Democracy in the Democratic Party

I'm glad the Michigan and Florida delegate issue seems to be resolved. Just as umpires and referees shouldn't make game-changing decisions with bad or ticky-tack calls, the DNC shouldn't make similar decisions this far into the primary season.

From within Hillaryland and from without, there is a lot of hand-wringing about the dis/enfranchisement, democracy, one-person-one-vote (of a fraction thereof), etc. etc. etc. The fact of the matter is that the primary and caucus system is inherently undemocratic.

First all of, no voting process that takes over 5 months can be said to be democratic. Iowa voted over 5 months before Montana and South Dakota. If states like New Jersey and California were to vote on Tuesday, the results would be very different than their earlier returns.

Second, the delegate system is weighted in favor of certain voters based on local democratic voting strength. It's unclear whether this apportionment system has had the effect of helping Obama or Clinton. Nevertheless, some votes are designed to be worth more than others.

Then there's the superdelegates. 'nuff said. They may be elected officials in many case, but they were not elected to select the presidential nominee. Since all Senators and representatives are superdelegates, they artificially inflate the importance of small states.

The U.S. electoral system only approximates democracy, so perhaps that's the best we can hope from the national party nomination process. By any measure, there is no palpable "will of the voters" favoring Obama over Clinton. The difference between pledged delegates is negligible. Even when you view the popular vote in any fair manner, it is basically a tie. Obama will be the nominee because he played the game better. The name of the game is delegates, and Obama has nearly enough already. The system may be flawed, but that's life.

I hope the Obama campaign's strategic mastery shows who is more ready to be President. We will not experience an Obama Administration unless the Clinton supporters come home. They need to recognize the flaws inherent in the system, get over their frustrations, and come home. She may have moderate white women; Obama may have African-Americans and urban liberals--the Democratic Party in a nutshell.

Pentagon Propaganda

A number of media commentators have noticed the deafening silence of the major broadcasters in response to the New York Times article concerning their use of military experts or correspondents who were tied to Rumsfeld's Pentagon. In some cases, these former military officers were literally repeating the Pentagon talking points. CNN, you should be ashamed of yourself!

I had a suspicion that many of them could not be totally candid for fear of alienating their peers, but it appears that there was a monetary incentive as well. Many of them had business with the Pentagon. There's little doubt that, given its track record, this Administration would have retaliated against them and their business interests if they didn't toe the party line about Iraq.

Glenn Greenwald here and here runs through the facts in great detail and links to a very strong legal analysis. This legal analysis, by prwatch.org, hints, but does not explicitly state, that there are really no consequences for an illegal propaganda program. There is no criminal or civil penalty. The restriction is an appropriation restriction, meaning the agency didn't have money for this purpose. At best, a report to the President identifying the Federal employees responsible will be sent. It's hard to see Bush doing anything against the employees.

In order to strengthen the law, I suggest that individuals who knowingly participate in illegal covert propaganda be "debarred" by the Federal government, meaning making them ineligible to receive government contracts, grants, and other Federal money. Since the generals in this case, and the PR flacks in previous cases under the Bush Administration were actively seeking government contracts, debarment may be an adequate deterrent.

The Liberal Justice System

Last summer, I got a ticket for parking on my street during street sweeping hours. It wasn't totally my fault; my car just wouldn't start. Since I felt like circumstances were somewhat beyond my control, I admitted the violation "with explanation." At best, I hoped the penalty would be reduced. Well, 5 months later, I got the above letter from the DMV. In case you can't read it, it says in pertinent part:

A hearing examiner considered your written explanation and evidence and applicable District of Columbia traffic law and dimissed the ticket described below.... We have cleared your record of liability for this infraction.

I admitted the violation, yet I was absolved of all liability! God bless the liberal justice system!