Clarke Sticking With Clinton

We recently got a tip that "superdelegate" Rep. Yvette Clarke was going to be attending a Clinton information session/fundraiser in Lefferts Manor.

We received more detail than we are willing to share — it seems unsporting to inspire a protest outside a neighbor's house for their political leanings — but mention it only to note that despite heading a district that had a higher percentage of voters choose Obama than chose her, Clarke clearly intends to stick with Clinton at the convention.

Comments

[carrie]

While I've been rooting for Obama, I'm much less concerned which Democrat gets the nomination than the fact that the continual war between both candidates is hurting the party's chances. I can in principle support a candidate voting against his/her constituency in some cases. But if Clarke and other superdelegates end up handing the win to a candidate widely perceived to have NOT actually won, they're going to lose a lot of their support in the national election. Only Democrats could come up with a strategy (if that's the word) this stupid.

[Matthew]

i second that, in part, carrie. it is time that clinton exit the race. with all the ill-will that clinton has espoused, i'll be supporting nader if the superdelegates choose clinton over obama.

[Bob Marvin]

Gee Matt--is it worth 100 more years?

I support Obama [and think he'll get the nomination], but would vote for Clinton against McCain without hesitation.

Look what Nader got us in 2000!

[LM]

As has been discussed before in these comments (or perhaps it was on the yahoo groups list) this is a representative democracy and we need to allow our elected representatives to do what they believe is best. Certainly we should let Ms Clarke know how we feel about all important issues and certainly we can vote her out if we feel the need. However, we should not pit neighbor against neighbor or disrespect anyone's opinion or preference in matters political. It is possible that Ms Clarke, and many others do not see Obama as the best choice - should they toe the popular line against their own beliefs?

[Matt 2]

As an Obama supporter, I will protest outside the house of anyone who supports Nader in the event that Clinton somehow becomes the nominee. Remember 2000. Remember the last 8 years. A President Hillary Clinton would be a lot better than suffering through another 4-8 years of a Republican dictatorship.

[Charles Star]

You can drive yourself crazy assuming that any elected official does anything out of sincere belief, LM. I am sure that there are superdelegates for both Obama AND Clinton who have opted to back a candidate for less than pure motives.

My interest is in seeing that the less-than-pure motive of "retaining local support" takes priority over the less-than-pure "Clinton network support."

I admit that my own purity on this score is tainted by my support for Obama but it isn't entirely about getting my candidate elected. Clarke is a minor player in what I think could be a long-term catastrophe for the party. If the superdelegates overrule the direct election, I doubt the Democrats will recover for a long time.

Finally, I wish someone backing McCain would raise their hand. I don't people to feel that the blog is politically closed to people to the right of the proprietors. Most of what we are going to deal with on this blog doesn't fall neatly on a left/right axis: remember that the Kelo decision that paved the way for specter of eminent domain on the Atlantic Yards development was written by the liberal wing over the objections of Scalia, et al.

[Matthew]

My disgust is only with the idea of super-delegates deciding the election over the populace. if Clinton wins of sound means (the people voting for her) then i will support her. Otherwise, there will be one less "Democrat" in 2008.

[LM]

It bothers me that I didn't hear any similar sentiments (on the talking head channels) about superdelegates supporting their electorates' choice when Bob Casey - Senator from PA - came out for Obama when all the polls show a strong lead for Clinton. Did I miss something?

[Charles Star]

An interesting point LM, but I think there is a difference between endorsing the candidate you want to win and pledging a delegate that would undermine the electoral expression of one's constituency. Still, you are correct that if the Pennsylvania primary goes as currently expected, Casey should back Clinton at the convention in accordance with the desires of Pennsylvania.

Foolish, foolish Pennsylvania. ;-)

[carrie]

LM,

Casey's endorsement was indeed national news, but his voting against his constituency would naturally be less salient to a national audience than to a local one. If you want to hear gripes similar to the ones I originally expressed about Clarke, you should expect to find them in local Pennsylvania media, not on national television.

[Ron]

It's almost beyond comprehension that someone (namely Rep. Clarke) could sign onto Dennis Kucinich's call for impeachment of Cheney, and then end up endorsing Sen. Clinton who empowered Cheney and company to commit the impeachable offense.

Ron