How about a ‘superdelegate primary’?

March 19, 2008

By now, everyone can see the advantages of ending the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not this prolonged process is a disaster for the party, but if we’re making lists of pros and cons, I think it’s clear that the latter would be longer than the prior.

The question, of course, is what anyone can do about it. Tennessee Gov. Philip Bredesen (D), the policy chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association, to his credit, thinks outside the box and presents a new idea in an NYT op-ed today.

We are blessed with two fine candidates, but it’s entirely possible that when primary season ends on June 3, we will still lack a clear nominee. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could each still believe that the nomination could be his or hers at the national convention in Denver in August.

In that situation, we would then face a long summer of brutal and unnecessary warfare. We would face a summer of growing polarization. And we would face a summer of lost opportunities — lost opportunities to heal the wounds of the primaries, to fill the party’s coffers, to offer unified Democratic ideas for America’s challenges.

If we do nothing, we’ll of course still have a nominee by Labor Day. But if he or she is the nominee of a party that is emotionally exhausted and divided with only two months to go before Election Day, it could be a Pyrrhic victory.

Here’s what our party should do: schedule a superdelegate primary. In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus.

Of the 795 superdelegates, over 40 percent have not announced which candidate they are supporting; I’m one of them. While it would be comfortable for me to delay making a decision until the convention, the reality is that I’ll have all the information I reasonably need in June, and so will my colleagues across the country.

As Bredesen sees it, some kind of “mini-convention” of party insiders wouldn’t be necessary, just a “tight, two-day business-like gathering,” including “one transparent vote.”

Not bad, but I might quibble with a detail here or there.

The biggest benefit of Bredesen’s idea is that it would help produce a nominee in June, instead of late August. No convention fight, no delay, no haphazard vetting of VP candidates. The candidates would see the results, and the one who comes up short could bow out.

Bredesen added:

In addition to the practical political benefits, such a plan is also a chance to show America that we are a modern political party focused on results. It’s a chance to show that when confronted with an unexpected problem, we have the common sense to come together, roll up our sleeves and direct events to a successful conclusion.

And I believe that in the end, American voters might just be inclined to reward that kind of unexpected common sense.

Maybe so. But here’s a slight counter-offer: why wait until June?

The NYT had an item over the weekend about how the superdelegates are feeling antsy, but the uncommitted ones don’t want to announce their support for either candidate right now. Why? Because superdelegates, influential party insiders, are hoping power-brokers (Dean, Gore, et al) will intervene so they’ll be “relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home.”

I’m sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands. Whether that’s in August, June, or right now, these insiders are going to tip the scales in the direction of one candidate or the other. I think the smart move is to make a choice sooner, rather than later. After all, what are they waiting for? This campaign started 14 months ago, there have been more than 20 debates, countless forums, and 42 states have held either a primary or a caucus. They know they’ll have to make a decision, but they’re still undecided? Seriously?

I like Bredesen’s idea. Compared to the status quo, it’s very clever and worthy of serious consideration. But I’d be even happier with superdelegates just speaking up now and helping end this process immediately.

As I argued on Saturday, one candidate is going to enter the convention with more delegates, more states, and probably more popular votes. If superdelegates find that compelling, fine, back Obama. If they find other factors more compelling, fine, back Clinton.

Just stop sitting on the sidelines, waiting for a miracle, hoping to avoid the burden of choice.

Obama has passed his test and has set out a vision for America that must not be denied, or should not be denied. Now it is up to Party leaders to be Leaders and end this divisive quest for power of the Clintons and bring unity to the Democratic Party and possibly a greater union to this country. If we really love America we must come together, our problems are too great.

Due to the divisions Camp Clinton initiated into the political society at this time, Obama had to address Race, which turned out to be a good thing and hopefully will begin to heal the division instituted by the Clintons. Obama has shown through this contoversy that he is a true leader. Obama wants a force for good, for groping and solving our problems which effect us today and have not really been addressed or solved. We have to do something new for the old ways have not worked. He has shown by his willingness not to go negative, not to get angry, not to be critical, that he indeed, represents something new and a leader for our times who can work with both Democrats and Republicans.

Unfotunately, there are some who want to continue the Rev. Wright controversy for their own selfish ends. Rev. Wright did not preach hate every day like some want to suggest, and seem so shocked that he, and he alone, only preached this way, not unlike some Right-Wing preachers who said similar things or worse, who sit with presidents today. Pundits like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and others who want to continue to sow division, represent the very things they say about Rev. Wright — hatefulness divisiveness, extremists, and all the ugly things that go along with that type of personality and are a part of the old ways that we want to move away from as we are trying to build a more sane, untified, holistic society, filled with goodwill instead of hate. As long as we have pundits and media who prefer to concentrate on our differences and expoit them, they constitute an impediment, a wall to the very kind of unity we are trying to build. These pundits should not be allowed to make big salaries while they continue to tear America down and apart. They are no friend to America. These pundits like to talk about white, blue collar workers, and what they really want, as if they really represent them with their cushy salaries. However, I am part of the average joes who grew up in up-state New York, and Joe, Pat, and other divisive media personalities, average working people are willing to hear what Obama has to say, white and black, men and women, because they are more concerned about their pocketbooks than continuing a race/gender divide. They don’t want to see this Unity, because with unity there is power, a force, either for good or bad but it is a powerful force.

Barack Obama is asking America to put anger aside, to heal, to walk over that bridge in reconcilliation. That is why he, uniquely, can work with Republicans while being a Democrat. America we must demand better of our leaders, politicians and media if we are to survive the herculean problems facing us today. We cannot continue to let the forces of separatism tear us apart, the stakes are way too high. We can demand better and we can do better. It is in us to overcome if we do not let these forces continue to fan the flames of hatred and fear.

It is time for Party Leaders to step in and end Hillary’s destructive quest to gain the White House. that She cannot win and only further tears apart not just the Democratic Party apart but also the United States in this quest for power. If she was running for office in a more unifying and ethical way, then I would say more power to her, but she is not. She has run amuck and against Democratic core principles and seems more Republican-like than Democratic, and too she has aligned herself with McCain as they have alledgely passed the “threshhold test”. As for the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton has no credibility. She can do all the speeches on Iraq that she chooses but no one really believes her. She represents the past ways of doing things which are negative and impediments to the qualities of goodwill and unity which we are trying to implement in a more holistic society. America is embracing her Soul!

  • I don’t like it, because it creates a de-facto convention in and of itself, underlining the elitest stance that the party elders know ‘better’ than the public which candidate to support.

    Frankly, it’s a flawed system and, after this election cycle, I sincerely hope that they rewrite the entire nominating process.

    That being said, the quick fix is exactly what you say– these are supposed to be the damn party Leaders, after all. Let’s start seeing some leadership!

  • Typical “leadership”. Wait for your followers to make a decision so you don’t have to. He said that by the end of the primary season they will have all of the information they need to make an informed decision. I had the information I needed by super Tuesday and if I wasn’t ready by the… tough for me.

    Obviously these cretins don’t care about positions or who they think will make a better leader, they only care that they don’t hurt their own political positions. If a person stands by his principles they should be able to keep their self respect.. if not their office.

    Show a little backbone.

  • Bredesen’s usually an inventive thinker, but this strikes me as not that courageous. As Steve notes, waiting until June is essentially what they’re all going to do on their own.

    If anything, this gives individual delegates more political cover, by having them all take the leap at once. Eh.

  • I think it’s a great idea, but I think Bredesen is right that waiting until June is the best decision. Let all the states have their primaries; let their votes count for once. Even if the superdelegates end up tipping the balance, I think it’s far more appropriate to let the states hold their elections first so that the superdelegates have the benefit of the final pledged delegate and popular vote counts in making their decisions.

    Castor Troy– I disagree. You’re right that the system is flawed and I also hope they change it after this election, but the fact remains that the superdelegates and the rest of us have to live with it for the time being. I can’t see how holding a superdelegate primary in June, after all the states have voted, is any more elitist than waiting until the convention in August. You’re right that superdelegates’ power is problematic either way, but I don’t see how a superdelegates’ primary adds to that problem in any way.

  • I think Cleaver posted it the other day, but this quote stuck with me concerning Democratic leadership:

    There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader. -Alexandre Ledru-Rollin

    Time to follow your people, and back Obama.

  • Next election we need a national primary, and no superdelegates.
    The system is too complicated. It is subject to error. Hell, it is even subject to interpretation.
    A straight up and down vote will prevent so called dems from turning on each other with statements like this:
    “Now it is up to Party leaders to be Leaders and end this divisive quest for power of the Clintons”

    Hate is not a good substitute for wisdom.

  • James Dillon (5) Bredesen is right that waiting til June is the best desicion.

    Amen to that. While I wouldn’t refuse to vote Dem because my WV vote wouldn’t count, I would be furious if the Supers did anything but honor the elected delegates. And don’t forget some of these Supers (the unpledged add-on delegates) don’t get chosen until after their states’ primaries.

  • If the superdelegates are all associated with a state, then the ones who have had primaries should declare now and so on as each primary is done. Let them vote with their states.

  • Nell (7) One of the reasons for the staggered primaries is to give the most voters possible a chance to meet the candidates, and see how they address the issues specific to their states. A straight up and down one day nationwide primary would favor the candidate chosen by people like Chris Matthews and Bill Schneider. This year, that would be McCain and Clinton, but only because Clinton will lose.

  • How about we take a poll of Deomcratic voters, and ask them how strongly they would be willing to support the Democratic party if the superdelegates overturned the will of the people?

    I think we know how that would work out, and what that means.

    I can’t believe how some people can’t make decisions. If you can’t decide, then step aside.

  • I have this instinctive feeling that the superdelegates shouldn’t make any group decision until after all the primaries.

  • Look, we can all moan about how the process is undemocratic, but so are the electoral college and caucuses, etc. The system may not be perfect, but the rules were set up beforehand (as the Obama people are happy to remind Clinton people regarding Florida and Michigan — on that point, it should be made clear that the DNC “rules” provide for FL and MI to be able to submit proposals for revotes, so that would be within the “rules”).

    And, the whole argument that the superdelegates should vote with the pledged delegates or the popular vote is stupid. If that were the case, you wouldn’t need them — think about it. They are there for a reason (as a check/balance). For example, let’s say we were all enamored with some hypothetical candidate in January but he’s kind of an unknown, and things start coming out in, say, March and April, that bring into question his ability to win or raise other issues. But, he’s built up an insurmountable delegate lead, so even if the other hypothetical candidate racks up 55%+ victories in the final contests, and is showing stronger numbers v. the Republican candidate, she can’t get the lead in pledged delegates. In that case, the superdelegates are supposed to “exercise judgment” for the good of the party. Wouldn’t we want the momentum candidate in that case, rather than the guy who’s coasting into the nomination (see my next paragraph).

    On a related point, I think it’s stupid for the Obama campaign to talk about pledged delegate leads, etc. (basically running out the clock on Clinton) as the main reason why he should be the nominee — that’s a silly argument, and not how a “movement/change” candidate wins this race. That’s a process argument.

    The superdelegates should wait until they’re good and ready. What if there is a “bimbo eruption”? Who knows what could happen with this guy that most of us have come to know for 2 1/2 months. That’s it folks — 2 1/2 months. I, for one, want to see more press vetting now, rather than in the general election.

  • If I’m not mistaken, it’s situations such as this that the superdelegate was designed for: when the party is at a crossroads, the “party” acts as ultimate arbiter. It’s time to make a decision and move on.

    The superdelegates are all people in some leadership capacity — so lead! I suspect no one wants to be on the losing side and diminish their favor or influence in the party. But their siting on the sidelines threatens to win a personal battle but lose the ultimate war. I agree with other posters – why wait until June? The longer we wait, the longer the Florida and Michigan delegate issues will dog the party.

  • As a follow up to my earlier post, when I say that the argument that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people is a “stupid” argument, what I mean is that that shouldn’t be the definitive answer on how they vote — then you wouldn’t need it. Of course, it should be a factor in any superdelegate’s decision, but which popular vote — home state or nationwide? I just think they should factor in electability, momentum, down ballot effects, etc.

  • What if there is a “bimbo eruption”? Who knows what could happen with this guy that most of us have come to know for 2 1/2 months. -Alex

    We should also torture prisoners in case there is a ticking time bomb and eavesdrop on US citizens just in case. Same justification.

    Besides, you act like the Party couldn’t select a new nominee if something dramatic happened. This is the silliest reason to continue the primary. An argument for fairness to all states I can stomach, but not this.

    And just because you started paying attention in January doesn’t mean the rest of us haven’t been paying attention a lot longer. Obama has been a US Senator for a couple years.

    On a related point, I think it’s stupid for the Obama campaign to talk about pledged delegate leads… -Alex

    When did they? I know a lot of bloggers and commenters do, but I’ve not seen the campaign say anything about it, other than the supers should follow the will of the people. That sounds like a movement argument to me.

  • The “superdelegates” are there to be a tiebreaker. And we have a “tie” — the difference in delegates is not great, and we can argue all day about closed primaries, open primaries and caucuses, about big states vs. small states, about red states vs. blue states, about Democratic voters vs. Independent voters vs. mischief-making Republican voters — this is a nominating process, not an up-or-down election. One candidate is ahead, but it’s not a blowout.

    And there are a lot of other factors superdelegates should consider — downticket effect, the electoral map, etc.

    Waiting until June is a sign of respect for “letting everyone have their say” but may not be wise. I think a lot of the dynamic will depend on what happens in PA. Clinton is expected to win, but by how much? Does the Wright controversy sink Obama, even after his speech yesterday? Does Obama recover and close the gap more than people expect? Is it still status quo?

    I don’t think it even has to be a superdelegate caucus. If the day after PA, superdelegates start holding press conferences and endorsing, momentum will build one way or another.

    If Edwards comes down hard for a particular candidate, that will get the ball rolling in one direction or another.

    And if Al Gore steps in…..well….that would be a game-changer….

  • I have a morbid feeling that waiting would be in HC’s interest, and the nit-picking BO is enduring would continue. The polls are showing that his lead is narrowing, and yet he may prove me wrong and deflect it in the long run. But the testiness really distracts from the goals of the party.

    If HC is our nominee, I’m going to have to do a paradigm adjustment and I’d rather start that process now. I will vote for her if I must, but my heart is not there now.

    If the superdelegates would choose BO now, it would send spirits high and it would be a stark contrast to the opposition, which has rightfully been nicknamed McSame. I don’t think HC could muster the same type of hype or contrast.

    The media is having too much fun at the Dems expense. We are losing ground. It’s been great getting the 50 state strategy working, but I’m afraid that this whole thing will get messier the longer it plays out and a lot of people will be hurt.

  • What’s the hurry to get the superdelegates to intefere? I thought the general consensus among Obama followers was to NOT have them interfere. This is a notable shift in thought.

    At any rate, shouldn’t we be talking about delegates who represent people who are speaking out in large numbers who want their votes back? Should they continue to be counted in the Obama column? I think not.

    Superdelegates should wait and let this thing play itself out, only then will they see the long term effects that Obama’s current problems will have on his electability.

  • Alex (13) :And, the whole argument that the superdelegates should vote with the pledged delegates or the popular vote is stupid. If that were the case, you wouldn’t need them — think about it.

    If your candidate got bumped by a large spurt of Rush Limbaugh crossovers in the last few states, you might appreciate the role of the Supers. If McCain is found to have violated campaign finance laws, and it gets either the attention of the media or the Justice department, the Republicans might wish they had superdelegates, too.

  • There was a time when I thought, ‘hey we have two great candidates, so I could vote for either one who ends up being our candidate. How great is it to have a woman and a black man running for President? I’m so proud of our party.’

    Now I’m for BO in a big way, but will vote for HRC if she is the nominee. However, after the way she has attacked BO, my heart will not be in it. For me, her only saving grace is that she isn’t McSame. It really, really bothers me that she is willing to take down the party with her if she doesn’t win. Those kinds of efforts need to be geared towards taking down the Republicans.

  • The added benefit would be Hillary ceasing all state operations and campaigning exclusively in Superdelegate homes and offices. Her own kind of 50 state strategy.

    Coup by Superdelegate is her only path to the nomination.

    And BTW, Obama’s perfomance yesterday made Billery look a lot smaller and turned McCain into an absolute Zero on the leadership scale.

  • Kos addressed an off-shoot of this topic (Clinton’s superdelegate problem) that may be factoring in to superdelegate’s hesitancy to endorse.

    Essentially, Kos notes that Bill Clinton’s coattail record was abysmal. When Clinton was on the ballot in 92 and 96, Dems lost Senate seats both times. The 94 midterm was nothing short of disaster. In 1998, a few House seats were gained but no Senate seats.

    So, they have the known candidate in the Clintons, with a terrible downticket record, and a lesser known candidate with what appear to be very strong coattails. Viewed in that light, it makes some sense for them to wait.

    However, they could easily endorse one candidate now, effectively end the race, and if something comes up between now and the convention that makes their preference less desirable, they could back the other candidate at the convention. Endorsements aren’t binding.

  • Doubtful:

    1) Does anybody else understand your torture reference? Go back on your meds. My point is that January does not equal November. Why don’t we just have the general election now — you seem to assume that nothing could happen between now and then that would change things.

    2) Perhaps *you* should pay more attention — Obama talked about the pledged delegate lead being insurmountable on the plane home right after Texas/Ohio, and David Axelrod has done it many times. Here’s a quote from Obama: “We still have an insurmountable lead.”

    Apology? Correction? Or, maybe you don’t do that.

  • I can see waiting until June 7th. With it this close, let the candidates compete through all the primaries. We non-delegate Democratic party members should then put pressure on the campaigns to make their best case to the Super Delegates on why they should represent the party and then force the uncommitted to make a decision and announce it by the following Tuesday, June 17th.

    Sure they could change their mind but except for the “ticking bomb” scenario, they’ll have all the information that will be available in August, so why wait?

    Getting a “presumptive” nominee we can then get on with crushing the Bush/McCain legacy two months earlier.

  • Does anybody else understand your torture reference? Go back on your meds.

    You’re suggesting that there may be something in Obama’s closet that will come out and disqualify him and using that as justification to prolong a contest that many rational people know is over.

    That’s akin to saying we should torture people in case of the ticking time bomb scenario. In other words, it’s an absurd justification based on fear that on the whole is meaningless and unlikely.

    And while this primary may not be waterboarding, it certain is torture.

    Apology? Correction? Or, maybe you don’t do that. -Alex

    I asked you a question, and simply state I hadn’t seen it. and you provided an answer. Why should I apologize? I think you should be the one apologizing for your condescending tone and suggestion that I need psychoactive drugs.

    Oh, and by the way, thanks for answering my question, for what it’s worth. I certainly won’t ask any more of you in the future.

  • The Obama campaign does not want a “re do” in Michigan and Florida because these are the kind of (populous) states that Clinton would win. They prefer the status quo because they can then continue to say that Clinton got them under unfair circumstances. They are the one who don’t care about disenfranchisement because it helps them win.

  • Doubtful:

    Meaningless and unlikely? Why? There are still 5 months til the convention, and the press has really been paying attention to Obama for about 1 1/2 months. I think the chances of people getting somewhat tired of the rhetoric or seeing him as a standard politician, or something worse. The Democratic electorate truly is split in this race — let’s see what skeletons come out of the closet. I for one would rather have them come out now than in October. I will support Obama without question if he is the nominee, but I want to win, and I’m not convinced he’s our best path.

    And, you started the condescension towards me — I merely responded in kind. And, your torture reference roped me into some of the worst acts commited by our country. Thanks for keeping the tone civil. Be a little more self aware.

  • 13. Alex said: What if there is a “bimbo eruption”?

    There were lots of “bimbo eruptions” in 1992, but none of them kept Bill Clinton from the nomination. Are you saying non-Clintons should be held to a different standard?

  • Shalimar:

    No — I’m just saying there are things that can change perceptions and I don’t know why the results in January should dictate our actions in June or August, especially when this is how the system is set up.

  • I don’t know why the results in January should dictate our actions in June or August, especially when this is how the system is set up.

    You’re really naive if you believe that the system is “set up” to have no real decision until convention.

    Certainly since 1984, and arguably before that, the intent has been for the party conventions to be theatrics. In most cycles, the parties would be well into planning exactly what the coronation would look like to get the maximum bounce in the polls kicking off the “real” election season post-Labor Day. The whole idea of “Super Tuesday/Regional/Monday/Etc” over the past several cycles was an effort to bring the nomination to an early close so the parties could have plenty of time to unite, raise funds, and prepare for the general.

    The conventions are no longer intended nor really set up to choose a candidate; it will be a total fiasco if it comes to that. Not to sound crass, but in conventional marketing terms the party conventions are really a huge national product launch. That is all they are presently intended to be; a delay in determining the product really screws with that purpose.

  • And, your torture reference roped me into some of the worst acts commited [sic] by our country. -Alex

    I never accused you of advocating torture; only of using the same flawed logic and fear of the unknown to prolong the campaign. You’re ‘bimbo eruption’ is nothing more than a ‘ticking time bomb:’ a scenario that doesn’t exist, and, as I explained already, if it were to come to fruition, the Democratic party would pick another candidate, so it’s a moot point that is only useful as a flimsy argument to prolong the campaign.

    As I said originally, there are valid reasons, such as fairness to all states to prolong the campaign, but this is not one of them.

    And, you started the condescension towards me… -Alex

    Playground logic aside, I fail to see how I was condescending to you, and nowhere in my initial response to you did I suggest you were ‘off your meds’ or anything of that magnitude, so saying you responded in kind is nothing more than you trying to bring me down to that level.

    I said the argument was silly, which I stand by. I don’t see how that’s condescending and I’ve presented my case. I’ve certainly been condescending before, I’m well aware of that, but not to you.

    You keep returning to the argument that the media and the people don’t know Obama, but that is patently false. He’s held public office for a number of years and had a very high profile Senate race in 2004. Not only that, but he’s been far more open than his opponent. When she releases her tax returns, then we can talk more about bogeymen in closets.

  • So,
    We “disenfranchise” two states who broke the rules and voted early, and now we should disenfranchise eight more who followed the rules but are, apparently, voting too late.

    Is that fair?

  • I’m just curious – in those past cycles when a candidate was able to gain a sufficient lead to drive off all competition after the first 10-12 contests, were the other 38 states “disenfranchised”?

    Seriously, it has been a while since this many states actually mattered and yet this year is somehow the disenfranchising year? I don’t remember anywhere near this much complaining in past election cycles that were effectively over much, much sooner.

    Welcome to Sense of Entitlement Nation.

  • Mark Pencil:

    I’m not naive — I know that it doesn’t normally go this far, but this year, it has and the electorate is very closely divided. So, why should it be shut down early? In earlier years, there was a movement to unite early and move on. You don’t have the critical mass to do that this year, so you want the superdelegates to vote early to do your work for you?

  • Alex –

    The short answer is yes.

    The non-short answer is that I might feel differently if there were any plausible scenario where the remaining caucus/primary delegates would put allow one candidate to actually lock up the necessary delegates, or if the spread were such that it was likely one candidate would drop out (i.e. the normal way these things end, only later).

    Mathematically, however, the Supers are going to have to put someone over the top anyway, now or later. There is much potential for harm in screwing up our “product launch” while the Republicans get to go all out for theirs. So it would seem to make more sense for the Supers to act sooner rather than later (in this I agree with Carpetbagger). I say this as a Clinton supporter, knowing that the likely outcome of this pre-convention intervention is likely helpful to Obama.

    I might feel very differently in an “ideal world” where politics was about the objective truth and measurable, verifiable advantages of one candidate over another. We are far away from that world, however, and the sniping, the packaging, the perception, the marketing is all part of it, and for many voters ultimately a bigger part than the substance. In that reality, given that I find both Clinton and Obama acceptable, letting the perfect (i.e. my first choice) be the enemy of the good (i.e. my second choice) is a mistake. Closure is more electorally important now than running the race to the end.

    I am a progressive, but it is folly to not temper that with pragmatism. Abhoring pragmatic compromises of one’s pure ideals leads to neuroses like supporting Nader.

  • Mark Pencil —

    Thank you for the sane response. We disagree on the harm that is being done (I’m not sure it won’t be fixable later on)/the risk that something will come out on Obama (for example, how the Rev. Wright issues shake out (by the way, not an issue for me, but apparently hurting his standing with blue collar white voters/independents)). As somebody who desperately wants to win in November, I don’t want to nominate somebody that the public has put on a pedestal (he has to come down) without a chance to vet him more fully. As I said before, I will support either of them. I just want to put forward our best foot.

    I also think that the delegate count is so close (and you’ve got caucus v. primary issues (i.e., I think Hillary would have done better if there had been primaries everywhere), and clearly she was hurt by losing 2 good states for her (yes, those are the rules, but she went in with a disadvantage (she didn’t object earlier because she thought it would be a cake walk)), that yes the superdelegates are going to put somebody over the top. Is it so wrong if they do that for Hillary? If it’s really a 51/49 split after 53 contests or whatever it is, isn’t that essentially a tie?

  • That’s a very interesting idea about waiting until some time in the summer, after all the states have had their say, and getting all the superdelegates together on one day to see how they look at the campaign and what they think is in the best interest of the party.

    Let me build on this theme for a moment, because I really like it. I propose that we could call it a “Convention”. Who knows, maybe we could even put it on television or something.

    Yes, the current process is frustrating, and it could stand lots of improvement, but it has worked to let lots of people have their say and test the candidates in various ways (as it was designed to do). It is unfortunate that Hillary is going so negative, but a) this campaign is really not that negative, b) it’s providing a useful test of the candidates, and c) it’s working as planned, and it’s not over yet. For a long time I slightly favored Obama but was happy with all three leading democratic candidates. I am now considerably less impressed with Hillary and vastly more impressed with Obama, and I consider that I’ve learned a lot more very useful stuff about both of them and their relative strangths and weaknesses, all because of recent campaigning. (I’ll still support her if she wins, but I’m really hoping for Obama.)

    Moreover, this whole race thing was going to come up anyway, and Obama came up with a brilliant speech that elevated his candidacy considerably. If this had all suddenly arrived as an October surprise, the outcome could be very different, but since it came out now, anything more about Obama’s preacher is going to be stone-cold old news even before Pennsylvania goes to the polls. Moreover, I think his speech will play well over the months to come, and willl frame the whole general election / media coverage in ways that are extremely favorable to him, and this wouldn’t have happened without the ongoing primary.

    Conventions in recent years have been managed to be gigantic infomercials scrubbed as free as possible of any tiny scrap of actual news value and excitement. I agree that there is a risk of turning off voters from a contentious campaign. Nonetheless the carefully coordinated cuddle-fest style of convention has probably outlived its usefulness. The major networks won’t carry them because no one watches them, and no one watches them because they are as exciting and meaningful as last week’s football game or last year’s celebrity wedding. Hands up, how many of you are going to tune in to see who wins the Republican nomination this summer?

    Instead, we could potentially offer a convention where people are arguing passionately for candidates and principles, where the actual outcome is important and remains in doubt. Mightn’t people watch that? TV stations are willing to spend all day endlessly repeating clips and nattering drivel about things like a white Bronco being driven down a freeway by a celebrity, or a bunch of people sitting in a nearly flooded superdome, and people are willing to watch it, simply because they are current, but they will barely touch political conventions any more.

    In addition, the process as designed is not yet over. Voters in Pennsylvania through Puerto Rico have not yet had their say, and I think they should get one. I was very pleased that my vote counted in Ohio, even if my candidate lost, and I think as many people as possible should get the opportunity for casting a meaningful vote. Plus I don’t want to reward MI & FL for breaking the rules.

    Lastly, at the risk of being panglossian, even though I wish Clinton would rein in some of her less valid and less helpful charges and even though this campaign may well cost some Democrat support in the fall, this whole process will give democrats a bit of useful practice in pulling back together for a common purpose. To cite a recent example Murtha, notwithstanding his shortcomings, is someone who has contributed a lot to the Democratic party and will contribute a lot more, and if we can’t figure out how to disagree on candidates and some policies and still pull back together to unite against Republicans rather than rejecting him in disgust, we aren’t going to get very far as a majority party. Let’s let the Republicans try pure, purged, powerless, and pointless for a while.

  • My problem with the remaining “open” primaries is that (Limbaugh) Republicans are now voting – and voting for Clinton just to keep the death spiral of the Democratic Party going.
    Actually, an even bigger problem for me is that Clinton knows this and is willing to keep going with the help of these people – and to be almost gleeful throwing the kitchen sink and taking down her party. Maybe that is it – it is “her” party and if she can’t have it nobody will.
    A true “progressive” patriot would bow out now if they were in the ultimately unwinnable situation Clinton finds herself in now. But I guess denial is a strong emotion. Either that, or she really doesn’t care how four more years of Bushism will affect the rest of us.

  • Let’s have a primary of 800 people with the same impact as the 8+ million people represented by California, Illinois, and New York combined!

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • John (39): Throughout the process, Obama has gotten the benefit of Republicans and Independents. It’s a little late to be whining about allowing Republicans into our tent. Pennsylvania is closed — let’s see how he does there. I can’t say I’m happy with how the Clinton campaign has been acting (although I think they’re doing better now). But, imagine if you felt the other guy was getting a free ride through the process and you thought you were the better candidate. Wouldn’t you fight?

  • Alex, @41,

    Republican (and Indie) crossovers in the earlier primaries — before McSame was anointed — are a little bit different than those in the later ones.

    Until the matter of the Repub nominee was resolved, crossovers could be considered to be made in good faith; ie they voted how they voted because they liked the candidate. Otherwise, they’d have voted for their own candidate, hoping he’d still make the cut. However… Once they knew that their vote in the Repub primaries was useless (because McCain reached the magic threshold number of delegates), they could still use it to meddle in *our* primaries. Much as some voters in Michigan used their vote — thinking it was useless in the Dem primaries, which were supposed not to count — to meddle in the Repub primaries.

    It’s the *timing* which makes those later (Limbaugh) crossovers suspect…

  • I post on a number of political boards and nobody is undecided. Debating policy points with opponents produces no change for either side. It’s time to stop the bleeding. Clinton and Obama supporters can’t stand each other and that’s damaging to the party. If we’re going to win in Nov, we need to end it and begin working toward that.

    The super delegates thought that they were just getting a free ride to Denver and their vote wouldn’t make any difference so they could suck up to the determined nominee. It reminds me of the front and back covers of MAD magazine after the Kennedy/Nixon election.

    No such luck. Time to step up and declare who you support so we can clarify this process. It’s time.

  • I am sorry to burst the Obama supporters bubble… Many Americans think that Obama has shifted the real issue of an American hater he hs supported for Twenty years, whom he has made his personla religious advisor, inspirational leader and mentor into a race issue..and many who are bias like CNN, Brown who showed so clearly her unfairness at the last debate against Hillary has made Obama sound like a messaigh that has been wronged and that his speech was powerful. Well his speech only proved that he speeks brilliantly however we the fools have fallen for the wrong issue. Its not about race its about a man called Wright who obviously hates America, who said we deserved the tragedy of 9/11 and so much hatred against the American people and a man called Obama who has said he does not support the words but supports the man..What bad judgement and how dare he continues to even have anything to do with an American Hater! How can people that love America be so naive to think this is a racial issue? that is what Obama would like us to think… Its up to us to send a strong message that we can not have a president that supports “the man”the uncle the mentor that hates America !!!! Its not about race its about hatared t owards America!!!
    the mentor

  • Hillary should get all of the delagates from Michigan and Florida..How can we nominate a man that stands next to an American hater. He rejects the words, but supports the man, Does Obama really think that Americans that love America is going to be so naive to fall for this?? As far as we are concern, its time for Obama to step down.We do not need an associate of an American Hater in our White House!!!!

  • Yes Unamerican!!! Obama
    Delegates step up to the plate! We do not need to loose to the Republicans for a man thathas an association with an American hater.. Yes he rejected the words but defended a man that hates America, that has declared we deserved the trajedy of 9/11 and so many reprehensible Horrible things about America!
    Personally and I am speaking for many we will never beconviced to vote for Obama never! I think of myself as a proud American …An American that loves America and would rather as a democrat vote Republican thatn vote for Obama that has shown very bad judgement, he says he has deplomacy, where was it with Wright??? No as American that love America..Send the message..No No No to Obama! Delegates step up to the plate..No No No to Obama!!!

  • I am for Hillary on this! Obama who represented himslef as the squeeky clean truthful man..He has proven what a lier he is! His judgement has been proven is poor because of his association with Farrakhan a jew hater, white hater, Wright a man, preacher his MENTOR FOR TWENTY YEARS THAT HATES America, William Ayers a radical undergrown terrorist that bombed our pentagon..I am sure this will be the next story that the media has kept hidden for the exception of Fox. that will soon explode. The delegates need to support Hillary! or the Dems are about to loose, at least with me they certainly will if Obama should take the nomination…

  • Delegates! its time to really take a look at the man the media has been protecting and giving him a free pass..but how could they keep the Wright story hidden any longer? Wait, wait, wait… this is just the beginning..Anything you can say about Hillary we all know and its proven that most of the people just don’t care and think it OLD OLD OLD NEW!!!!
    Obama will loose against the Reps..
    A war Hero vs a mentored man by Wright..no brainer!!!

  • Pingback: BobKrumm.com » It’s a fine suggestion . . . but

  • Why can’t we just recompute the total delegates needed to win the Dem nomination as if FL and MI do not exist. Then the total delegates needed to win would be sufficiently less and therefore attainable through the primary process without a FL or MI re-primary or a superdelegate intervention. I must be ignorant of some rule that would preclude this scenario because it seems so simple.

    • Comments are closed.