Dear Hillary Clinton:
Since you are a regular Reader of this Blog, Harrogate has no need to go into details convincing you that the Following Suggestion comes in Good Faith.
On Daily Kos a few days ago, Harrogate encountered a comment he can no longer find, in which the commenter sarcastically suggested that you yourself ought to pay for the Do-Overs in Michigan and Florida, if Do-Overs are to be done.
At first, Harrogate thought, more proof that a partisan-nut is born every minute. Since it was the DNC's screwup, they should pay for it. But now, this very morning, Harrogate has wisely reconsidered. By Bankrolling the Do-Overs you will accomplish at least three very important Rhetorical Acts:
1)You will ensure that Do-Overs happen, and Thus give yourself a legitimate chance to make up ground in the delegate count. This in turn may translate into putting extra pressure on Superdelegates to think about what it means that you are cleaning Obama's Clock in the popular Vote in all big States not named Illinois. And, to be clear, this sequence of Rhetorical Events can only be accomplished by way of Do-Overs, for Lo, there is no way that the Votes as they Are can legitimately be translated into seated delegates. If you are simply given the delegates based on those past primaries, Harrogate will have no choice but to look the Other way, and shed a bitter tear, while Angry Obama supporters Walk Out in Denver, something Obama himself would likely be powerless to stop.
2)You will be able to ensure that they don't switch to Caucuses, on the Duplicitous Plea that they are only doing it because caucuses are Cheaper. With your funding, they will have no choice but to do it Right, with Primaries.
3)You will be richly rewarded by the Voters in those Two States. There will indeed be a major return on Thy investment. Imagine the Rhetorical possibilities!!!! Imagine touring the States telling Voters, I put My Money Where My Mouth Is so that you could be Heard!!!! You wouldn't want to say it a lot, of course. Just a couple of times would do. But everyone would know that you had indeed risked practically your entire War Chest to Get a Legitimate Resolution to this clusterfuck (pardon Harrogate's language, Senator).
And, as a corrolary, you will see individual donations from within those states, and elsewhere throughout the Country, go a long way towards alleviating, if not totally neutralizing, the economic hit your campaign would be incurring.
Signed,
Harrogate
4 comments:
Um... I hope that there is a level of irony or sarcasm in this letter and I might have missed it. But, wouldn't it seem just a bit illegitimate and shady for one candidate, especially one that will not release financial information from the time in which she left the White House, pay for new election campaigns in two states.
Of course, if this letter were to Senator Obama, I would write: wouldn't it seem just a bit illegitimate and shady for one candidate to pay for new election campaigns in two states.
We would be walking out one door of illegitimacy and right into another.
Raising funds from Democrats in the state may be one thing; having a candidate pay for the elections would be quite terrible and not lead to an honest election.
Excellent rejoinder.
Here are some possible solutions to the problems you are raising?
Hill should:
1)Very publicly Offer Obama an opportunity to go halvsies with her. If Obama refuses to go halvsies then no matter how his supporters try to spin it, in Truth he will be perceived by the public as having absolutely no Ground to Stand on in criticizing where the money comes from, especially given point #2 (see below).
She will be able to say, "I have given Senator Obama a chance to join me in ensuring the people of Michigan and Florida get a chance to be heard, and he refused." And inwardly, she will chuckle, experience Limitless Joy, while appearing very much in Sober Earnest, each time she says it.
Now remember, solon, the DNC has already said it will not fund new primaries. And the states plead inabiliy to fund it. So the way Harrogate sees it (correct him if he's wrong), to have the best chance at getting full-on primaries (not ad-hoc caucuses on the cheap, which would onlyadd a Narrative of Illegitimacy to the Thing) in those states, has got to come from either one or both of the candidates.
2)After the question is settled of where the Money is coming From, there needs to be very Transparent Workings in terms of how the primaries are organized and manifested.
It needs to be clear to all of us that the Money was turned over to the two state Democratic Parties, no strings, no questions, nothing but here's the money, now stop bitching and make this primary happen.
1) No. The money must not come from the candidates. Neither of them. This is not Russia. There must be no perception that the candidates are literally "buying" the vote.
Campaigning funds are ridiculous now. Money from candidates cannot be used to conduct elections.
If the DNC will not pony up, then the state or the people must. T
2) Transparency is necessary, you are correct.
How is it that if each candidate is ponying up, that they could be charged with being Putinesque or even Romneyesque, seeking to buy elections?
There is a difference between finacially making it possible for an election to take place, versus buying the election. Is there not?
The people after all would be entirely free to vote for their candidate of choice, or not vote at all. For his part, Harrogate would have no ethical problems with this set up.
What we have is an unorthodox problem. A Rhetorical Situation, if ye will. It calls for a specific remedy for which there is no ready-made precedent.
Also, Harrogate has broken up with Howard Dean. Stop calling, Howard, and the flowers and chocolates are doing you abslutely no good. You're clearly not the same guy who won Harrogate over so thoroughly in 2004. Now you're just another tool. Far better than any Leading Republican. But still a tool.
It's over.
Post a Comment