 |  |  |  |  |
The Pundit Post
So Much for the High Road
by Tammy J Fischer Labey
May 27, 2008
There's been considerable debate taking place in the land of Blog over the past couple days over how to bring unity to the
party in lieu of HRC's stated determination to "fight" for the nomination. Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all if everyone were
playing by the rules; but Hillary Rodham Clinton is not playing by the rules. In fact most of her supporters unabashedly
acknowledge HRC has no intention of honoring any rules not favorable to her objective at any given time.
This alone is a disturbing representation of skewed American values. My dad served four (peacetime) years in the Navy w/an
honorable discharge shortly before I was born; now in his seventies, so internalized were the values he learned during those
formative years as a young man, he references them as a matter of course to this day. As his kids, we grew up thinking these
were the values for which our country stands; not least of which was the understanding that there is no honor in making
disingenuous arguments based on a false premise, fabrication, and outright lies. And a great deal of emphasis was placed on
"fighting fair" presumably because we were coming out of WWII where the Germans and Japanese decided the Geneva
convention didn't apply. At any rate, in our world people who broke the rules were automatically disqualified from playing the
game.
It’s a value so widely held dear that we make “examples” out of sports figures who break the rules; Marion Jones will go to her
grave stripped of the five gold medals she was awarded in 2000 when it was discovered after the fact that her “whatever it
takes” commitment to winning the honor included breaking the rules...and that's in addition to a 6 month jail sentence, two year
suspension and early retirement. Essentially she was shamed, lest our daughters get the wrong idea that it was okay to cheat.
Yet, Hillary Clinton openly flaunts a "whatever it takes" campaign strategy as though it were a virtue. It is NOT: It is instead a
flagrant disrespect for party rules. That Mrs. Clinton herself signed an agreement to abide by the DNC tenets set forth at the
contest onset seems to be of little concern in the absence of any calls for a public explanation; certainly she has not seen fit to
offer up any type of rationalization, let alone enlightenment as to her reasoning in breaking her agreement; divisive
ramifications therein be damned.
We are treated, rather, to a false argument charging the DNC w/disenfranchisement of its own constituency in determining a
nominee. Never mind the fact that nominee has never been determined by popular vote per the party rules. Never mind the fact
that there is no such thing as a popular vote in a primary caucus and they couldn’t be counted in any event. A nominee has
always been elected by delegates; it is incumbent on those delegates to represent the expressed intent of their respective
constituencies. The idea is that active voters who feel strongly about a given office have the opportunity to do so in getting
together w/the people in their community to discuss the pros and cons of self identified candidates. The process is intended to
vet prospective candidates, begin conversations, share ideas, and ultimately choose the person best suited to represent the
party interests in the general election.
As the first state to hold its primary caucus, Iowa is known for taking its responsibility seriously. This is not to say Iowa
determines the nominee, only to acknowledge the grueling process all of the self identified candidates endure in spending
untold hours under a microscope in the heartland—by way of noting, having been vetted by a group of Norwegians, Barack
Obama came out one top. No disrespect intended, but Hillary Clinton came in a distant third. And then the primary season
began in earnest, turning out unprecedented numbers of people who have decided it's time to get politically engaged for a
number of reasons but in no small part because Barack Obama has stirred a sense of hope in people who find in him a
candidate that is ready, willing, and able to begin the process of getting this great country of ours back on track.
Super Delegates, god bless 'em, were a concern early on because they have the ultimate decision making power and people
feared the "Clinton Machine" w/all their inner party connections in high places would override the expression of support for
Barack Obama out of a misplaced sense of indebtedness to the Clintons—over the best interest of the country. But one by one
and then two by two and then multiples therein the Super Delegates, god bless 'em, came to see the light. They are educated
life long political activists who can't help but see thru the smoke and mirror arguments HRC has been staging. But now the
Super Delegates et al are being challenged w/showing respect for Hillary Clinton—by way of putting her on the ticket.
What part of “NO” do the Clinton’s not understand?
So the real dilemma is how to enforce the rules, signed by all the candidates months ago, w/out alienating HRC’s supporters? It’
s time for the Super Delegates to step up and do their jobs; Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from the race but refueses to
bow out. It’s an outrage. We expect compliance to established rules from our kids, our law enforcement, our government—even
our athletes. Why, for love of country, would we accept anything less from our public servants running for office? Our worst
case scenario is materializing before our very eyes. It’s time to drag the Clintons off the stage kicking and screaming if need
be: In straight jackets if need be.
This Time: The integrity of our democratic process is at stake. This time, this year, the process is working because we the
people are mobilized, organized, and informed. We will settle for nothing less than truth, honor, and integrity in politics; it goes
to the core of the Change we seek.
by Tammy J Fischer Labey
May 27, 2008
There's been considerable debate taking place in the land of Blog over the past couple days over how to bring unity to the
party in lieu of HRC's stated determination to "fight" for the nomination. Of course, it wouldn't be an issue at all if everyone were
playing by the rules; but Hillary Rodham Clinton is not playing by the rules. In fact most of her supporters unabashedly
acknowledge HRC has no intention of honoring any rules not favorable to her objective at any given time.
This alone is a disturbing representation of skewed American values. My dad served four (peacetime) years in the Navy w/an
honorable discharge shortly before I was born; now in his seventies, so internalized were the values he learned during those
formative years as a young man, he references them as a matter of course to this day. As his kids, we grew up thinking these
were the values for which our country stands; not least of which was the understanding that there is no honor in making
disingenuous arguments based on a false premise, fabrication, and outright lies. And a great deal of emphasis was placed on
"fighting fair" presumably because we were coming out of WWII where the Germans and Japanese decided the Geneva
convention didn't apply. At any rate, in our world people who broke the rules were automatically disqualified from playing the
game.
It’s a value so widely held dear that we make “examples” out of sports figures who break the rules; Marion Jones will go to her
grave stripped of the five gold medals she was awarded in 2000 when it was discovered after the fact that her “whatever it
takes” commitment to winning the honor included breaking the rules...and that's in addition to a 6 month jail sentence, two year
suspension and early retirement. Essentially she was shamed, lest our daughters get the wrong idea that it was okay to cheat.
Yet, Hillary Clinton openly flaunts a "whatever it takes" campaign strategy as though it were a virtue. It is NOT: It is instead a
flagrant disrespect for party rules. That Mrs. Clinton herself signed an agreement to abide by the DNC tenets set forth at the
contest onset seems to be of little concern in the absence of any calls for a public explanation; certainly she has not seen fit to
offer up any type of rationalization, let alone enlightenment as to her reasoning in breaking her agreement; divisive
ramifications therein be damned.
We are treated, rather, to a false argument charging the DNC w/disenfranchisement of its own constituency in determining a
nominee. Never mind the fact that nominee has never been determined by popular vote per the party rules. Never mind the fact
that there is no such thing as a popular vote in a primary caucus and they couldn’t be counted in any event. A nominee has
always been elected by delegates; it is incumbent on those delegates to represent the expressed intent of their respective
constituencies. The idea is that active voters who feel strongly about a given office have the opportunity to do so in getting
together w/the people in their community to discuss the pros and cons of self identified candidates. The process is intended to
vet prospective candidates, begin conversations, share ideas, and ultimately choose the person best suited to represent the
party interests in the general election.
As the first state to hold its primary caucus, Iowa is known for taking its responsibility seriously. This is not to say Iowa
determines the nominee, only to acknowledge the grueling process all of the self identified candidates endure in spending
untold hours under a microscope in the heartland—by way of noting, having been vetted by a group of Norwegians, Barack
Obama came out one top. No disrespect intended, but Hillary Clinton came in a distant third. And then the primary season
began in earnest, turning out unprecedented numbers of people who have decided it's time to get politically engaged for a
number of reasons but in no small part because Barack Obama has stirred a sense of hope in people who find in him a
candidate that is ready, willing, and able to begin the process of getting this great country of ours back on track.
Super Delegates, god bless 'em, were a concern early on because they have the ultimate decision making power and people
feared the "Clinton Machine" w/all their inner party connections in high places would override the expression of support for
Barack Obama out of a misplaced sense of indebtedness to the Clintons—over the best interest of the country. But one by one
and then two by two and then multiples therein the Super Delegates, god bless 'em, came to see the light. They are educated
life long political activists who can't help but see thru the smoke and mirror arguments HRC has been staging. But now the
Super Delegates et al are being challenged w/showing respect for Hillary Clinton—by way of putting her on the ticket.
What part of “NO” do the Clinton’s not understand?
So the real dilemma is how to enforce the rules, signed by all the candidates months ago, w/out alienating HRC’s supporters? It’
s time for the Super Delegates to step up and do their jobs; Hillary Clinton has disqualified herself from the race but refueses to
bow out. It’s an outrage. We expect compliance to established rules from our kids, our law enforcement, our government—even
our athletes. Why, for love of country, would we accept anything less from our public servants running for office? Our worst
case scenario is materializing before our very eyes. It’s time to drag the Clintons off the stage kicking and screaming if need
be: In straight jackets if need be.
This Time: The integrity of our democratic process is at stake. This time, this year, the process is working because we the
people are mobilized, organized, and informed. We will settle for nothing less than truth, honor, and integrity in politics; it goes
to the core of the Change we seek.
The Pundit Post
Essays
Top Picks
Top Picks
