|
Do people not realize the psychological implications of such a decision? To disenfranchise millions of voters who chose one of the two current candidates by installing candidates who either were defeated in the current primary or didn't even RUN? To rip the Democratic candidate selection process from the hands of the voters and place it into the hands of an elite few? Didn't this happen in 2000? Didn't it appall half the nation? Why in the WORLD would we do such a thing if our end goal in this whole matter is to actually WIN? It would send a message to the American people that no, our Democratic process is not credible; it is, in fact, broken. So broken, in fact, that what you said you wanted through our votes wasn't good enough. That we're just going to do away with months and months of everyone's hard work and money just to pull the old switcheroo. Oh sure, some of you might not see it that way, but that will be the perception and it will be spun that way from pundit to pundit until we appear incapable of not only managing our own party, but also incapable of managing this nation. This is NOT the message we want to send to America, especially given the current global and economic climate. In fact, the REASON this race is the way it is right now is BECAUSE of this climate. And because of that, we need to unite sooner than later.
It's too late to turn back and wish better candidates into this race. If Al Gore wanted to be President, he should have run for President. If people REALLY wanted John Edwards, more people should have voted for him. But those things didn't happen. If we want better candidates than the two we have before us, then either we need to pick the better candidates or those candidates need to run a better race.
End of story.
|