There are instances where politics actually intrigues me. In most cases I take umbrage to the corruption and generally have much disdain for the process. However, I was somehow drawn to the recent struggles to reseat Democratic delegates for both MI. and FL. I suppose this is likely due to the fact that the race for the Democratic Party was so close that clear decisions needed to made about the FL and MI primaries. Additionally, as I stated in an earlier entry, I was one of the reported 30K (roughly 5% of the total votes casted) voters who decided to write-in the name of their candidate. There was talk of nullifying the MI. Primary, as it was a "flawed" process. That is candidates names were not listed on the ballot. Not everyone received word that "undecided uncommitted" was the proper and legitimate description of their chosen candidate. Very strange indeed.
The irony is that Obama's recent victory and subsequent nominee appointment makes this issue moot. Nonetheless, it begs the question of what to do with the new effort to radically change the current primary hierarchy? For those who are unaware, the MI. delegation decided to hold its primary in January, well before the traditional primary cadence of IA and NH. As I understand it, this change was fueled by the unwarranted privilege which has historically been granted to IA and NH. One might ask what privilege do these states get? Before I provide the details, let us take a second to survey the ethnic make-up of IA and NH. A quick Wikipedia search reveals that the total non-white representation is roughly 3% of the population in IA and NH combined (based upon 2005 Census Report).
Why are demographics important? One could argue that the issues that matter most to the majority group are quite different than that of the minority. Besides,the common rhetoric is that everyone should have equal representation in the voting process. Does the current process provide this opportunity?
Moreover, these states do not have a larger industrial base than MI. IA is more agrarian and NH has a growing technology foundation. Arguably, NH technology foundation is aided in large part by MA. That is a topic for another discussion. So it would stand to reason that people would eventually question the "order" by which these primaries were slated. Why should these states go first year after year? If the answer is, "We've always done it that way, get over it." You are likely to annoy some people and that is what happened in the case of MI.
I'm not as familiar with the underpinnings of the FL. delegates situation, I'll leave those details as an exercise for the reader. Both Mark Brewer and David Bonoir gave compelling testimony to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Brewer and Bonoir proposed a total recount; however, the Bylaws committee was unwilling to grant total recount as it would have been unfair to the other candidates. There were some interesting subplots, as some Clinton supporters who were seated on the Rules Committee suggested that Obama was trying to befriend IA delegates by not putting his name on the MI ballot.
When all was said and done, the agreement was to seat 50% of the delegates. As stated earlier, it turned out to be moot.. Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Now that he is the nominee.. Who will be his running mate? Harold Ford or Al Gore? Maybe someone else.
My bet is on Al Gore, I'll expound on possible VP in a later entry.
Good topic. I talked about this a bit on my blog. Didn't think about the twist of Obama trying to befriend the people in Iowa. I did wonder why the early votes in MI and FL were illegal though.
Al Gore?
John Edwards is more like it. I love his stand on improving the plite of poor people and I think him and Obama could make some significant strides in our country. Aside from that Obama has to choose a VP candidate that will be able to get the vores of the " Uneducated Caucasian Blue Collar Workers" that CNN, other media outlets, and hillary say that he can not get to vote for him ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. I think it's a shame that they don't realized that they play the race card and are divisive when they do that but I am confident that the American people will see that Obama will change the stupid course we are on and help to create needed change in the country and get back our respect in the world!
Now back to your topic:
I agree with you that those two little states are insignificant and that the weak my minds of Americans can get influenced by those races and the media, so why not MI or FL take the lead. However sine the majority of people in this country is Caucasian, NH & IA do represent the way most states or our population in the country would vote. But for me it doesn't matter because over time the candidates show their true colors so people get to make up their minds and see more information to make informed decisions, at least the educated ones! So for me I think all small states should go first that way the larger states have time to evaluate the candidates, vet the dirt that comes out, and choose someone who deserves to be the nominee. Now since the process is over and the Obama is the nominee, I am elated that the most talented, intelligent, and qualified candidate has emerged. Hillary has proved herself to be a liar, flip flopper, condescending, stupid, greedy, and unqualified same old politician, and I am tired of it. All she did was run a dirty campaign and with her and her racist husband repeated used the race card, so I hope they retire permanently from politics.
I can't wait until she comes back to NY, so we can kick her to the curb after we throw her under the bus.
K:
Glad you found this discussion interesting. Every now and then I must marvel at our wonderful political process ;)