Yvette Clarke, not-so-superdelegate

From the New York Times (via the Prospect Lefferts email list), we learn that Congresswoman Yvette Clarke supports Hillary Clinton for President -- even though our district went for Barack Obama.

This happens to matter because Clarke is a superdelegate, which means she can vote for whoever she pleases in the when it comes down to the convention, and she has pledged her delegate to Clinton as well.

Seeing as Clarke was elected to represent this district, it would be behoove residents of this fine neighborhood to remind her of that fact, and to demand that she stick by her constituents—and by the candidate with the most votes.

District Office
123 Linden Boulevard 4th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11226
Phone: (718) 287-1142
Fax: (718) 287-1223

Washington Office
1029 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6231
Fax: (202) 226-0112

Email:
http://clarke.house.gov/contactform_zipcheck.shtml

(Remember, snail mail and faxes have more of an impact than email.)

Comments

[Vivian Oliver]

The role of the superdelegates is not to simply rubber-stamp the vote of their constituents. They should vote based on their judgment of the candidates' qualifications and electibility. In this case, Yvette did the right thing.

[Charles Star]

The very existence of superdelegates is an insult to democracy. They are an incentive to hackery. Yvette is free to vote for whoever she likes - one person, one vote and all that - but her superdelegate position is a direct result of her election by her district constituents.

The use of her superdelegate vote to essentially negate the district's votes for Obama is an insult and a failure.

[jessica]

Clarke is clearly hedging her bets. If Clinton wins the presidency, Clarke's got an ally in the White House. If she doesn't win the presidency, Clinton stays in New York and Clarke still has to interact with her. Clarke has nothing to lose (other than the possible support of her constituents) by not voting for Obama.

Clarke is playing by the rules within the system that is in place, as much as it sucks. All this nonsense coming from a country that tries to ram "democracy" down the throats of others.

[LM]

Just as we don't have referendums (one person one vote) on every issue that Congress votes on and instead our elected representatives use their judgement to decide in our name, so it is with the superdelegates.

And just as our elected representatives differ on what to vote for so it will be that these representative will be split on the candidates. We need to maintain calm about the process and unity behind the results.

[Charles Star]

I guess I'll put away the pitchfork and extinguish the torch, LM.

This isn't the same as a Congressional vote, though. The election actually IS a referendum in which the people get to directly decide an issue. Superdelegates are not an example of elected officials deciding things indirectly; they are a function of a party rewarding loyalty at the expense of democracy. Clarke happens to be an elected official but there are party apparatchiks who hold superdelegate votes and are not elected by anyone. A vote against the professed candidate is not an act of conscience so much as an act of self-interest. The voters will probably forget her superdelegate vote; the Clintons forget nothing.

Good points, Jessica, but I'm complaining about the rules as much as I'm complaining about Clarke's vote.

[kendall]

While you shouldn’t hesitate making your opinion known, in any consideration of pressure to be put on Congresswoman Clarke re her role as a super-delegate, ‘tis worth noting that a) delegates from our CD were split 3:3; and, b) that Clinton carried both Brooklyn and New York State (all but one upstate county), all of which are factors in assessing both the collective will of New Yorkers and our collective best interests….alas, this primary season still has a ways to go before this virtual tie is sorted out…

[jessica]

I'm with you Charles, but we can't blame Yvette Clarke for the crappy delegate system we have.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

The convention is about selecting leaders to win an election, that is what the delegates, super, elected and otherwise are supposed to do. It is about party building and leadership it is not a referendum. We all can define democracy in any ideal way we wish. However, electing a representative to go to a convention and do the best they can to bring home a winner to the party is OK with me. To get bogged down in a silly debate about the purity of the process is only one more boost to electing one more idiot suburban Republican.

[kendall]

total non-sequitur, but curious factoid: Nevada turned out @ 10,000 delegates statewide for its Democratic cause, just slightly more than voted in our single Congressional district....yet awarded more total (pledged) delegates (@ 12) than our six....

[Denise]

What is the point of voting if the true "voice" of the people is not heard nor respected. This election has had the overall largest turn-out in years for a primary which transcends economic, geographical and racial divides. The DNC needs to do away with this Super Delegate nonesense where there is a tendency to broker and lobby these delegates in return for promises and favors and who knows what else? In the past elections, young adults have been distrustful of politics and politicians and as such did not see the point in voting. Many young people in my community of Crown Heights North that I have spoken with expressed hope in Obama that not the "same old politics" will prevail as it has in the past. Many had doubts too about JFK being the youngest and not as experienced canidate back then... but the people spoke. Yes, we all want the strongest candidate to win who can go up against McCain and I (along with many others in my area) feel that Obama is the one. There is too much "old" baggage with the "Clintons". They've had their time and change from the old guard has arrived.

D. Brown from Crown Heights North.

[Nic]

I agree Denise. Obama has inspired people. And if he's inspired people of color partly because he is one, that inspiration should be honored, especially in a district created by the Voting Rights Act and once represented by Shirley Chisholm (who, by the way, fought hard in Congress to be sure she was representing the needs of her district.)Yvette Clarke won her seat as a result, in my opinion, of her and her mother's popularity among Caribbeans in this area. How can she turn her back on them?

The polls were PACKED when I went to vote. It was a beautiful thing. To negate that is unconscionable. I personally voted for Hillary but if I was outnumbered by my neighbors then so be it.

[annie]

Can we start a campaign for
David Yassky? I'm African American, Harvard Grad, Obama supporter, and I'd like to have the most qualified people representing me, of whatever race, and that clearly does NOT include the corrupt, dishonest, mediocre Yvette Clarke. Enough, already.

[Ron]

Unless she's ice on the inside, Yvettte has to be concerned about the choice she's made, though truthfully many of the city's congresspersons (okay, at least three of them, she, Towns and Meeks) must feel between a rock and a hard place.

Going against Obama, for a thinking person who sees the country through New York's rainbow lens, especially a person of color who sees it so, must carry some psychic discomfort with it.

The problem of course is that politicians are often more able than others to bury (or even obliterate) these sensitive feelings under the heavy weight of expediency.

Ron (brooklynron.com)