and everyone is eager to proceed to the next step: the state convention in May, where again, the end result IS NOT KNOWN. So why, exactly, must we know NOW who our nominee is?

From the preamble to the Charter:
We, the Democrats of the United States of America, united in common purpose, hereby rededicate ourselves to the principles which have historically sustained our Party. Recognizing that the vitality of the Nation's political institutions has been the foundation of its enduring strength, we acknowledge that a political party that wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead, a party which asks for the people's trust must prove that it trusts the people and a party which hopes to call forth the best the Nation can achieve must embody the best of the Nation's heritage and traditions.

"...must prove it trusts the people..."

In 2004, Howard Dean ran on a platform of people power. We who supported him called him "People-Powered Howard."

Well Howard...DO you trust the people?

1 comment:

LE said...

Yes, Howard Deen should step down.

The U.S. ranks 70th in the world in the number of women it has elected to office, between Cambodia and Zimbabwe, according to www.ipu.org, so why is it that the first woman Presidential contender is asked to drop out before the race is over?

The conventions are the time and place when the nominee is chosen. This happens in August. This is what the conventions are for.

If you compare Obama's accomplishments, qualifications, experience, know-how to Hillary Clinton's he comes out far short. He is completely unqualified and inexperienced—why would anyone vote for him in the general election?

Karl Rove is behind the surge of Obama, and if the Democrats chose him McCain will win by a landslide.

From,TheCityEdition.com, "Bamboozling the American Electorite Again":

"According to an article in Time magazine last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. While Rove's name isn't mentioned in the story, several former fundraisers and strategists for President Bush are identified. Together, these gentlemen flushed Obama's coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator achieved a remarkable feat, given that most Americans only first heard of him in 2005."

"it's nevertheless hard to picture the voting pattern Newton-Small implies here: Nixon - Reagan - Bush - Dole - Bush - Obama. Incredibly, this through-the-looking-glass rationale is widely shared by journalists, pundits and politicians across the political spectrum. Many advance the equally suspect position that Clinton, the first-ever viable female candidate for president, represents the past."

Why would Republicans vote for the most Liberal senator in the senate? This is just a tactic to remove Hillary Clinton, the better qualified candidate. They are doing to Hillary what they did to Al Gore. Imagine what our world would be like if Gore had won—no Iraq war, that's for sure; the budget surplus that Clinton left, with a lockbox for social security, instead of a record deficit. Please learn the facts. Support Hillary Clinton. Do it now before it is too late.

Hillary will be a great President. Please watch some videos that can inform you on who Hillary is, the Hillary that I see, and what she has had to endure:

Sexism, Misogyny, Women's History & Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments

Hillary is a Fighter

Who Hillary Clinton Really Is