"And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida."

Sen Clinton;

I awake this morning to read your commentary on the "crumpled sled" that has become of 366 pledged-delegates and super-delegates in the Democratic Primary:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. [...] And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

But, my eyes meeting these words, I grow concerned – perhaps even more acutely as a displaced Floridian – that you may have ambiguous or ephemeral notions as to the existential state of not having "any choice whatsoever." Not foremost is the clear choice of the corpus subrogatus, those elected and selected legislators and party-officials who impelled the Sunshine State towards primary-season ineffectuality; even more salient, however, is the choice you purpose to remove from the present nomination process.

By attempting to remove all doubt pertaining to the legitimacy of the 29 January results, you yourself promulgate a dubious design: to disenfranchise all those voters who knew on 29 January that their vote had been enervated to the point of inconsequence; to re-silence countless "voices," which were buttressed by well-informed minds and hence abstained from voting – being well-aware of their abject voicelessness on that waning January day. How can you, in good conscience, call a novel caucus a "disservice" to voters, yet petition to have Florida's delegates seated as currently apportioned?

I say, perforce, that this position seems less than tenable, not in the least because it is self-contradictory. It could also be seen as ethically suspect, or at least competitively unfair, that you transgressed your compact with the Democratic National Committee and – prior to the 29 January primary – promised to "make sure Florida delegates are not left out on the street" if you were the eventual nominee of the party. Would you deny that this is easily construed as a furtive but forceful method of indirect campaigning? Does this not represent, perhaps, a contortion of the spirit of your agreement with Sen Obama (and Sen Edwards) to abstain from campaigning in the twenty-seventh state?

Unfortunately, this appears a consistent (and not aberrant) incidence, and indeed it is coincidentally reflected in your refusal to remove your name from the Michigan ballot – in contrast to your primary opponents in that state, whose absence was manifest in the 40% of Michigan Democrats who voted "Uncommitted" even after bothering to show up at the polling-station on 15 January. Compared to Florida, you've been more relenting in your approach to the "disenfranchised" wolverines, but there seems to be consensus within the state that the contest was intractably unfair and predictive metrics reinforce this notion.

Nevertheless, judging from your obstinacy with respect to the Floridian delegates, I fear a critical element has been obscured from (or abandoned by) you: namely, the circumstantial fact that Florida's nominative process was equally marred and muddled by its foreknown absence of relevance. This is even borne out mathematically: Michigan and Florida are the only states heretofore in which Democratic voter-turnout has not exceptionally eclipsed its Republican compliment. In other words: the results in both penalized states are inexorably flawed. And yet, you have pledged to have the Floridian delegates seated at the convention, and demanded they be seated according their current apportionment.

While I appreciate your resolve, I should think you must appreciate the character and context of its effects. For instance: while Democratic voters and party-members "agree that new voting is needed to determine convention delegates for Florida and Michigan," the debate over its function and financing is often rudderless and redundant. But the most egregious of all proposals has been that of your supporter, James Carville, whose "novel solution" involves challenging the Obama campaign to raise matching funds for the purpose of a substitute (and, perhaps, more "legitimate") round of election; in this provocation it is evident that – by advancing the strategic pressure of this financial gauntlet – Carville intends to coerce Sen Obama into paying a price: a fee for having abided by the mandated mechanics of his party's election process.

I agree that the Democratic National Committee erred in the extent of its sanction, allowing the issue of party coherence and control to push their punitive measures to draconian depths (considering the highly bureaucratic circumstances of the transgression); surprisingly, the Republican resolution to the same issue seems much more reasonable. But it is nonetheless desideratum to the idea (and implementation) of political fairness that you consider the significant risk that exists in any attempt to legitimize the circumvention of competitive rules, rules that were defined anterior to the current discursive character of this primary.

If nothing else, you might read these concerns – at the very least – as thoughts to consider going forward. Plus: it looks like it wouldn't be the worst thing to solicit Sen Obama's endorsement.

Yours.
Jonathan

Sphere: Related Content