When does compromise become appeasement?

By: snolan
Published On: 6/1/2008 10:37:51 AM

It has been a long and contentious primary campaign season for the Democratic party in the United States.  Bringing the nomination to a close, with some semblance of a unified party is perhaps a bit overdue; but I am very glad that traditionally late primary states have finally gotten a say in the process, and it will be nice to see the votes counted in Puerto Rico today and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday.

Part of me is very happy the RBC decided to compromise and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations with a small penalty for not following the rules.  I do see the value of including those delegations, despite their rules violations, in the process.

Part of me is very concerned, however, that the RBC has appeased Hillary Clinton and her supporters rather than simply compromised.  Frankly she clearly got a better deal than she deserves out of this process, and a better deal than her supporters expected (they were asking for pretty much exactly the compromise we ended up with as recently as late April).  It is also clear that Obama could have pressed for a 50/50 split in Michigan, yet he did not.  Part of me is concerned that the Obama campaign has inadvertently appeased the Clinton campaign.
Obama may have been offering her campaign a small victory so they could walk away with some pride, but it could also be construed as appeasement.  Already, the more incensed Clinton supporters are screaming that the 69/59 split has no basis in the legality portions of the rules and that they will appeal.  So have the seeds been sewn, with a reasonable compromise, for more months of discontent and irrational squabbling?

The simple facts are that Obama and Clinton do not differ on policy that much, but they differ immensely on style, personality, integrity, and ideology.  While either of them would approve and/or veto mostly along the same lines, and they would both nominate Supreme Court Justices from the same pool of candidates; the truth is that Obama brings a lot of independent people into the Democratic party, even if only temporarily.  Clinton brings a few old-school Democrats back after years of effective Republican status, but I do not think that is anywhere near as many new ideas and new people that Obama brings in.  This is a revolution within the Democratic party, a much needed revolution to make it more pertinent and more interesting to the vast majority of Americans.  It will force a revolution in the Republican party too, though exactly when they will make their change remains to be seen.

Clinton supporters, please think about this: whomever our next President is, they will likely get to nominate a few Supreme Court Justices in the next four years, and potentially several in the next eight if the next President wins re-election.  Do you really want the already grossly stacked Supreme Court to be packed with John McCain appointees?

On that issue, Clinton and Obama are pretty much alike and John McCain will be very, very different...
Support who you will, rant all you want, but in the end; you get exactly who you voted for.

I am hoping that between 24 and 64 super delegates endorse Obama by noon Tuesday so that the South Dakota and Montana primary winning pledged delegates award this nomination to Obama by giving him 2117 or more delegates (the new, adjusted goal post until the special election in MD-04 is over on June 17th).  Then, once the last primary is over; I hope all super delegates, including those who have endorsed Clinton until then, switch to Obama to send a clear message that further dissension that damages chances for Democratic victories in November will not be tolerated.


Comments



In other news, if Obama gets 6 more she cannot win (snolan - 6/1/2008 9:38:19 PM)
I just realized something.  There are only 208 remaining delegates, and Clinton needs 202 to win.  If Obama gets six more supers, or at least 6 on Tuesday, she cannot win.


Now get Clinton (Hugo Estrada - 6/2/2008 6:19:00 AM)
to understand that. I must say that by now I am getting turned off by her. She should be doing more to get her supporters to unite with the party.


Agreed (snolan - 6/2/2008 7:06:37 AM)
I don't mind her staying in the race until:
She wins
Obama wins
She can no longer win
All the primaries are done

But two of those criteria are going to get met Tuesday, and possibly a 3rd.

Wednesday morning will be time for her to drop.

That she has not asked her supporters to remain civil, as Obama has, is highly disappointing.  That senior staffers in her campaign are allow to behave at the public RBC meeting the way Harold and Lanny did is unacceptable and needs to be both apologized for and they need to be publicly rebuked.  That she continues to act as if she was wronged by the RBC decision when it was clearly Obama who was wronged, looks like whining.  Not helpful to herself or the party.



Oops - forgot to include the remaining uncommitted pledged delegates (snolan - 6/2/2008 2:30:26 PM)
So - it takes more than 6 to knock her out of the race... sigh.



Preaching to the choir (tx2vadem - 6/2/2008 10:48:26 PM)
I wonder who this is addressed to.  The Clinton supporters who still bother to frequent this site (or at least make their presence known) all have clearly stated they will support the party's nominee whoever that is.  The rest of the crowd here are pretty fervent Obamaphiles.  


I was just ruminating aloud on the subject of appeasement (snolan - 6/3/2008 7:37:17 AM)
Expressing a concern about the primary campaign going on beyond the delegates all being counted, which I hope does not happen.

I think RK readers come from all sides; the commenters tend to be Obama supporters, but there are a lot of lurkers here.  People who scan/read but do not contribute.  If I were Republican, I'd scan RK as part of my opposition research.  I have no evidence of that happening, but it makes sense.