My Brother the Superdelegate (and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Ari Emanuel, Huffington Post

My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.

After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.

The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.

Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete.

After the democracy-snubbing arrogance of the Bush years, the last thing Democrats should be doing is wavering on our democratic principles on these issues. No super-power granted to superdelegates. And no backroom fudging on Florida and Michigan. Are you listening, bro?

http://alternet.org/module/printversion/76685

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Rahm: Et tu, Ari

[no name 1]

Lemme see.....Bro supports HC & author supports BO.

Next...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If you want to get the usually talkative Rep. Rahm Emanuel to zip his lip, just ask who he's endorsing for the Democratic nomination — his home-state senator (Obama) or his former boss's wife (Clinton).

But while Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has joked that he is hiding under his desk when the Clintons and Obama come looking for support, his brother Ari Emanuel, a Hollywood super-agent, has written a scathing blog post bashing Hillary Clinton's claim of 35 years of experience. Rahm worked in the Clinton White House but is now close to Obama because they represent the same state.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/010...es_Hillary.html

[GaryC 7]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you want to get the usually talkative Rep. Rahm Emanuel to zip his lip, just ask who he's endorsing for the Democratic nomination — his home-state senator (Obama) or his former boss's wife (Clinton).

But while Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has joked that he is hiding under his desk when the Clintons and Obama come looking for support, his brother Ari Emanuel, a Hollywood super-agent, has written a scathing blog post bashing Hillary Clinton's claim of 35 years of experience. Rahm worked in the Clinton White House but is now close to Obama because they represent the same state.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/010...es_Hillary.html

Interesting.

Regardless...his argument has merit.

[no name 1]

(Rahm Emanuel)

he joined then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign in 1991, serving as the campaign's Director of Finance.

...

Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with potential donors within the Jewish community helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of $72 million.

Following the campaign, Emanuel became a senior advisor to Bill Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998. In the White House, Emanuel was initially Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

[Dan J 277]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

[GaryC 7]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

Thats just it though. Hillary isn't going to just walk away if things don't go her way. First she will try and seat the MI and FL delegates. Then she will use Bill to "persuade" the superdelegates to back her. It will go to the convention and all hell will break loose. The only way the dems can avoid war is for Hillary to win it outright. Any other outcome and there will be blood.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

Thats just it though. Hillary isn't going to just walk away if things don't go her way. First she will try and seat the MI and FL delegates. Then she will use Bill to "persuade" the superdelegates to back her. It will go to the convention and all hell will break loose. The only way the dems can avoid war is for Hillary to win it outright. Any other outcome and there will be blood.

Gary, the Democratic Party isn't some lapdog to the Clinton's, however much clout they have. If there is any meandering that goes on which is counter to the democratic process, particularly against the will of the voters, people within the party won't let it slide. There are way too many people, particularly super delegates within the party that have been around way longer than Bill and Hillary. You're giving them too much credit.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

Thats just it though. Hillary isn't going to just walk away if things don't go her way. First she will try and seat the MI and FL delegates. Then she will use Bill to "persuade" the superdelegates to back her. It will go to the convention and all hell will break loose. The only way the dems can avoid war is for Hillary to win it outright. Any other outcome and there will be blood.

Gary, the Democratic Party isn't some lapdog to the Clinton's, however much clout they have. If there is any meandering that goes on which is counter to the democratic process, particularly against the will of the voters, people within the party won't let it slide. There are way too many people, particularly super delegates within the party that have been around way longer than Bill and Hillary. You're giving them too much credit.

We will see. I will bet you a buck your wrong though.

[PlatyPius 5]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

Thats just it though. Hillary isn't going to just walk away if things don't go her way. First she will try and seat the MI and FL delegates. Then she will use Bill to "persuade" the superdelegates to back her. It will go to the convention and all hell will break loose. The only way the dems can avoid war is for Hillary to win it outright. Any other outcome and there will be blood.

She might even try *gasp!* her fake crying thing again, too. Or have Bill pull out the race card again.

I disagree with the "Super Delegate" thing, just as I disagree with the Electoral college thing. This is 2008. We have computers. We have global communications. Decide elections on the ACTUAL vote, not on what your state thinks is right for you. ie: a 51%-49% popular vote in Indiana would mean that the 51% person got ALL of our electoral votes. That ain't right. If we had REAL democratic elections, we wouldn't have been stuck with monkey-boy in the white house for the past 7 years.

Basically, I disagree with anyone or anything that takes power away from the individual person. "Superdelegates" and the Electoral College do that.

And so would Hillary Clinton.

[Forever Young 1]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

[GaryC 7]

I foresee a war this fall in the democratic party.

No matter who the nominee is, most democrats will support him or her. So i doubt it will really be anywhere near the fracture that the republican party is suffering. The republican party is really going through an identity crisis that may fracture the republican vote this fall.

Yep. That's the BIG difference. Democrats are much more united on the issues...but we happen to have two very strong candidates both wanting the nomination. As long as the Party remains democratic about choosing the nominee, there won't be any bloodbath.

Thats just it though. Hillary isn't going to just walk away if things don't go her way. First she will try and seat the MI and FL delegates. Then she will use Bill to "persuade" the superdelegates to back her. It will go to the convention and all hell will break loose. The only way the dems can avoid war is for Hillary to win it outright. Any other outcome and there will be blood.

She might even try *gasp!* her fake crying thing again, too. Or have Bill pull out the race card again.

I disagree with the "Super Delegate" thing, just as I disagree with the Electoral college thing. This is 2008. We have computers. We have global communications. Decide elections on the ACTUAL vote, not on what your state thinks is right for you. ie: a 51%-49% popular vote in Indiana would mean that the 51% person got ALL of our electoral votes. That ain't right. If we had REAL democratic elections, we wouldn't have been stuck with monkey-boy in the white house for the past 7 years.

Basically, I disagree with anyone or anything that takes power away from the individual person. "Superdelegates" and the Electoral College do that.

And so would Hillary Clinton.

I agree. The idea of electing "delegates" to cast votes is dumb. One person, one vote and the one who gets the most votes wins.