Reply #2: Senator Clinton has crossed the line

[Jack Rabbit]

The case she is presenting is necessarily based on two premises:

• Pledged delegates aren't pledged to anything;
• The expressed desire of the voters and caucus goers don't count.

It is as if she is being reminded that Senator Obama has won primaries and caucuses from one end of the country to the other, many more than she, and her response is, "So?"

Both of these premises are false in a democratic universe.

I am a believer in democracy and in representation and leadership chosen by the people in free and fair elections. Hasn't America had enough of "leaders" who think they are entitled to power and simply assume it by refusing to count votes or disenfranchising voters not likely to vote their way? That is authoritarianism, not democracy. Hasn't America suffered under the misrule of "leaders" who make up rules to convenience their circumstances as events move forward? That is tyranny, not leadership.

Mrs. Clinton has never been my favorite political figure. To me, she has always been a finger-to-the-wind politician who finds ways of saying nothing in 500 words or more in order not to be pinned down to a specific position. She can vote for Bush's wars and pretend she didn't know she was doing that; she can stand for fair play for working people after firing the White House travel office to make room for her cronies; and now she can pretend to be a leader of the people while suggesting that means ignoring what they say.

Enough of Bush and Cheney already. What the American people want is real change, not a kinder and gentler authoritarian who thinks she knows best and asks the people, "So? Who cares what you think?"