I just read that David Bonior and Rep. Robert Wexler will represent Obama at the RBC over the weekend. I’m curious as to what their arguments will be. This is going to go into the permanent history of the United States. Will those two argue for disenfranchisement? How will History judge them–and Obama–for what happens over the weekend?
The founders had “Give me liberty or give me death”. What will we hear from those arguing not to seat the delegates or count votes? Many are approaching this as “Hillary versus Obama”. I tend to think of this in longer terms and how it will be judged in the History books. Bush v Gore has dropped from most people’s consciousness, but I think it will be discussed more regularly in 15-20 years and it will go down as one of the stupidest rulings of the court. I don’t know what Obama’s supporters will argue, but no matter how you sugar coat it, any argument against seating the delegates will be seen from the perspective of History as an argument for disenfranchisement. Legal disenfranchisement is still disenfranchisement.
There will be a lot of emotions over the weekend, which is understandable. But everything people say will be recorded for posterity. How will future generations judge this meeting? Will they mark it as the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party? The fact that this is even the slightest bit controversial doesn’t bode well, IMO. Even if Democrats win in November based off anti-Bush sentiment, I think this weekend will be a permanent scar on the Democratic Party. I’m cynical and I think the Democratic Party is already headed toward some really tough times that they may not ever recover from. When the “good guys” are contemplating disenfranchisement, you know you’re headed for some dark times.