#Kimmetcalfe Update

;

The kerfuffle we posted about yesterday between Alaskan Bernie Sanders supporter Levi Younger and Alaska Democratic Party superdelegate Kim Metcalfe over her support for Hillary Clinton has taken to twitter.

The hastag #kimmetcalfe had dozens of posts this morning with people from around the world demanding that Ms. Metcalfe change her declared support from Clinton to Sanders so that it would be in line with the 81% of Alaska Democrat Caucus voters who supported Sanders.

Here are some of the tweets:

kimmetcalfe1

kimmetcalfe2

kimmetcalfe3

;

Ms. Metcalfe appears to be becoming a symbol of Bernie Sanders supporters frustration over the party establishment’s support for Clinton.

For those Bernie supporters who feel the Alaska Democratic Party and the insiders who run it don’t reflect their concerns, we at the Midnight Sun refer you to this paragraph from our coverage of the caucuses this weekend:

“Bernie Sanders won the Alaska caucus about 4-1, but what most of those who voted for Bernie either didn’t know or couldn’t be bothered to care about was that the Presidential caucus was only one function of the event. There were still the matters of electing delegates to the state convention, and electing district & regional leadership positions. Very few of the throngs of Bernie supporters stuck around to feel the bern of responsibility for building their party apparatus to win elections.”

More from TMS

35 Comments on "#Kimmetcalfe Update"

  1. I am appalled at the arrogance of this woman who presumes herself a ruler rather than a representative.

    • Rhea Callaghan | March 31, 2016 at 3:36 am | Reply

      The thing is, I don’t believe she even earned her delegate position by vote.

      The oligarchs in the party put those people in place. Our votes literally mean dick. The 15th amendment is in tatters and people like Kim Metcalfe love it.

  2. In my Anchorage district, the Clinton supporters all agreed that we would support Bernie if he were the eventual nominee. Unfortunately, some of the Bernie supporters did not appear to feel the same. Some of the “college crowd” showed their immaturity and poor sportsmanship, and they had just trounced us (hate to see how they act when they actually lose). And it was almost like they were treating the Clinton supporters as if we were the enemy. It was a bit disappointing. I was an Obama supporter in the 2008 caucus, and we had this same scenario. I believe that we did eventually win over some of the Clinton superdelegates.

    Mr. Younger would do well to think deeply on the following; “You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”! The thing is, older Democrats know that Bernie Sanders isn’t really a Democrat. He’s an Independent who happens to caucus with the Democrats because he finds us less offensive than the Republicans. I believe that he even just filed a lawsuit against the national Democratic Party. I can understand why a superdelegate might not be that enthused. Also, as far as I’m aware, the Democratic Party can organize itself in any way that it wishes to, to nominate it’s candidates. If Mr. Younger doesn’t like it, he can stick with the Democratic Party and try to bring his fellow Democrats over to his way of thinking. But if he wants to be “the decider” on how a nominee is chosen, it may be quicker for him to start his own political party, and then he and he alone can make the rules. I’m pretty sure that Bernie Sanders must have seen some benefit to running as a Democrat, after all those decades of choosing to be an Independent. He sees the millions of “mainstream Democrats”, and he wants our votes. And you know what? We’ll give them to him if he beats Hillary, but he has to do it by our rules. Unfortunately, if Bernie loses, i wonder if a lot of the Bernie supporters are just going to throw a tantrum and refuse to vote for Hillary. Eight years ago there were a lot of upset Hillary supporters, but you know what? They sucked it up and voted Obama when the time came, because it wasn’t about them, it was about doing what was best for the country, and the party, even if they had to vote for their “second best” candidate. Fortunately, I think that neither Bernie or Hillary will run an Independent campaign if they don’t win the Democratic nomination. They’re both smart enough to know what happened when Ralph Nader did it………..we ended up with George W. Bush, the worst president of my lifetime, possibly in the history of the country.

    I also have a problem with Mr. Younger’s argument that Ms. Metcalfe “has” to vote for Bernie, since he got 80%. If he truly believes his own “representative” argument, then Hillary should get one of the superdelegates for the 20% of us who caucused for her. But I’m certainly not demanding that because I know that 16 of our delegates are already required to vote the way that the caucus did. The four superdelegates are rewarded for their loyalty to and hard work for the Democratic Party, so the party itself is more of a concern.

    • Actually it’s this establishment insider nonsense that is toxic to the party and breeds corruption. You can carry on all you want about “putting in the hard work” for the party but blatantly poo’pooing 81% of your constituency is a very unwise move.

      Super delegates like Kim will soon learn that in the real world actions do have very real and often unintended consequences.

      This is not a threat – just a law of nature.

      Bernie supporters are not without our resources and if you think sidelining us is going to help your neoliberal/neocon causes you are in for an interesting real world awakening.

    • Rhea Callaghan | March 31, 2016 at 3:35 am | Reply

      There is not a logical shift from Hillary to Bernie. Most of us are not Democrats, we don’t belong to Hillary. If I don’t want to vote for her I’m not going to.

    • Boss Freedom | March 31, 2016 at 7:10 am | Reply

      She should vote accordingly with the members of her own party which she was hired to represent. She presumes to advance her personal agenda in a bold move of arrogance as if it was her personal political party.

    • This is not a game and not a sport. Sportsmanship doesn’t have a place when the question is about the wellbeing of you and your countrymen.

    • Shu Hashimoto | March 31, 2016 at 6:09 pm | Reply

      It’s a facebook conversation, and I’m sure there’s a (not shown) reason why Kim is so snarky, but at least from what’s visible, the “vinegar” seems rather one-sided. This is pretty bad press for a representative no matter how you slice it.

      If your position really is that superdelegates are there to protect the interests of the party, and those who are faithful to the party cause, I think that’s fine–though I obviously disagree. Debbie Wasserman made that position clear and public. Sanders is obviously not a faithful “Democrat.” He hasn’t put in his dues, and his position is quite far from the position of the Democratic party; it’s just that the Republican party is way more far away for him. Did Sanders use Democrats for their reach and platform? Certainly, and it’s understandable how long-time party members dislike this “takeover.”

      Given America’s two-party system though, democrats, and really, all Americans should think long and hard about how their democracy works though, and if their politicians really represent the people, or if they represent prominent members inside the party. If your position (and that of Debbie Wasserman) is what Democrats really believe–it’s certainly not what most Americans believe. If you, supers like Kim Metcalfe and many other supers, and the “media” really think that it’s the rank and file American that’s “out of touch,” with how American democracy works or should work, then maybe you should get them in touch–bridge that gap and tell them exactly that.

      • I have only officially been a Democrat for maybe a total of 10% of my 35 year long voting career. I guess that I’m kind of like Bernie…….I join them when it suits me. When I say “we Democrats” I probably really mean “we Liberals” because I haven’t put in the time and effort that would truly qualify me as a Democrat. But I admire the people who proudly stick with it up here in Alaska, where they are definitely in the minority, and I send them money from time to time. I never said that I thought that the rank and file American is out of touch……..I really don’t know what you mean by that. I myself am not hopping mad with the Democratic Party, so I don’t have a burning desire to spend my energy changing them or starting a third party. My point is that the Democratic Party has every right to run their own nominating process the way that they see fit……and it’s pretty strange that a few people who only joined because they want to take advantage of the Party infrastructure for this one election, are now screaming about unfair rules. They really should have read the rules before they joined, shouldn’t they? It just seems like they are expecting the Democrats to do all of the “giving”. Not much of a partnership for the Dems, if the Bernie supporters just use them and then refuse to vote if they don’t get their way. And I’ve never said that I’m a big admirer of our two party system either, in fact I think that maybe I prefer the Canadian system, minus the monarch. But it is what it is, and Bernie could have spent his time building up a Democratic Socialist party and then he could have set the rules. Instead, he “did his own thing”, remained uncompromising, and as a result, did not form many political alliances. Don’t get me wrong, I really like the guy. I just don’t see him getting anything done with our current congress, or even a mildly more liberal congress. If the Bernie supporters really want to make some serious changes, they should show up in droves at the congressional elections for the next six years. If liberals got a decent majority, then maybe Bernie could get something done, and then he’d probably become my first choice, instead of my second. In the mean time, why beat up on this one superdelegate? There are two others who haven’t committed yet…….they are the ones that the Bernie supporters should be wooing, thus the hint to try sugar instead of vinegar. Personally though, if I was a superdelegate, I’d wait to declare and see how things go in a few more of these contests, both Democratic and Republican.

        • Shu Hashimoto | March 31, 2016 at 9:09 pm | Reply

          My apologies, I didn’t fully understand your position with regard to the superdelegates. I agree there’s no sense piling on to this particular superdelegate; her response just seemed unnecessarily snarky. I also don’t think it was fair for Younger to expose a private conversation publicly either.

          I only mentioned the two party system because it dictates the ground rules: If you want a real chance in 2016, it seems like you need to use either the Democratic or Republican platform. Maybe not so in 2016, but it seems to be that Bernie Sanders at least chose to do so, instead of running as an independent, because he, I think correctly, thought would divide liberals and hand the nomination over to the Republicans. Long-serving democrats surely don’t “owe” Sanders a fair shake, so to speak, within their system, but by the same token, I don’t see how Sanders or his supporters owe Democrats their allegiance either if that’s what it comes down to though.

          This is the first American election I’ve seriously followed. As a newbie and an outsider looking in though, I can see why it’s tough for liberals; the bias is baked into the electoral system. The prolonged primaries start from the more conservative Southern states. Most Howard Dean/Bernie Sanders type candidates lose points, funding, momentum, and then face media narrative immediately. With how much it costs to campaign, the climb for a left challenger is all but impossible. Doesn’t this (partly) explain why extreme right Republicans get funding and support while extreme left Democrats (which is really more centrist in many countries) don’t?

          By the way, nobody in Canada cares about the monarch.

          • akbatgirly | April 1, 2016 at 12:09 am |

            Who even knows what the entire email conversation was? The Bernie guy may have only showed part of it, and if I remember correctly, the guy who runs this blog is a former local Republican radio show host, so he may have only shown part of it. A schism amongst liberals will only help the Republican Party achieve a victory and the right to name the next two, three, or more Supreme Court justices. I mean I really cannot believe that in this day and age, American women are losing their reproductive rights, not to mention that our entire species is threatened because a segment of religious people think that scientists are playing some kind of hoax about climate change. We need to come together and find the best and fastest way to address global warming…….not get sidetracked by some ugly botched nomination process, and lose another decade.

          • Shu Hashimoto | April 1, 2016 at 7:21 am |

            Agreed. Usually there’s no point speculating between the lines, but this convo is almost certainly just cut/pasted to make Kim look especially nasty. I wasn’t aware that the Bernie guy was a former Republican; that’s interesting. I wouldn’t go so far to give the guy *that* much strategic credit though; he just seems genuinely pissed.

            I also agree that the kinds of debates that are still seriously being had in the US is absolutely insane. Stephen Harper was more or less the Darth Vader of Canada for liberals, and even after that botch, abortion, gay marriage, and death penalty was never brought up as a serious topic. I don’t live in America, so it’s certainly true that I don’t have to directly face the consequences of a Republican POTUS/SCOTUS, but still it feels like winning this cycle is just a battle; the war is really about changing the battleground surrounding elections and money in politics. As long as the system is what it is, I really don’t see the general narrative changing.

            I think there’s a good chance that Hillary would do better as POTUS. The long game though, isn’t about Hillary or Bernie. It’s about money and influence in politics and the electoral process, as well as the media’s role in influencing outcomes. This is the primary reason that there is still a debate about reproductive rights in this day and age IMO, and that’s really what the fight should be about. There’s no reason that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters should be so nasty to each other, but fighting the fundamental battleground isn’t a side-issue; in the long run, it’s far *more* important than winning one election cycle. With the electoral system the way it is, I just don’t think America will change in any serious way, regardless of who the president is. It’s unfortunate though, that a lot of Bernie supporters voice this frustration and contempt directly at Hillary Clinton and their supporters and it just turns into poo-flinging from there.

            As far as this cycle though, Republicans are in way more of a disarray than the Democrats though. They might actually never recover.

          • akbatgirly | April 1, 2016 at 9:31 am |

            Don’t know the Bernie guy from Adam, I was actually talking about the guy who operates this blog, Casey Reynolds. But who knows, maybe he’s had a change of heart and “come over from the dark side”? I did enjoy listening to his show when it was on, though I rarely agreed with him.

            I do agree that it’s all about the money…….but that’s why keeping a right wing lunatic out of the presidency is important now. We already have one vacancy, and Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer are all in their late 70’s to early 80’s. Ginsburg and Breyer are considered liberals and Kennedy a moderate, so the court could change dramatically to the right if Cruz gets in, and who knows what crazy thing Trump might do, maybe appoint Judge Judy or one of his wives! It was the rightwing court who stopped the vote counting in Florida and handed the presidency to George Bush, and they also gave us Citizens United, which has had a terrible effect on our political system. And I wouldn’t count the Republican party out at all. When I was young, in my early teens and twenties, I tended to vote Republican because that’s the way I was raised. Then they brought religion into their party, and I had a real problem with that. Now they’re so all around bad that it’s hard for me to believe that I could have ever leaned their way. But there are plenty of people in this country who really want to force their own personal religious beliefs on everyone, and the Republicans don’t mind jumping in bed with them, though it did give them Sarah Palin which seems to have led to Donald Trump. Maybe they will be more leery of these charismatic cult leader types in the future, but then again, one of these days they might actually find one who’s electable. But I agree, we need to address campaign finance reform before we can truly move forward. Cheers!

  3. Rhea Callaghan | March 31, 2016 at 3:34 am | Reply

    Wait wait you guys literally just tried to justify the dismantling of the Democratic process with a sniveling “kid brother” type of response.

    Grow up. Kim Metcalfe is an embarrassmamet. On her FB she has a big long post about “Congress, do you job!”

    Hey Kim, DO YOUR JOB!

  4. This is a link to Kim Metcalfe’s Alaska Democrats bio page: http://www.alaskademocrats.org/our-leadership/

    If you look up her book — In Sisterhood: the History of Camp 2 of the Alaska Native Sisterhood — on the Amazon selling shit selling machine, you can find it and one comment, which I did the Amazon version of upvoting. (FB won’t let me put the link directly into a comment for whatever reason)

    Metcalfe’s FB page isn’t terribly active, but you can message her:

    https://www.facebook.com/kim.metcalfe.juneau?fref=ts

    Her linkedin page is inactive too (as are most of those I think):

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/kim-metcalfe-87aa0285?authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=eQSu&locale=en_US&srchid=235363931459427969453&srchindex=1&srchtotal=1&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A235363931459427969453%2CVSRPtargetId%3A304077406%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary%2CVSRPnm%3Atrue%2CauthType%3ANAME_SEARCH

    In a response here Metcalfe describes herself as a “yellow dog” Democrat, the definition of which means she would vote for David Duke if he was a registered Democrat before she’d vote for Mother Theresa if she was a registered Republican. As Bernie Sanders maintained his status as an independent but only caucused with the Democrats and voted with them more than 90% of the time, that might not be enough for Metcalfe. You can find her description of herself as a yellow dog here:

    https://www.facebook.com/keith.nyitray/posts/10153717548778645

    The Huffington Post has also picked up on this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/alaskan-superdelegate-sti_b_9579342.html

    Having read her bio, but not knowing her personally, I would venture a guess that all of this harrassment is only going to cause her to dig in her heels. But given the overall mood of Sanders supporters throughout the country, Metcalfe may find she has active challengers with friends who vote the next time she runs to be an Alaska Democrat Committee Person.

    • Boss Freedom | March 31, 2016 at 7:03 am | Reply

      That’s alright, we can make the lives of her political friends in the party difficult as well. Nothing like a good political purge to get the year off to a good start.

    • whymilikethis | March 31, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Reply

      Thanks for your effort, supplying all of these links. I really appreciate the time you took.

  5. dtizzlefosho | March 31, 2016 at 6:55 am | Reply

    But here’s the thing- Yes, the Bernites are annoying, and YES they should have stuck around to elect delegates. Failing to do so does not give the elected official the right to act in direct opposition to her job duties. So, yes the Bernites could change that, but NO they are not obligated to do so and should be able to expect that elected officials are doing their job even if they do not participate in the election. I don;t sit in on every interview at my local McDonald’s but I still expect my fries to be cooked.

    • Boss Freedom | March 31, 2016 at 7:41 am | Reply

      How are 82% of Alaskans annoying?

      • Not sure, never been there. I do live in Kansas City and watched the stand-for-nothing-at-all, entitled millennials pick fights with people they disagreed with. Donald Trump is awful, but his hate speech is specifically protected by the constitution and you would think people voting for progress might want to start by protecting free speech, no? I can’t stand Hillary, but these weren’t her folks. It was the Bernites out in full force claiming to have some sort of point (though they never actually made it) that could only be accomplished with fists.

        BTW I voted for Bernie in the primary. There are good, reasonable people who vote for literally every single candidate. Likewise there are presumptuous know-it-all’s that do the same.

        • Boss Freedom | March 31, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Reply

          The scene was different here, yes there were competing chants but it was good feeling all around as far as I could tell.

          • dtizzlefosho | April 1, 2016 at 1:05 pm |

            … which is why I am speaking in generalities. No, not every person who will cast a primary vote for Bernie Sanders is annoying. The ones who ACTUALLY (laughably) thins he will make a difference, or start some sort of revolution are the irritating ilk I speak of. Thought it was obvious from context that I am, in fact, not speaking of every person who votes for Sanders.

  6. You know, at the caucus (mostly) I saw a lot of young people who were having a good time and getting involved in the political process, and I thought it was great. I actually attended with my teenagers, who are firmly in the Sanders corner. Unfortunately, the tone of some of the Bernie supporters is a bit threatening………and the fact that some of you use terms like “neocon” and “oligarch” when describing the people who have volunteered for the Democratic Party of Alaska, makes me realize just how clueless you are about them. I have volunteered minimally over the years……..worked on a couple of local campaigns and attended maybe one or two district meetings after we nominated Obama. But the people who have put in the time over the years, they are troopers. Being a Democrat in Alaska is not an easy thing. In fact, the only time I ever am an actual Democrat is during the caucus, because I prefer to be an Independent or Nonpartisan. You know why? Because I don’t want the harassment that comes from conservatives if they suspect that I’m liberal. I don’t want to endanger my employment by letting my rightwing boss suspect that I don’t vote for Don Young! Now the Democrats are being harassed by people who literally have showed up in the last month or two, and insinuate that if they don’t get their own way, “consequences” will happen, which sounds a lot like a Donald Trump political strategy. Wow, you guys are playing right into Republican hands……….what should be the easiest Democratic win in decades and you’re basically threatening to hand it over to a potential fascist, or a looney tunes christian dominionist? That you’d rather let one of those guys pick the next Supreme Court justice? I’ll say it again………if Bernie is the nominee, I’ll happily vote for him, even if I don’t think he has a chance in hell of being effective. However, I won’t blame the Democrats at all if they choose not to cater to a group of anarchists who don’t approve of their nomination process.

    For the person below who thinks that Ms. Metcalfe is violating the 15th amendment, you do realize that that applies to the government, not private political organizations? Also, it was about not denying anyone a vote due to the color of their skin! And the Bernie supporters are not “82% of Alaskans”. That would be over 600,000 people……….I think that the total number of Dems statewide who attended the caucus was about 10,000? Compared to 23,000 who went to the Republican PPP. Pretty pathetic attendance on both sides, if you ask me.

    By the way, my kids think that this Bernie Bro “my way or the highway” attitude is terrible, so it works both ways………have you ever considered that you might just alienate “your own people”?

    • Nadine Meadows | April 1, 2016 at 4:39 am | Reply

      I happened to be one who left the Republican party after the last election where Ron Paul did not win. So I didn’t tag on just to support Bernie, but I do support him now. Let’s not play this game of pretending that those who spent “time” are the ones who really matter and the rest of us should sit back and just “hush our mouths”.

      The system is bad and most are doing their best to try and make a change. I notice however that just as with the rotting Republican party, the Democrats who have been in for a long time feel they are owed a deference. I keep hearing “we are one”. Yet it is obvious that this idea only flows ONE way. It is expected that we WILL vote Hillary if Bernie does not win the ticket. And we SHOULD (or the country will be damned) vote Hillary alongside even though there is election fraud going on all over the country.
      Um no, we want real change….not to be told to drink our warm milk like good little children and go to bed.

      I for one want the corporations to be stripped of their “personhood” status and the congressmen, senators, governors, legislators, and presidential candidates to be stripped of accepting cash from lobbyists. I want to not have to worry that I’m going to get hurt and die before I finish raising my kids because I don’t have medical coverage that is affordable through my job. I want this country rebuilt and not destroyed by corporate greed which takes it’s job to slave labor countries.

      Bernie is the only one offering that. Until we see a real change in this country there are many of us who realize our vote, our opinion and our “working through the system” does not work, because the system is NOT real, it’s a big theatrical event in which not only penis sizes are compared on the Republican side, but “Bernie supporters are just big meanies” on the Democratic side. And the vote of the people doesn’t matter, as can be shown through the attitude and the likes of the Kim Metcalfes’ who were entrusted to represent us. She reminds me of the lady in Hunger Games drawing out the names of those who are going to die and smiling all the while like it’s great fun.

      As for bad attitudes, they can be found on both sides; the world is full of them. If that’s how you base what is important….well I’m afraid our country has descended into the intellectual level of a kindergartner.

      FInal words, after the Ron Paul and now Bernie Sanders campaigns….it won’t matter if the elections keep being stolen through a processes in which those who feel entitled steal the popular vote through shady means, ……the change is already taking place, people are sick and tired, and as with all peaceful or violent revolutions…change will eventually come.

      The system can start working for the benefit of the people over the corporations or eventually we’ll have an Icelandic like event…where the people run them out of town. This is what I fear. I am a pacifist, so not from me…..but this election year is important because we are reaching a tipping point….eventually it will descend into chaos.

      • If we don’t band together, the Republicans will win and then they will get an ultra-conservative majority on the Supreme Court that will last for decades. Citizens United will never be overturned under a conservative court, and by the time we could get a moderate or liberal majority, it would be “established law”. Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy are all quite old……plus there’s the Scalia spot. I don’t know about you, but I don’t really want to live my life under Heritage Foundation Supreme Court picks. I’ll say it again, I’ll vote for whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, whether it’s my first choice or not. If we blow this, we’ll likely never achieve campaign finance reform. By the way, caucuses are really not elections…….It would be much more of an “election” if the caucus states all switched to a primary. However, if you look at the results, Bernie does much better in caucuses than he does at primaries. Perhaps the people who are complaining about the way the caucuses are going should take a harder look at that. If the superdelegates were trying to “suppress” the will of the people, they would all have switched over to primaries after Obama took the nomination away from Hillary in 2008. They were Hillary supporters then, and they’re Hillary supporters now………but they left the process as it was, even though it worked against their candidate last time.

  7. No wonder she’s a Hillary supporter. She’s like 200 years old.

  8. There is a similar kerfuffle happening in Seattle. Someone on The Stranger posted this comment which is also pertinent to this discussion:

    There is a difference between the right to vote in a general election and the right to participate in the party’s selection of its candidate in the general election. You belong to the party and participate in party nominating subject to party rules. The Superdelegate system is intended to address exactly the situation that is occurring this year. It is intended as a hedge or firewall against populist sentiment or outsiders trying to hijack the party’s nomination. Superdelegates are selected because of strong ties with the party. Sanders expressed his preference for the Democratic Party when he filed for his candidacy. He had stated that he is running for the Democratic nomination because it is too hard to get money and press coverage as an independent. However Sanders has never been a Democrat. He has been an independent — a Democratic Socialist. Admittedly he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate and his positions overlap with many of those held by the Democratic Party. Nonetheless the party is entitled to appoint Superdelegates who can swing a nomination in favor of a longer standing, more loyal, more orthodox Democrat.

    http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/29/23877594/washington-superdelegates-still-endorsing-clinton-spurning-pro-bernie-majority-of-state-voters/

    • Shu Hashimoto | March 31, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Reply

      It seems like the system works in the real world *most* of the time. There’s usually an acceptable candidate from the POV of party elites, and voters fall in line so there’s no conflict. In 2012, the superdelegates adjusted, and that’s the expectation when there are candidates that are “acceptable” vying for candidacy. My guess would be that as TV loses its grip on the younger generation, there will be more and more “outsiders.”

      Surely it’s the right of the Democratic party to set the rules, and if you play their game, you shouldn’t get the right to change it as you see fit. This much I get. Given the system where it’s effectively a two-party system though, it seems that a candidate like Sanders (or Trump for that matter) who isn’t well liked by either party elites, has no choice but to take up one platform or another. Perhaps this isn’t so self-evident anymore in the Internet age though–certainly Sanders had no love from the media or the DNC. Maybe he can win as an Independent running on donations.

      Thing is, Sanders chose not to do this, because of the fear that it would split the Democrat votes and give it to the Republicans. It seems to me that the party elites want it both ways–they say it’s both irresponsible and destructive to run as an independent, and at the same time, want to control their primary process. If the process isn’t the “people’s choice” but the “party’s choice” then just say so like Debbie Wasserman; I think that’s legitimate–at least she has the balls to say so. The media always counts the super votes as if they were locked in. It just seems hypocritical to want voters to believe that their voice is being represented fairly, and at the same time want strict control of the process. It’d be great if the superdelegates publicly defended why they should have autonomous votes that can, at times, supercede the will of regular voters. Now, that’s a debate worth having.

  9. Nadine Meadows | April 1, 2016 at 4:15 am | Reply

    Let’s be clear. We were told if we could NOT afford to pay for all expenses as a Delegate that we should not ask to be one. ALSO, as soon as the vote was over we were told that if we didn’t want to be a delegate it was time for us to leave. “If you are not going to be a delegate, now is the time for you to go.”

    • The problem with the caucus is that it can be chaotic when so many people show up………..in our district group it was made very clear that they wanted everyone to stay and participate. I’m guessing that you just had an inexperienced person in charge of your group. Some people think that we should dump the caucus here in Anchorage due to the craziness of both the 2016 and 2008 ones. Me, I know it’s a big time commitment, but I like seeing all those liberals get together, makes me not feel like such a minority in this red state.

  10. Amy Macpherson | April 1, 2016 at 9:41 am | Reply

    Just to let you know, in the Mat-Su Valley District 11, we needed to choose 9 delegates and we had 28 stand up to volunteer and say why they should be chosen. We spent an extra 2 hours, hearing speeches, voting and tallying the votes from the 100+ people who stayed to choose delegates. We had a great time and felt good about our role in the process. That feeling of course has been soured by the comments of Ms. Metcalfe.

  11. the last paragraph on this is so aggravating and disgusting? it’s blaming Bernie supporters for not putting “the right people” in office to vote in favor of the people. there are so many things wrong with this, lemme see if I can write them all.

    a) No one is to blame for not putting “the right peopls” into office. every elected official SHOULD represent the people. if they dont, that’s a deficit in THEIR character, not the people’s.

    b) you’re blaming BERNIE supporters for not canvassing from before bernie started running to put people in an office position that would make sure they’d vote for bernie?? I even confused myself on that one, it makes no sense.

    c) most of the bernie support comes a very young demographic. 18-25 year olds for the most part. you know what that means? people who have not voted many times in their life. in fact, for many, this will probably be their first voting opportunity. how are WE to blame for this?

    d) I could get into the whole shitty way the school system DOESN’T prepare the younger generations for voting responsibilities and it has nothing to do with lack of desire to learn, but I won’t.

    bottom line, trying to pin this disgusting behavior and result on us is absolutely ridiculous and pulls what was a good piece away from the issue of a crumbling democracy. I’ll leave it at that

    • I’m absolutely not blaming the young people for our crappy rightwing congress, I’m telling you that you actually have the power to change things (and I really wish you would), if you would keep showing up in these numbers. But I’m also stating the obvious…….Bernie is idealistic and uncompromising……..he won’t get one Republican vote for his ideas, and the Democrats won’t have a large enough majority to support him either (there are some Democrats in congress that barely get re-elected in their districts…think “Mark Begich”). The Dems need a super majority for a socialist president to make any progress. So I personally happen to think that the person (Hillary) who knows how to operate under these circumstances will be able to wheel and deal and actually get some things done. If the youth would stick with this movement, then they could eventually do it. It just is not going to happen in one election.

  12. Le Shane Murray | April 2, 2016 at 12:05 am | Reply

    https://lasamaritanablog.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/le-shane-is-feelin-the-bern-yeah-baby/ My husband retires in a few years…I wanted to come back to AK…. Hillary shut down a cannery in 1969…cause fish are yucky and smell???? NEWS FLASH…..OMG, Hil, LEARN ABOUT the life cycle of salmon …I will now start looking for property in another state…not one full of Hillary Sell outs…. I think you would even embarrass Ben & Sen. Ted Stevens, Governor Hickle…never mind Governor Knowles, Arliss Stergeluski AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON that worked on Special Olympics World Games 2001 in Anchorage. You are an embarrassment to the democratic party. I, Mam, have met the Kennedys and the Clintons (and Sargent Shriver). Pardon mais fraincois, but, Go slime a salmon……or here in the South we just say BLESS YOUR HEART…(and I ‘betcha can see Russia from your front porch).

  13. I’m a bernie sanders supporter but I find this bullying of Metcalfe disrespectful. She’s worked for labor unions and earned her position as a superdelegate. I also despise the superdelegate system, but that is NOT Metcalfe’s fault, its the Democratic Party. Unfortunately she has every right to vote for you know who if she wants. If you want to change her mind, you need to approach her with respect, and persuasion, and get to know what she herself has done for workers. IF you attack her like this “bro” did, who clearly is a newcomer to politics had no idea of Metcalfe’s own record in labor organization, you will hurt Bernie more than you help him, and she will brush you off and with good reason. there is some sexism here folks, and it worries me.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*