As of today, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008 Barack Obama has raised $132 million for his race and Hillary Clinton has raised $121 million. The television pundits are saying that she has not raised enough to compete.
Hello? When $121 million is not enough to carry a person forward in a race, you know something is rotten.
Stop for a moment and contemplate where those millions had to come from.
Then, contemplate how this long primary season leaves candidates open to more and more favors owed to big special interests.
Can’t make it through September? Thank you Gas and Oil Industry.
Need a little bump in January? Take a meeting with Big Pharmaceuticals. Strike a little deal: No ceiling on drug prices in the next health care reform package.
Got to buy 15 hours of prime time TV ads in the farm belt? Hello, Ethanol Makers.
But that’s not even my chief complaint.
What insults me more is that the front-loaded primary dates disanfranchise voters in the states that come after the Iowa, New Hampshire and Potomac primaries. When the results of the first three major vote-counts were in, my guy, John Edwards, bowed out. Ninety-five percent of voters never got a chance to vote for him or Denis Kucunich or Joe Biden.
This front-loaded system makes privileged, super-star voters out of those who go to the polls first.
They get wooed, wined and dined.
They get to meet the Clintons on their own front porches and town squares.
They get to sit in the glow of a winter fireplace sipping nog with Obama and Edwards, basking in the candidates’ desperate appeals for their approval. Farmers in Iowa and Yankees in New England get a seat at the banquet.
We get the scraps.
The current system of staggered voting dates not only lessens the choices of those who vote later; it not only makes beggars out of the candidates as the season drags on, it does one more dangerous thing to our Democracy [sic].
The current primary system has become a parimutuel horse race in which we bet on candidates and bet against others as the months wear on. Today, the pollsters announced the ODDS — as if this were the Preakness – between McCain and Clinton, and McCain and Obama.
In the figures given on nationwide television, the political bookies have declared the odds as follows: In a McCain-Clinton matchup, he beats her 48-40. But in a McCain-Obama matchup, Obama beats the GOP pale horse 48-40. Now, what Democratic voter in the remaining states of Texas and Ohio (both prized, delegate-rich states) wants to queer those odds? With Obama named as the sure winner against McCain, will the remaining voters risk a chance on Clinton?
I think that’s perfidious.
Whether you like Clinton or not, you see that the system is weighted so that Democrat voters get frightened of making a genuine choice based on their genuine estimation of her.
“What? She would lose in the General Election against McCain? Omigod, Ethel, we HAVE TO vote for Obama, then.”
This is a plea for an early, universal primary date. The parties would pick a long weekend in March, allowing workers on all shifts the time and place to participate. Results would be released as polls close at the same time, coast to coast.
Thus, we could choose from the complete slate of candidates: From Romney to Kucinich, all along the spectrum, all names would be on the ballots.
Thus, with a short season of fundraising and spending, candidates would not need to go to the money well and draw from special interest groups.
Thus, there would be no presumptive winners or losers.
It would, as we love to say about elections in other nations, be a “free and fair election.”
Posted by Gita under National & Uncategorized | No Comments »