One PD reader’s theory on superdelegates
Posted on May 1st, 2008 at 7:48 am by PD AdministratorThis one is from regular Brian H:
I have a theory about the Superdelegates that I wanted to run by you. Feel free to let me know if you think I am crazy.
I believe that the Reverend Wright debacle over the last week has solidified Obama’s lock on the majority of remaining superdelegates. Here is why….
If a superdelegate had put their support in Hillary’s corner a month ago they could explain to their constituencies and make the case that they believed she was the right person, at the right time, with the right experience, for the right job. There would be no little or other motives that could burden their credibility. But now that does not hold true. If an undecided Super-D were to endorse Hillary now it could, and would, be interpreted as a decision that has been made because of Reverend Wright. It would essentially be viewed as a decision based on race. I believe that the majority of Super-D’s are not going to put themselves out there to face the backlash that will insue as a result of a Hillary endorsement.
Does that make sense?
Verrrrry interesting Brian.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The thing is, Hillary was supposed to be benefiting from the “vote for me or you’re a sexist” mentality this year. Remember Elton John’s comment last month about American misogyny? Too bad for her the “vote for me or you’re a racist” mentality trumps the former one.
It’s sad, really. To vote for someone out of fear for what you will be accused of if you don’t is weak, but it seems to be a factor. Of course, you realize that people can anonymously be as “sexist” or “racist” as they want on Nov. 4.
There’s great irony. The Dems are accusing each other of being racist, sexist, or both at the same time. So which do you prefer - being called a racist or a sexist?
The “-ism” rationale comes to its logical conclusion.
“If an undecided Super-D were to endorse Hillary now it could, and would, be interpreted as a decision that has been made because of Reverend Wright. It would essentially be viewed as a decision based on race.”
I understand that the biased liberal (in the tank for Obama) media would portray it as racist, but I really don’t think the American people, even African Americans, would view it that way. At this point, for a super D to not be supporting Barack Obama is a sign of both integrity and truly not being a racist. (yes I believe that if you vote for him because he’s black your a racist, which is all of his supporters except for the far left and those who are charmed by his “brand”)
And let me be clear, Reverend Wright is not a symbol of black America anymore than William Ayers is a spokesman for white America. To classify a group of people by the actions and beliefs of one supposed leader is to say that those people are too simplistic to think for themselves. Why doesn’t the media hold William Ayers up is a symbol of white America? Why is it that the black community is the only community that is judged by the extremists in their midsts. Besides, it’s not as if he is really a leader for all of black America. He is a former pastor of one church in Chicago. The only reason he is even important is because he’s the crazy spiritual mentor of a relatively unknown presidential candidate. To let the fact that he’s black keep you from following your better instincts is the mark of a true racist.
I dont disagree with you. My point is not that it would be “racist” for a Super-D to now back Hillary, my point is that it would look as though the late shift to Hillary is because of Reverend Wright. I am not sure if they want the responsibility of having to “justify” their support for her by explainiong that Wright had nothing to do with their decision.
Simply put…Obama is safe for the Supers
Since we’re coceding points… I believe there would be a very powerful movement to stamp “RACIST” on the Supers who would switch to Hillary. I however feel the need to rather than simply let polical correctness run it’s ugly course; stand true on conservative ideals and principles. If we spend all our time verbally anticipating the reaction of the far left (I’m especially frustrated with some conservative media organizations), then that’s all the public will think about. And if one set of ideas is all that’s on peoples minds, they will naturally (maybe even subconsciously) shift in that direction. Now is not the time for conservatives (especially social conservatives because we have the most to lose) to be silent on conservative principles. We should be strong in our convictions and bold in our actions.
In a less inspiring summary of what I just said: I believe what I typed above, but mostly rather than just arguing with you on any specific points, I was making an attempt to put the conservative viewpoint on the table, if for no other reason than to sway our little PD community in the right (in both senses of the word) direction.
It’s the double standard that AA has wrought upon us. Too scared to stand up for what you believe is right for fear of being branded a racist.
If it’s wrong for someone to stand up and shout about being white then it’s just as wrong to stand up and yell about being black.. or yellow, or red or anything else.
Remember, we are ALL Americans.
The GOP National Convention will in effect be a collection of Republican superdelegates if things continue as they are moving towards September - it’ll be a regular McCain love fest but lacking the heart of the party.