Automatic Ickes: Supers Get More Democracy than You

Coupla points (0.00 / 0)

First, the term "automatic delegate" is pretty accurate - much better than the coined "superdelegate." You and I might prefer ex officio, but "automatic" gets the idea across.

Second, don't blame Ickes for the notion of "superdelegates (some of which are public servants, some not) representing the electorate." For better or worse the Party did that long ago.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:37:16 AM CST

I agree that the rules are the rules. (4.00 / 1)

My point is: try explaining that to millions of voters across the country when the rules trump how they voted.

I don't find radical the rules of the supers - they are what they are, and maybe they should go.  What I'm amazed at is the assertion that they know more and better about the needs of a constituency than the constituents themselves. That's to me blurring on purpose "senator" with "superdelegate".

As for "automatic" vs. "super", I actually disagree, though it may not matter much because, due to my trade, I'm looking at the word "super" in a much more literal way than most people probably do.

"super" (Latin), "uber" (German), "hyper" (Greek): all cognates with the word "over". delegates "over" and beyond the "normal" ones strikes me as pretty accurate.

However, so does "automatic" - delegates "self"-made, meaning not arrived from how the people vote. But the word "automatic" today has a much better spin for Team Clinton, since it shrugs off the idea of "choice", which is what the superdelegates ultimately have.

Ex officio is actually the most accurate.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:09:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Meaning of representation (0.00 / 0)

The meaning of "representation" is central at this point in time.
Republicans prefer a definition that's embodied in the in loco parentis role which university students addressed head-on in the sixties.

Democrats (with a small 'd') prefer the definition that's embedded in the "agency" function as exemplified by (ideally) an attorney or real estate agent.

What's ironic is that it's Justice Anthony Kennedy who's most insistent on the agent role of elected and appointed public officials--they are agents of the locus of power, i.e. the people.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:50:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I just hope the Supers know better than to trust me and the millions of others who vote to know what we want. (0.00 / 0)

Golly gee, I hope the Electoral College knows better too!

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:49:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

For Policy Wonks... (4.00 / 1)

The official terminology for super or automatic delegates is "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates." The official DNC delegate selection rules, as well as the call to the convention, rules & bylaws committee regulations and a list of UPEODs is on line at the DNC Web site.

WARNING: Do not attempt to operate heavy machinery after reading the delegate selection rules!

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:49:34 AM CST

I had the unfortunate experience of reading the New Hampshire delegate selection rules out of necessity. (0.00 / 0)

It's a wonder I survived.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:51:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ditto... (0.00 / 0)

That was a fun hand out.

I think the worst part Doug was when we got the letter from Ray saying BR didn't get 15% in district 1 and we wouldn't be going to Denver for BR, bringing back bad memories!

---

by: sdoyle @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 14:23:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Haha yeah that was brutal. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks a lot, RAY, as if we weren't all watching the results come in at the Richardson "party".

just kidding, lol

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 14:53:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As far as I can tell (0.00 / 0)

the so-called "super-delegates" were put into place to keep the Democratic party from nominating someone who would be too progressive, to their minds, to win the general election.

Until this primary season, the main primary voters in both parties belonged to the base. In the Dems case, many were thought of as being "too far to the left". The super-delegates are essentially there to "save us from ourselves". This time around, with the numbers and plurality of voters voting in the primary, the "need" for super-delegates isn't there in the same way.

Super-delegates have been around for years, but they were under the radar because we've never had the phenomenon of someone like Barack Obama pitted against former First Lady Hillary Clinton for the nomination. We've also not had this level of participation and enthusiasm. Even in the much compared year of 1968, 18 year olds didn't yet have the right to vote.

Nothing will make the Republicans salivate more than a horrible floor fight at the Democratic Convention and a split, decimated Democratic Party. The truth as to people's motivations will be revealed. We're at a crossroads as a Party and a lot depends on which path we take.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:59:18 AM CST

The Boston Globe has a pretty (4.00 / 2)

comprehensive review of how we got where we are and the contributions various people have made HERE

---

by: hannah @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ickes played a part-- (4.00 / 2)

Dukakis eventually agreed to many of the changes Jackson wanted. Jackson's negotiators, Ron Brown and Harold Ickes, won an agreement to remove DNC members as superdelegates and mandated proportional representation as the only permissible method for states to apportion their delegates.

After Dukakis lost the election, however, Brown - then the newly elected DNC chairman - reinstated DNC members as superdelegates. "Ironically, Ron Brown undid the reform that he had helped to negotiate," said Tad Devine, who negotiated the 1988 pact for Dukakis.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Framing (0.00 / 0)

I maintain the framing of the "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates" as "Super" part of the problem. It projects a sort of "Animal Farm" system where some animals are more equal than others.

I fully expect that the unpledged party leader and elected official delegates (UPLEOD) will support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

If not, at minimum will there will be protests in Denver that, while entirely democratic, will not help the party.

Escalating from there, the protests could get unruly and people/property damaged.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:08:14 AM CST

Nothing New Under the Sun (0.00 / 0)

some history on the Party, its rules etc. Let's go back a scant 40 years...

Not So Superdelegates
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...
Rewind to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which showcased the undue influence of the party's old guard. Big-city bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley handed the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, despite Humphrey's support for a deeply unpopular war and the fact that he hadn't won a single primary. As Rick Perlstein recounts in his forthcoming book, Nixonland, Eugene McCarthy won 79 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary but got less than 20 percent of the state's delegates at the convention. The rest were picked by the party machine. The will of the voters was ignored at the convention, and protesters on the streets outside it were met with clubs and tear gas.

These were my Lindner years, when I was focused on politics, hypocrisy, a war gone wrong, the embodiment of Eisenhower's Beware the M.I.C. speech...we were reaping the whirlwind in Vietnam and on our streets....so the McGovern Commission made sense to me.

Despite the backroom double-dealing, supporters of McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were able to pass a rule at the convention mandating a study of how the party picked its nominee. This rather innocuous effort, initially led by Iowa Governor Harold Hughes, a popular liberal reformer, led to the McGovern Commission, whose 1970 report, Mandate for Reform, led to a sweeping revision of party politics, which greatly expanded the number of primaries and ensured that convention delegates were roughly proportional to primary vote results; drastically reduced the power of party officials to serve as delegates and dictate the choice of nominee; and mandated a greater role for rising forces within the party--young people, women, minorities. The new rules helped catapult two dark horses to the nomination, McGovern himself in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

but alas, the Darwinian nature of politics is reared its ugly head..

By 1980 the party establishment had seen enough. It struck back with a commission of its own, led by North Carolina Governor James Hunt. It returned power to elected officials and party regulars--the superdelegates, who will make up about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates at the Democratic convention. They include all Democratic members of Congress and every governor, but roughly half of them are Democratic National Committee officials elected by state parties, who range from top party operatives to local city council members. Key interests in the party, like labor groups, can also name superdelegates. According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries."

That's what happened in 1984, when Senator Gary Hart launched an insurgent challenge to front-runner Walter Mondale. Hart won sixteen state primaries and caucuses to Mondale's ten, and barely lost the popular vote. Yet Mondale locked up virtually all the party's 700 or so superdelegates even before the primary began. Hart likely would have lost anyway, but the superdelegates sealed his defeat. "I got almost none of them, because [Mondale] was considered inevitable," Hart told me.

I worked for Hart in CT. I knew his roommate from Yale. These were folks who inspired me...they came up through the 60's but were trying to get beyond Identity politics. Socially conscious, but aware of the realities of the world and Realpolitik... To be fair Mondale had a lead in Pledged Delegates, but it was the Supers who innoculated him against the change movement. We know how that worked out.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

final graph nails it (0.00 / 0)

No matter what happens with the superdelegates this year, it's unsettling to have a large bloc of party officials who are not answerable to the party's electorate. "I certainly think their influence should be curtailed," Hart says. In 1988 Jesse Jackson won the primary in Puerto Rico over Michael Dukakis. Yet a month later, Puerto Rico's governor instructed his fifty-one delegates to back Dukakis. "This is clearly machine politics," Jackson wrote then, "and should have nothing to do with the 1988 campaign." The 2008 campaign has again exposed the undemocratic influence of the superdelegate elite. But just as the activists of '68 pushed aside the party bosses, forty years later voters can demand that the party's nominee reflect their choice.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:37:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Puerto Rico example (0.00 / 0)

Is a clear example of the "open" convention  rules. Even though the Puerto Rican delegates were elected to vote for Jesse Jackson they were convinced (by one way or another)  to support Dukakis. Much like what we are seeing with some of the automatic delegates now, they are being "convinced" to switch sides. Much can happen in six months.

While some can claim the "open" convention is great and others that it is horrible, to me, it gives the party a path to having a positive resolution prior to Denver.

Have you registered for the Sept 24 State Convention yet?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it possible that a "brokered" convention could still be decided before we get to Denver? (0.00 / 0)

I don't want six months of a Republican nominee and no Democratic nominee, no matter how much crap he's getting from his own party.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:55:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Very interesting. (0.00 / 0)

From the last graf, one gets the impression that it was disappointment with Carter's nomination (or presidency) that led the turnaround back in favor of the "machine".

From what I've learned from Carter's presidency, it was almost the opposite of Bush II's in respect to the allied party in Congress following in lock-step with the WH administration - or to put another way, no great impulse to act as rubber stamp.  Could some of that have drifted over from his not being the establishment favorite?

Can anyone chime in on that who might know? I was nine at the time and reading X-Men comics.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:17:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll chime in - (4.00 / 2)

That was the great Chris Claremont - John Byrne era of the X-Men, IIRC. They made the book.

Dig out the old issues an you'll find NPR's Neal Conan and Manoli Wetherell.

X-Men:: Claremont
Hulk:: David
Thor:: Simonson
Daredevil:: Miller (from Montpelier.)

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:29:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes! I remember vaguely Byrne (0.00 / 0)

left X-Men and moved onto the Fantastic Four (is that right?), which I started collecting, but it wasn't the same.

Also read Miller's daredevil. My brother still has them somewhere in neat plastic bags.

I'm not a comics guy but I suspect that was a pretty good period for the genre, or the Marvel ones at least.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:54:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

'With a voice that could command a god... (0.00 / 0)

and does."

Miller wrapping up the Daredevil saga, describing Captain America. The words are from reporter Ben Urich. Cap is directing Thor.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I understand Stephen Colbert is Captain America now? (0.00 / 0)

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:58:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, Bucky Barnes (0.00 / 0)

Cap's original sidekick, long dead but he got better, has taken up the identity.

My guess is that this summer we will discover that the Cap who was killed was a Skrull, and Steve Rogers will return.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 18:33:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh right, but isn't Colbert the front-runner for the Presidency in the Marvel Universe? (4.00 / 1)

The company's Editor-in-Chief was on his show a few weeks ago explaining this, in light of the fact that when the original Captain America was killed, they sent Colbert his shield.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 21:04:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Byrne's flaw is: everyone looks the same. (4.00 / 1)

He re-launched Superman. Supes looked like Sue Storm.

George Perez - HE can write a team book. Plus he re-launched Wonder Woman with Gloria Steinem advising.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well there was a malaise you know. n/t (0.00 / 0)

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"These were my Lindner years, when I was focused on politics, hypocrisy, a war gone wrong..." (4.00 / 1)

Jon, if you think I'm done after graduation...

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 13:54:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

no but (0.00 / 0)

our focus changes with the stages of our lives...

Will.he.am Shakes.pear once said,

"'Tis but an hour ago since it was nine, And after one hour more 'twill be eleven; And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe, And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot; And thereby hangs a tale"

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 17:16:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't intend to lose my "B" (0.00 / 0)

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 17:55:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

When Bill Clinton said that the (0.00 / 0)

caususes choose delegates who represent people who don't "need" a President, he was expressing the perception that the purpose of the federal government is to do things FOR people, especially people who can't do things for themselves.  This is what traditional Democrats have long been about.  It's what differentiates them from Republicans, who think that the purpose of government is to do things TO people who don't do what they're told.

It's the belief that the purpose of government is to tell people what to do (how to behave properly) which leads Republicans to argue that there can be less government (less costly), if religious establishments do more, because the latter are better at telling people what to do and do it for "free."

That we organize government to deal with the vagaries of nature and man which individuals are incapable of dealing with by themselves doesn't seem to occur to either traditional Democrats or Republicans.  Dealing with things we don't want is not nearly as much fun as lording it over other people.  But, there it is.  Government is designed to deal with disutilities.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM CST

The real reason to dis Ickes (4.00 / 1)

He's pushing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:22:15 AM CST

Disagree without dissing (4.00 / 2)

Whether you agree with Harold on the issue or not, he is someone who nearly got killed getting the crap beat out of him by vigilantes in Louisiana while there registering African Americans to vote.  He lost a kidney and some of his hearing.  So, please don't dis him; this is a guy who literally risked his life standing up for the right to vote.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Kathy (0.00 / 0)

All I knew about Ickes was, his dad was one of the heroes who helped FDR save the country. I hadn't known of his own heroism.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I certainly disagree... (0.00 / 0)

He can make his "two-hats agrument about voting to not seat Florida and Michigan delegations as a DNC member and then advocating for the Clinton campaign that the delegations be seated.

Even that kind of spin must roll eyes inside the beltway because it is such a horridly dishonest statement.  

While not offically designated as the Clinton representive on the DNC, he was (and is) the defacto Clinton campaign representive with the DNC.  Therefore, last summer and fall the Ickes and Hillary both publicly opposed the early Michigan and Florida primaries and supported not reconizing the delegations.

Now they support these efforts.  If is wholely unfair to the Democratic voters of these two states (and all the presisdental campaigns who agreed not to campaign in those states) who understood at the time of the election, that the primaries were nothing but beauty contests and deceided not to particapte.  

Yes, these beauty contests had impressive turnouts, but thousands--if not millions--of other voters no doubt decided not to vote because their votes had no impact on nominating a candidate.  Atleast that was the rule at the time--a rule that Ickes and Hillary supported at the time and now want revrsed.  Apparteny Ickes and Hillary have no problem with disenfranising these voters today.    

---

by: Stark Blue @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

AutoSupes can wait.... (0.00 / 0)

I have heard that pledged delegates are not cut and dry.

State caucuses are coming up around the US, so there is an opportunity for a type of "gerrymandering", at the state level, of the delegations to Denver. There has been mentions in the press that delegate counts are "estimated" and that each state had to go through a process specific to it, in order to come up with a set appointment of delegates. It seems that a handful of pledged delegates might determine this thing.

Also, are pledged delegates "locked" into their vote for the first round in Denver or not? I am less concerned if it is "unlikely to happen" and more concerned if it can happen based to the convoluted sets of rules and committees that the DNC has set up.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

An "agent" for change:

-snip
Ickes argued the "superdelegates" should be called "automatic delegates" instead, because the former makes it sound like they have "superpowers." The DNC itself refers to them as "superdelegates" and as "unpledged" delegates.

"Automatic delegates don't have superpowers. Their vote isn't given any extra weight," Ickes said, explaining it was still a one-person, one-vote scenario, though they already get the opportunity to vote in primaries and caucuses like regular voters.

The effort to change the terms journalists use to refer to the superdelegates was particularly interesting as a political ploy. The word "automatic" has implications that would seem to fit well with the arguments the Clinton camp has been making, namely that superdelegates should exercise their independent judgment.

On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be "disenfranchised" and that the states were important to the Democratic Party's fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules.

But Ickes did. And he voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.

"There's been no change," Ickes said, adding that he was then acting as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee "not acting as an agent of Sen. Clinton. We had promulgated rules -- if Florida and Michigan violated those rules" they'd be stripped of their delegates. "We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign in those states."

In fact, however, that was not why Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. They were stripped of their delegates because they violated party rules by moving up their contest dates before Feb. 5. A pledge to not campaign in those states did not come about until one was put forward by the four early states allowed to go before Feb. 5 by the DNC -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton was the last to sign this pledge.

"Those were the rules, and we thought we had an obligation to enforce them," Ickes acknowledged today on the call even while trying to convince members of the media that Florida's and Michigan's delegations should not only be seated at the convention, but should also have full voting rights and that delegates should be allocated based on voting that took place in those states -- even though in Michigan, Obama's name did not even appear on the ballot and uncommitted got 41% of the vote to Clinton's 55%.
-snip

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:29:35 AM CST

And add Senator Durbin to a growing list of senior Barack people... (0.00 / 0)

...who are doing everything they can to kill my enthusiasm for Senator Obama.

Okay, maybe Harold Ickes pushing his "automatic" delegates can get a bit tiring but I am really sick of the threats from Obama people -- such as Senator Durbin on Meet the Press -- to create chaos if Obama does not get his way with the superdelegates.  What I am hearing from Obama people is if you don't vote for Obama, we blow up the convention.

In terms of Obama and his people saying that superdelegates should reflect the "will" of the people... why is Obama not suggesting that his NH superdelegates Hodes, Shea-Porter and Clark vote for Hillary because she won NH primary?

   

---

by: MondayMorning @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 23:00:09 PM CST

I believe they mean all of the Superdels should reflect the will of all of the people. (0.00 / 0)

Plus, there have already been cases of Superdels saying they won't necessarily vote for the candidate they endorsed.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 23:03:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

Douglas, there wasn't a lot of anger and outcry for our congressmen to stay neutral until after the primary, so that they could follow the will of the NH people. These are political rules, not ethical rules.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:54:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That was an observation, not an opinion. (0.00 / 0)

I have read at least one case in which a Superdelegate endorsed a candidate in the primaries but said that wouldn't necessarily determine his (yes, his) convention vote.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Link? Source? (0.00 / 0)

What I am hearing from Obama people is if you don't vote for Obama, we blow up the convention.

As for the supers, I expect Hodes, CSP, etc... to vote proudly for Clinton at the convention if she secures the most elected delegates (minus FL & MI).

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:38:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

emotions are running high (4.00 / 1)

This is what happened on Face The Nation, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch:

Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder warns there will be chaos at the Democratic National Convention if superdelegates anoint a nominee who did not win the most popular votes.

If that happens, the scene at the Democrats' August convention in Denver could be worse than the unrest at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, Wilder said today on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"You know what a mess that was," Wilder, an Obama supporter, told host Bob Schieffer.

"If the majority of the American people" voting in the Democratic primaries and caucuses back either Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "and if the superdelegates intervene to get in the way of it and say, 'Oh no, we're going to determine what's best,' there will be chaos at the convention," Wilder said.

"It does nothing to help the Democrats -- and if you think 1968 was bad, you watch 2008," Wilder said. If that happens, "it will be worse."

Emotions are running high, because the stakes are high, and lest anyone think there isn't any pressure being brought to bear on people who are convention deledgates by virtue of the fact that they were democratically elected to their positions, here is Jesse Jackson, Jr. talking about primaries against African American congressmen who support Hillary Clinton; this is from TPM:

Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr: Black Super-Delegates Who Back Hillary Could Face Primary Challenge
By Greg Sargent - February 15, 2008, 11:01AM
A black supporter of Hillary, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, has given an interview in which he sheds light on some pretty interesting efforts by Obama supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr., to privately persuade him to rethink his support of Clinton:

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.
He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

Each nominee is going to do whatever they can to convince the unpledged delegates to vote for them. Some of it is overheated, but this is politics, rhetoric can get overheated.  

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:51:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you. (0.00 / 0)

If a one super was the tipping point vote against the elected delegate count, I'd vehemently disagree, but imho it doesn't merit primary threats.  The rules are the rules about the supers, much as I may dislike the potential for overturning popular vote/elected delegates.

Also, I strongly disagree with a litmus test for president based on race or gender, difficult as that is to say as a white male.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:50:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Veiled threat (0.00 / 0)

You must remember this:

Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:52:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe It's Not Just Words (0.00 / 0)

The superdelegate rhetoric is irresponsible and way too overheated. Indeed, were the superdelegates to anoint a candidate who is not Senator Obama it's the sort of rhetoric that can easily incite and ignite a riot.

So perhaps it's really not just words after all.

What's a DNC to do if both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are in a virtual tie by convention time and we must rely on the superdelegates to make the final decision?

For the good of the party (and the country) the only feasible solution would be to give neutral Al Gore the nomination.

---

by: MondayMorning @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:15:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gore/Obama (0.00 / 0)

I would jump for joy! 16 years of Obama in da howwwz.

Why, because Gore would cultivate Obama in a way that would make him a more effective president, after Gore.
Gore was a strong VP. That model could be fulfilled and then some.

BTW, this should dispel the "cult" nonsense that is puked about, regarding Obama. Gore would be a better President than Obama in many ways. I can't, not express my opinion on this.

I am not an Obama operative and I certainly am not a candidate groupie. There is no sense in participating, if your personal opinions are muzzled by your association to a campaign.

Obama knows that, which is why he has my ardent support.


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:33:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who said Obama would be VP? (0.00 / 0)

In my scenario Al Gore would only become the nominee if Senator Clinton and Senator Obama went into a convention with a virtual tie and the superdelegates picking one or the other would incite a riot ala 1968 that would tear both the party and the country apart and give us a Republican with a 100-year war plan.

So under such a scenario neither Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could be VP.

---

by: MondayMorning @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 13:35:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hillary won NH (0.00 / 0)

by two percentage points. She won in Manchester, Nashua and the "triangle" by Salem. The rest of the state went for Obama.

Because of the flyer, the e-mail, and the Nashua poll shenanigans, IMHO, this "win" wasn't a "clean win". That was the risk the people  who participated in borderline behavior took. Sure, Hillary "won", but we'll never know what would have happened without the borderline tactics. Therefore, to my mind, it makes sense to have the Superdelegate split we have, with the two declared for Hillary, the three declared for Obama, and the other two still uncommitted.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:00:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Exactly... (0.00 / 0)

Sen. Clinton carried Strafford County by about 1,800 votes, roughly 42%-35%, so it's not correct to say "the rest of the state went for Obama."

We're a small county, but we're also the most Democratic county in the state, so give us our due.

---

by: Tim Ashwell @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:13:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hold on (0.00 / 0)

Let's not rewrite history. You had one incident in Nashua where in one ward because of the actions of a couple of volunteers someone was not allowed to do poll checking for a couple of hours. Don't make it sound like it was more than it was.  Also, the flyer and the e mail were not borderline, but let's say you are correct in calling them "borderline" - what about the "borderline" tactics of the Obama campaign? Like a misleading mailer on health insurance, a misleading radio ad on health care (misleading with respect to both Edwards and Clinton), a robocall designed to sound like it came from Planned Parenthood.  Obama lost NH, Clinton won, in a very fair election, hard fought by both sides.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're twisting things (0.00 / 0)

 to justify what was done. Saying "he did it, too" doesn't wash.

I didn't see any of the "misleading" Obama mailings you cite, nor did I get that robo call. I did receive the Clinton "choice" flyer, and I saw the e-mail. The tactic of using procedural votes to twist a candidate's record was used in the '06 election by Republicans against Democrats. That was the only time I've seen that used until this primary.

Plus the blowback was real. It hurt the NHDP, no doubt about it.

I would never claim the sole reason Clinton eked out a victory in NH was due to the tactics employed by her campaign, but it does cast a pall on it for me.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It sure read like you did. (0.00 / 0)

Have you registered for the Sept 24 State Convention yet?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Keene Too? (0.00 / 0)

I think there were issues with poll checking in Keene as well.

The "Choice" mailer and email were at least borderline as evidenced by reaction here and across the country, not to mention the one person who said she would not have signed it if she knew how it was being used or the details of the 'Present' votes (I forget which reason she stated.)

The 'Robocall' was a defensive play to these tactics... IMHO you can not blame the Obama camp for defending themselves.

I am glad I have not seen evidence of the choice mailer since NH, on some levels it seems the lesson has been learned.

Hope >> Fear





Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:17:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]