Oh, why the hell not?

a politics post...

Despite the inherent flaws of the corporate duopoly that's in place, I've been following the Democratic race closely (perhaps a little too closely?). I'll be upfront from the get-go that-surprise, surprise-I support Obama out of the two remaining candidates. I don't have any illusions that he'd make a perfect president, or that he'd make all of our woes go away with the waving of some magic wand. I just think that his strengths (creating unity, getting out an enthusiastic youth vote, creating a vague sense of hope in thousands or millions, etc.) outshine Clinton's claimed strengths (experience, toughness). While, admittedly, I'm skeptical about her strengths, I have to say that her weaknesses are quite troubling. She's divisive, and would inspire the right to vote against her more than the left to vote for her. She says she can beat McCain because of toughness, but I think Obama can beat McCain based on message and excitement.

The previous paragraph was in the interest of full disclosure. Now for what I really want to say.

the question of re-vote in fla. and mich.

It would be wrong to re-vote in Florida and Michigan. Not because Obama "lost", or Clinton "won" the first time around, but because before they changed the dates of their primaries, the Democrats said they'd strip them of their delegates. They changed the dates anyway. Anybody voting in those primaries should have known that their votes would not be counted and that they were exercising futility by going to the ballot box (some would say it's futile to vote at all in this system, but that's another post).

So they should have another chance, in a later primary, to have their votes counted, the argument goes. This doesn't fly for me. Not just because Obama "didn't win" (he wasn't even on the ballot in one, and did no campaigning in either). It's for two reasons, one that should appeal strongly to Democrats, and the other that should appeal to anyone, but especially parents or anyone with even a remote understanding of Psychology.

1) For the Dems.: a re-vote should not happen because that changes the rules in the middle of the game, something Dems. should be mindful of, particularly after the debacle in Florida in 2000.

2) For everyone: a re-vote shouldn't be aloud because Michigan and Florida were told in the first place there'd be consequences if they moved up the dates of their primaries. They did it anyway. Now that it might "affect" the outcome, the DNC (DLC?) is trying to come up with ways of giving them back their delegates. This is analogous to Parenting 101: hollow threats don't teach children to obey their parents. Whether it's beneficial in the moment to show leniency to one's child, the message it sends is that the rules are flexible if mom or dad can justify it later on. Parents should be open to debate, but once they make a rule, they need to be steadfast about the consequences. The Democrats said not before such-and-such date, and need to stick to that. Or the message becomes, don't listen to our edicts, we can always change them if it serves our selfish interests.

They probably shouldn't have stripped these states of their delegates in the first place, but that's hindsight. It has bitten them in the ass, but fairness (that oh-so-Democratic value) dictates that they lay in the bed they made.

Look, I'm not registered as a Democrat in Oregon, and it looks like Oregon will play a role in the convention and the selection of a candidate. Oregon does a closed primary. Therefore, I won't be voting in Oregon's primary. That's the rule, and I'm fine with it. If it gives Clinton a rise in delegate numbers, so be it. But I won't compromise my independence. It's a rule I've made for myself, and one I live by. The Democrats need to follow the rules they make, or deal with the accusations of hypocrisy that will inevitably hit the mark.

That said, whatever happens, I'll have my say in November. For what it's worth.