In watching the 2008 Democratic Party Primaries, I am reminded of one of the more amusing quotes from Mel Brooks's comedy classic Spaceballs:

Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

If you're like me at all, and I suspect you are, then you've a pretty strong opinion as to which side in the general represents "good."  And despite having an election set upon a silver platter, Democrats have a real chance to blow this thing.

Good is dumb.  

There are so many ways in which this is true of our 2008 Democrats.

#1: The Proportional Representation System of Delegate Allocation

Now, I'm all for PR.  It's much more responsive to the will of the voters and countries that use it tend to have more responsive governments.

But you've got to wonder if the Democrats' use of PR in allocating delegates has cost us this time.  Consider the Republican race for the nomination.  John McCain, widely disliked among the GOP base, eeks out victories in New Hampshire and Florida, giving him serious momentum heading into Super Tuesday where he effectively (though not mathematically) seals the deal.  The base's love affair with Mitt Romney isn't enough to keep his candidacy going, and he drops out and subsequently supports his rival.  That was about a month ago, and McCain has been in general election mode ever since.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have created a system where, between two well liked candidates, no enormous lead can be created and even a moderate lead is difficult to overcome.  In other words, we've created a race where a small lead plays like a large one, but which is small enough to prevent a trailing candidate from having to get out "for the good of the Party."

Now, that last comment may seem anti-Clinton, but it's not intended as such, even though I'm on record as an Obama supporter.  It's more of a commentary on the state in which this process has left us.

The GOP system isn't entirely majoritarian.  In fact, by my count (based on RCP information), there are only twelve such contests.    But of those twelve, nine are clustered on or before Super Tuesday, creating the possibility for a candidate to truly separate from the pack in a way that could not be overcome. In addition, there are some Republican contests that are allocated strangely...the key one being California, where McCain won 42% of the vote, yet received 158/170 delegates.  

Suffice it to say, had the Democrats used the same system in these same states, this process would be all but over.  Senator Clinton would gain +55 delegates (Obama would lose 54) in the winner-take-all states.  That's enough to make this contest MUCH closer than it currently is.  And, if Florida counts, that's another majoritarian system, so that's +185 for Hillary.  Adding on the convoluted GOP approach to California, we can assume that she likely would have gotten at LEAST 300 of the 370 delegates...and likely more.  Assuming 300, that's +97 for her, and -97 for Obama.  All that adds up to Hillary +337, Obama -151.  

Game over.    

Now, I would be disappointed to see my candidate lose...but at least it would have been done by now, before it got too divisive, and we could be focusing on the general election and getting healthcare and ending war.  Instead, we're AT war.

Good is dumb.

#2: Superdelegates

Superdelegates?  Really?  Let me get this straight.  As a diary or two on MyDD have pointed out (and rightly so) the idea that Superdelegates were created to reinforce the will of the voters makes no sense.  After all, if a candidate has already won the nomination, why does that need reinforcing?  Thus, the only real purpose of Superdelegates seems to be to override the voters...when necessary.  Of course, "when necessary" will vary in the eyes of the beholder, but the point remains logically sound.  But common sense tell us that such an overriding of the voters would lead to a revolt among the supporters of the presumptive winner, turned loser, one has to question the wisdom of creating this institution in the first place.  It can do little good, in reaffirming what needs not be reaffirmed, but great harm, in overturning the will of the voters.

But the presence of such a silly system has other implications.  The most obvious of these is that it is undemocratic in nature, and that's hardly a strong calling card.  And, when the GOP asks "Do you really want more government?" and quickly follows up with "The Democrats do!," they can point with great mirth at the Superdelegates.  "Look," they'll say, "the Democrats can't even properly run their own party! Do you really want them creating more intrusive bureaucracy?"  And the people will say "No."

Good is dumb.

#3: Stripping Key States of their Delegates

Florida and Michigan.  They broke the rules.  They needed to be reprimanded.  But a 100% stripping of delegates?  

Oh, no.

It's clear that Florida's crafty Republican governor is behind at least that state's choice to move up the primary, and it's as if the Democrats walked right into the trap.  Michigan clearly did it for other reasons.  I don't know if our candidate would have won Florida in the fall, but this certainly doesn't help.  Even if they're seated in the long run, it will still leave a bad taste in voters' mouths.  

100%.  It was such a bad idea.  Strip them of their Superdelegates.  Cut their pledged delegates by 25%.  Anything else.  

But this action hurt doubly.  Not only does it make the Democratic Party seem bad, but there was a period of time where voters in these states got to hear GOP messages, but not Democratic ones.  Even if Hillary and Obama were going at it over the relative virtues of their healthcare plans, it would be with the clear acknowledgment, by Democratic candidates, that we NEED a healthcare plan.  Instead, those voters got to hear why the war is important, and how the Bush tax cuts are helping the economy.  Lies, but when you repeat these things enough, into the ears of the uninformed...well, an uninformed vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

Good is dumb.  

#4: Infighting

Whether it's the calls of racism and sexism, by both sides, the blatantly false mailers, from both sides, or just the simple failure to focus on any of the criminals in the current administration or the man who seeks to replace them in name, but not in policy, we have all failed to maintain what was, once, a fairly civil campaign that had the country focused where it needed to be --- on the failures of George W. Bush and what that means if we elect John McCain President of the United States.

I don't pretend to argue that the anger or resentment from either side isn't well founded.  I'm angry at what the Clinton campaign has done to my candidate, and I'm well aware that Clinton supporters feel exactly the same.  It's justified on both sides...it really is.  And should Hillary Clinton lose this nomination, I'll feel quite bad for her supporters, because it just plain sucks to lose after coming so close.  And if Obama loses...well, I'll wallow in my own misery for a bit, probably lash out at Clinton supporters on occasion, but will eventually pull it together in time to vote against McCain come November.  Living in the reddest county of one of the reddest states, my neighbors will likely shit their pants when I replace my Obama sign with one for Clinton.  Or maybe I'll put both out, just to see if their heads explode.  

But that's me.  From top to bottom, from candidates, to campaigns, to surrogates, to supporters, the Democratic Party infighting needs to stop.  I'm disappointed in both candidates right now, because this helps John McCain more than it helps either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  

It helps racists like Bill Cunningham in Cincinnati or Rep. King in Iowa.

And it comforts sexists like that guy who told Hillary to "Iron My Shirt."  

It takes a time when progressive ideals like universal healthcare are FINALLY really appealing to the public ear, and wastes it.

A win for a real liberal, with a Democratic majority, and a strong eight years...think what that could do?  Americans would see that these ideals, which we ALL believe in, are pretty damned good for America.  It would force the GOP to the left to compete.  It's been too long since the GOP has been forced left.  Rather, we've been forced to the right, having to look strong on security, despite the fact that the GOP is the primary cause of our security concerns in the first place!  

Say it with me people.

Good is dumb.

But knowing you have a problem is the first step, right?  

Let's win this thing.