A regular reader of progressiveinvolvement says your humble blogger is "staunch" in his support of Hillary--perhaps even a candidate to be the very last stalwart of the campaign.
Thanks, but that's not it.
Delegation selection is a long and complex process. At each level, people who advance through the process represent dozens of other people to whom they have promised to be loyal to a particular candidate.
You're supposed to be "staunch." You were advanced through the process because other people trusted that you would keep your word. That's the deal. If you don't support the candidate whom you publicly represent, you're breaking trust with the people who put you in that position.
That's why I'm so torqued that Howard Dean thinks there shouldn't be a roll call at the convention. First of all, we've always had roll calls. Excuse me, but I'm a Lutheran, which means that "we've always done it that way" is a sentence of special resonance.
Secondly, I'm in favor of everyone being staunch--Obama supporters too. We should have a roll call and everybody should vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged--the superdelegates can put can put Obama over the top--and then we'll all support the candidate. Why is this considered somehow dangerous, or a threat to "unity"?
Comments