What's going on?

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Shortly following the news, a great hue and cry went up from the pundits and bloggers.

On the one hand, there are those (mostly Obama supporters, it seems) who claim that Clinton's dogged insistence on staying in the race and use of negative tactics against Obama will have dire consequences for whichever Democrat ends up running in the general election (although, the maths suggest it won't be Clinton).

On the other hand, there are those (mostly Clinton supporters, it seems) who claim that Clinton's comeback in yesterday's primaries was a case of the voters having their say despite what the pundits were trying to tell us to do. Much like what happened with McCain's campaign after it had been pronounced dead at the end of last year.

Or maybe it's all part of the right-wing talk radio pundit conspiracy.

So which is it? Is Clinton sabotaging the Democrat's chance of re-taking the White House come November, or is she simply fighting the good fight?

Me, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am not a fan of the underhanded tactics that the Clinton campaign has employed, nor am I a fan of the media trying to tell us who's had it and who we're likely to vote for. I enjoy the fact that this primary contest has been so fierce and not decided by the first few states to vote, but I do worry that, if it goes on much longer, it will eat into the Dem's time to formulate a strong campaign against the Republicans, whose nominee is now decided (even if a lot of them don't like him).

And of course, there's also the specter of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, to which Hillary herself has now given some credence. If that is to be the case, is all of the heavy-handed bashing such a good idea after all?

I'm curious to hear opinions on this, so please feel free to have your say in the comments.

Tammy can you hear me?

Everyone's talking about superdelegates these days, so I really hate to add to the cacophony, but this particular story hits rather close to home.

Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a politician for whom I have given my full support since I moved here in 2000, has the interesting and tricky honor of being one of those much talked about superdelegates. That means that, come the Democratic National Convention in August, she gets to vote for whoever she so chooses. It's a strange little bylaw, to be sure. Here's how it all works for Wisconsin:

Forty-eight [of 74] of the Wisconsin delegates are awarded based on vote totals in the state's eight congressional districts. In the second congressional district, which includes Dane County, Obama will take five delegates to Clinton's three, the most lopsided total of any district in the state.

Besides the 74 pledged delegates, there are 18 unpledged so-called "superdelegates" in the state who are not required to vote for any candidate and who can support anyone they want. One of those, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, has endorsed Clinton. Her campaign released a statement Wednesday saying that she remained committed to Clinton.

"Congresswoman Baldwin announced her endorsement of Senator Clinton many months ago," the statement read. "She supports Senator Clinton because she is the only candidate fully committed to health care for all Americans."

Tammy has every right, during the primaries, to support and campaign for any candidate she wants. That's not up for debate here. What I and a number of other folks find irksome, however, is the fact that Baldwin is still promising to vote for Clinton come convention time, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of Baldwin's constituents supported Obama in the primary.

Ben Brothers over at Badger Blues lays it out nicely:

Unfortunately, unless things change, [Obama's] actual advantage at the convention will be only a single delegate, since Tammy Baldwin is a superdelegate who plans to vote for Senator Clinton.

Thanks to arcane bylaws written decades ago, Tammy Baldwin has the ability to trump the expressed wishes of her constituents (251,627 people voted for Baldwin in 2004...If we take that to be a fair estimate of the district’s Democratic voting population, we find out that Tammy Baldwin’s vote in the Democratic primary is roughly 31,000 times more important than anyone else’s), and singlehandedly cut Obama’s delegate advantage in half. Today she stated that she plans to do just that. This hardly seems fair to the thousands of Democrats in Madison and the surrounding communities who went to the polls yesterday and voted for Barack Obama.

Never before have superdelegates played such a crucial role in the nomination of a candidate for the presidency. In years past, the contest for the nomination hasn't dragged on for so long and been so close. I love that the race this year is so hotly contested because it means that more people in more states get to vote when it still matters, instead of having the first three or four states to hold primaries/caucuses decide their candidate for them.

Since things are so close, however, everyone is paying close attention to these superdelegates, chasing even the lowliest of the them down for interviews and a clue as to where their loyalties might lie.

Shouldn't these elected officials be beholden to their constituents, though? If the majority of people in your district vote for one person, shouldn't you be obligated to support their decision at the national convention? Isn't that how our republi-mocracy is supposed to work?

Clinton failed to win a single district in Wisconsin. Her defeat was most resounding in the second district--Baldwin's--with student voters (who make up a large chunk of Baldwin's support base) going 10 to 1 in favor of Obama. If, in the end, she ignores that loud and clear message, Baldwin risks losing a great deal of face with the very people who put her in office.

I like Tammy, I like what she stands for and what she's done while in office. It's not as though I would vote for her opponent come the next election (sorry, Dave "Vote for Me Because My Wife Died" Magnum doesn't really do it for me), but my disappointment would be deep. I imagine it would be the same with a lot of her constituents.

Again, Ben Brothers sums up my feelings on the subject well when he notes that "In exactly the same way that Sandra Day O’Connor’s vote for George Bush was worth more than the votes of 51 million Americans, this sucks."

We've suffered through one too many rigged and flawed elections in the past eight years. I'm pleading with Tammy and all the other superdelegates when I say, please don't put us through another one.

My primary reason for voting

*ba-dum, ching!*

Today is primary election day in Wisconsin, and despite the wickedly cold temperatures (-7 F with wind chill, at the moment), people all across that state will be heading to their local polling places to cast their ballots for one presidential candidate or another. What makes Wisconsin's primary even better is that it's open; that is, anyone can vote for any candidate. You don't need to be a registered anything to vote one way or another, and even registered Democrats could vote for a Republican candidate (and vice versa) if they so chose.

We also have same day voter registration laws here, which is another great boon that I'd love to see exported to other states. When I was a student and moving to a new apartment every year, this was an invaluable law for me. Younger and lower income voters overwhelmingly rely on same-day registration, but it benefits everyone. Estimates point to some 20% of voters registering on the day of, and while some legislators cry about how this can lead to widespread fraud at the polls, there is no evidence to support such claims. In fact, it only seems to lead to higher participation, which is absolutely what we should be working for.

I've had a number of debates over the merits of voting. In states where the primaries are closed, I understand the frustration of independents and other more non-partisan voters who are turned off from even showing up at the polls (or outright barred). But here's the thing: I do believe voting is a civic duty. It's one of the fundamental rights that come with being an American citizen, one that people have literally died to protect. We owe ourselves and our neighbors the minimal effort required in casting a ballot to have even just a small say in determining the direction of our cities, states and country.

There are those people who choose not to vote as a form of protest against either lack of a likable candidate or a perceived rigging of the vote count (see Florida, 2000). I understand this, too, but in those cases I think the least you can do is find some other way to work for change. Maybe run for office yourself, campaign for someone you believe in, do work for or donate money to a non-profit doing good work, or plant a fucking tree for crying out loud. Just do something proactive instead of giving in to apathy. We're not required to vote here, as is the case in countries like Australia, and I think that's a good thing. If there's one thing almost universally true of Americans, it's that we hate being told what to do (sometimes to our detriment). Still, deep down in the squishy parts of my being, I believe that voting/minimal participation in the governing of our country is extremely important for every single one of us, and not something to be taken lightly or ignored.

This goes doubly come November. There's no excuse.

Wisconsin invented the primary election, so take some pride, bundle up good, and get out to your polling places today.