Republicans have nothing to worry about; they are pretty much locked, stocked, and ready to rock for this year’s election behind the aging, senile horse that is John McCain. Democrats and/or non-Republicans are a little more unsure of who their horse might actually be. Is it the (faux?) idealist in Barack Obama, or is it the expertise in Hillary Clinton?
The general public through this electoral season has spoken relatively loud and proud for Obama. The hope and excitement he has inflicted upon voters of all ages, races and creeds is beyond impressive; it’s a little scary. The last time the country had an idealist in office that inspired us to change the world ended in a tragic public assassination in Nov. 1963. But damn, that Kennedy fellow sure was a stud. And you know what, Obama has a very “Kennedyesque” posture to him, which is freakin’ inspiring to all holy hell, but it’s also pretty terrifying seeing as how it all ended. The point is, no one since Kennedy – with maybe a slight exception at Bill – has rallied the young and the hopeful as successfully as Obama.
That being said, why is the Democratic race so effin’ close? By all assumptions, shouldn’t Obama have jousted Clinton from her high horse a long while ago? Well, Democrats, we are not as holy as we may all think because we – not the evil, greedy Republicans – created the superdelegate. As it currently stands, Obama has the general delegate lead, but follows Clinton when it comes to superdelegates.
Who cares though, right?
Superdelegates – in case you didn’t already know – are basically current or former elected officials (politicians) who have a personal vote for either candidate, and they do not have to listen to their best friend, their community, their fellow party members, their voters, or anyone else when voting. Superdelegates have no one to answer to but themselves. So in theory, Obama could win the general delegates election – aka the people’s choice – but lose the Democratic nomination.
If you are thinking, “Jesus H. McGillicutty Christ, that sure sounds like the most blatantly corrupt political device I have ever heard of,” you are not wrong because in fact, it is. Does everyone understand that giving politicians – who by nature are lying, corrupt, power and money-hungry whores – the option of being persuaded by either candidate is extremely dangerous and boldly undemocratic? Through the Democratic Party’s perception, not all men and women were created equally because even though most Americans are given the right to vote – unless that is of course you are a habitual marijuana offender – some Americans apparently are born with more rights.
As Dave Chappelle said in his legendary standup “Killing Them Softly” on voting and politicians: “I don’t even look at their political policies; I just look at their character. You gotta read between the lines.” Although you should probably consider political policies before voting, you also definitely have to take Chappelle’s advice and pursue the motivations and intentions behind a politician’s actions. The question voters need to ask – and again, Republicans can sit this one out – is why does Obama lead in general public opinion, but Clinton receive more superdelegate votes? Essentially, why does the public seem to prefer Obama, while politicians prefer Clinton?
The reason, my friends and fellow voters, is this: Those politicians are on the take for Clinton. As badly as I would love to see Bill back in office – and probably secretly running the whole thing – it is tragically American that a political candidate such as Clinton, who is supposed to represent the more socially aware political party, utilizes her preposterously gargantuan bankroll more effectively than her competition does. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pretty sure Obama does some moderately dirty tricks too, but at least they aren’t so obvious as this collection of superdelegates.
Look at it this way: Suppose the NBA decided its playoff contenders in a similar fashion to the Democratic candidate nomination. Instead of the traditional “may the best man win” mentality, we’ll change the rules so that the top teams from each conference with the most franchise championships will determine who will play in the NBA Finals, regardless who may or may not have been knocked out of the playoffs. So that could mean, Golden State might destroy the craptacular Dallas Mavericks again this year – but it wouldn’t matter because the L.A. Lakers have 14 championship trophies. And whom do you think they are going to vote for? The Lakers. If this was how it worked, you could expect the Lakers/Celtics rivalry to reignite and stay aflame for another century. Thank God this isn’t necessarily the case, even though a Lakers/Celtics Finals is probably what you can expect this year anyway.
Back to the political universe. Who will superdelegates “vote” for when they are essentially delegates for hire? The politician with the most money of course! The simple fact that Clinton has courted more superdelegates than Obama, while he has more “regular” delegates, makes me trust Clinton a lot less. The outright corruption that is the superdelegate cannot be trusted, and you must fight the grain. So in May, when the Oregon primary finally arrives, we might actually have a say in this Democratic nomination. Do the right thing, vote in another Kennedy (and pray no one gets shot), and fight political corruption through an Obama vote.
[email protected]