When I entered the Washington Caucus I did so firmly as an undecided member choosing to support the Democratic Party.
I was so firm in my stance I was prepared (if necessary) to stand as an ‘undecided delegate’ in the conference. I acknowledge the amount of pressure from both sides of the democratic campaign that this would open me to.
At my caucus location, people were unimaginably supportive. Yes there was a vocal majority of Obama supporters. The Clinton supporters (while numbering less) were no less vocal of their support.
Yet, despite this there was NO pressure on me to pick a candidate. Everyone who was familiar with the caucus process were united in one stance. Showing those of us unfamiliar how the process worked. Everyone had a fair time to speak. I was even given time to speak on why I was undecided in the event people who’d moved to a candidate felt they were actually undecided.
But now, I am supporting Obama.
To me this doesn’t just mean supporting my candidate. It means supporting a fair, legal, and (dare I say it) honest election process.
Today I read an article from a Clinton supporter who was at the time of the Washington Caucus undecided in her opinion. Her reasons matched mine.
You can read the blog post in full at PinkNews.co.uk. Typing this link, I for the first time wonder why a Washington Caucus member is posting on a British blog.
The relevant part which stirs the mind is her description of her local Washington Caucus:
What I saw was dejected, depressed and disorganized Clinton supporters wandering aimlessly and being eaten alive by Obama supporters. In Washington state, it was virtually a forgone conclusion that Obama would win in the caucuses, but the reality of what that meant was nearly shocking. Obama people were blockading the doors with bodies, shoving Obama sign-up sheets at every person who walked in—without explaining what the sheets were. Many people signed them thinking they were the voting registers and then ended up confused and bewildered when they found out they had not signed in properly.
The post goes on to basically say that this polarised her to Clinton. Because she didn’t want to be like these Obama supporters.
I think I have posted several times about my disgust that elections have turned into a sporting match where candidates push to make people ‘choose sides’ and then rally the troops to send derision.
This post insensed me. Not because of the accuasation; but because the accusation on this level resulted in nothing more than, “I’m a Clinton supporter because they are so bad!”
For heavens sake!!!! If these accusations are true.. I don’t want these people supporting Obama. I want them in Jail This whole district should have its delegates pulled and disqualified. This is ILLEGAL. Yes… If my candidate got delegates from this kind of public treatment of the process; he shouldn’t have them. Plain and simple.
I wrote a lengthy response that basically tasks this person to take these accusations to the state because these are Serious allegations of crime.
I chose my candidate because he has demonstrated (in my opinion) that we are more interested in “Fixing this stuff and admitting to the problems” than propagating business as usual.
Jumping up and down in a blog and saying, “Their side is bad. My side is good.” It’s business as usual.
And lest you think I’m merely throwing rhetoric. I’m more than happy to discover what district this was and assist in the legal process to investigate unfair actions. I am more than happy to see my candidate (or any other) stripped of unfairly, unjustly, or illegally earned delegates. Because all it does in the end is give more ammunition to fire the old weapons of ‘look what he/she does’
Basically, cut this crap out and fix the system. Don’t be a part of the problem. Be a part of the solution.
« Why I hate: Wear Green Today Events… Memetime: This is going around via email »
Hmmm, what’s an “Obama sign up sheet?” At the caucus I attended, there were only neutral sign up sheets – you had to fill in the name of your candidate.
Then those names were counted in front of everyone and stuff wasa decided based on the numbers.
I have no doubts that it’s going to be a very ugly election from this point out.
Agreed – I’m not sure what an “Obama sign-up sheet” is… *boggle*
Had this person voted in a primary before?
Two random observations:
(1) I’m not clear if such tactics, if they took place, are actually illegal. The whole caucus thing strikes me as an odd way to determine which candidate a party should support–in no small part because in practice it involves people lowering themselves to the most baser instincts to bully people on the other side of the caucus to vote their way. It’s supposed to be a jury process. It often turns into a shouting match.
And it’s not just this election cycle, either: the caucus process has had these sorts of shouting matches since, well, since there were caucuses.
However,
(2) The process by which each party decides a candidate is not a protected activity by the Constitution. That each party has come up with rules that closely follow the election process in most states–and have gotten themselves on the same ballot as balloting processes in most states–doesn’t change the fact that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are private non-governmental institutions.
Because of this, there is no law as to how each party governs itself, nor is there any law which dictates how each party should operate. That the Democrats made a big deal about the Republican censure process a few years struck me as amazingly funny as it capitalized on the fact that most people forget that the parties govern themselves differently: the Democrats were pointing out a rule they themselves did not follow because they themselves did not have an equivalent rule.
The Democrats could pick their party Presidential candidate by playing poker or tiddly-winks; there is no law that says they cannot pick their party Presidential candidate by any process they want, even drawing straws or programming a gigantic computer to select a candidate.