To: Howard Dean
Cc: HRC, BHO
Democrats have a problem -- all Democrats, both of the presidential campaigns, and especially, Howard Dean. The solution is to ask Democratic voters to come up with a solution.
What is the problem? Michigan and Florida, of course. Party bosses, well meaning and striving sincerely for an answer, have been unable to come up with a way to produce a fair result from those states that will allow the voice of millions of voters there to be heard. The problem has been passed back and forth between party leaders in the states, Howard Dean, and some major Democratic donors.
Now, by conventional analysis, they can't solve the problem because a. any solution that helps Clinton will be blocked by Obama, b. any solution that helps Obama will be blocked by Clinton, and c. nobody wants to pay for any solution, even if the hopeless dilemma of (a) and (b) could be solved.
Furthermore, in the words of Moshe Dayan, "If there is no solution, there is no problem." And, making matters worse, everyone is mad at Dean in those states, and Dean is mad at the state leaders for not following the plan laid out by the party.
The problem with this benign neglect policy is that any solution -- including a non solution -- will make someone angry. It gets worse. A non solution is guaranteed to make the voters in those states angry. And provide fodder -- well justified, by the way -- for the McCain campaign this fall.
"These people want to lead the country at a time of war, but they can't even organize a primary season or a convention."
The solution -- offered free of charge to all my fellow Democrats -- is for the Democratic Party to hold a national mail-in election, even an electronic one, asking Democratic voters to choose between 3-4 solutions, and encouraging all Democrats to participate on the basis of what they think is fair.
With 3-4 solutions on the initial e-mailing, one can be written by the Clinton campaign, or to suit it; one by or for Obama; one by the Democratic National Committee; and one by the party leaders of the leaders of the states.
This solution can be organized in a matter of days, and conducted over 1-2 weeks, possibly with a runoff if no answer gets a first-ballot majority.
It has the following advantages:
1. Democratic Party voters are a lot smarter, and fair minded, than the party leadership may think. Any solution they come up with is likely to be better than the party's leaders, who by the way, haven't led us to any solution so far.
2. Such a solution will have legitimacy. A decision worked out in conference rooms and focus groups won't. To put it another way: It gets Howard Dean off the hook.
It has enough legitimacy, in fact, so that it would be difficult for either candidate or their supporters to object to the result. They might feel hurt, but after taking part in a process like this, they'd have to admit the people's solution is the best.
3. This idea will energize the Democratic Party. Mr. Dean, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Obama all make regular genuflections to the voters. They want to hear our ideas. They share our concerns.
But in this case, they'd be really trusting us. Not just sending out a form letter, like we get from each of the campaigns and from Mr. Dean, thanking us for support, and asking for more money. They'd be listening with their ears, and hearts, not their mouths and their signature machines.
It would probably raise a lot of money too -- worth mentioning since it's the only thing politicians from either party seem to care about.
The only disadvantage of my proposal is, it resembles the device used by Richard Nixon in his famous Checkers Speech. Well, any port in a storm. If you think about it, there is something ironically delicious in using a Nixonian device to achieve Jeffersonian ends.
If it worked for my late friend Mr. Nixon, it can work for ClintObamaDean-gate. It's the best answer to the Michi-Florida disaster, and one likeliest to produce a unified party and a Democratic victory in November. Or December, depending on how long it takes the Supreme Court to decide who won in Florida.
-30-
Gregory Fossedal, foss@freedmansbank.com, is co-founder and CEO of the New Freedmans Bank, and the author of "Direct Democracy in Switzerland" and "The Democratic Imperative."
Posted March 27, 2008 | 12:29 PM (EST)