Decide in Denver; That's What Conventions Are For

I have a crazy idea. What if Democrats actually use their convention as a convention instead of an infomercial?

Right now, Democrats are fretting over the Clinton-Obama race as if it were the death knell of their party and coming up with one crazy scheme after another to shut down the contest. First, we had supporters of Barack Obama like Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont call on his opponent to drop out. Never mind that no one this close in a race for the presidency has ever dropped out before and leaving aside the arrogance that dictates that someone should quit so you don't have to win. Even Obama himself said Hillary Clinton had every prerogative to stay in the race until the balloting was done.

Now you've got a few schools of thought. One is that superdelegates must rush to make a decision as soon as the last balloting finishes on June 3 in Montana and South Dakota. Tennessee Governor Phil Bresden has even proposed a convention of superdelegates so that they can all decide and tip the nomination two months before the Democrats are scheduled to meet in Denver, from August 25 to 28. Howard Dean has indicated that he'd like the superdelegates to decide quickly. That's very sporting coming from a chairman who has so screwed up the party's nominating system that two of the largest and most pivotal states in the general election, Michigan and Florida, won't have their delegates seated.

The feeling that's driving this get-it-done-now sentiment is that John McCain and the Republicans only gain from Democratic disunity. I agree that the ideal situation for the Democrats would be to unanimously rally around one candidate and train their fire on the presumptive Republican nominee. But that's not possible when you have a divided party. And the best place to unite a divided party is at a convention.

We've come to see conventions as four-day infomercials for the political parties but, of course, it wasn't always so. Until relatively recently, actual work got done at these conventions, and there was no prevailing ethos that the party would immolate itself if it didn't cook the books to get a nominee in advance.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower had to wrestle for the nomination at the Republican National Convention. He went on to win the general election in a landslide. As my mentor and onetime boss, Charles Peters, the founder and editor of the Washington Monthly, noted in his book, Five Days in Philadelphia, about the 1940 nomination of Wendell Willkie to be the Republican Party candidate against Franklin Roosevelt, the convention helped save the world. By beating back the isolationist wing of the party, Willkie gave Roosevelt the space to support Britain during its darkest hour. Without the convention, Peters argues, Roosevelt probably would not have been able to aid Britain, and the island nation could well have fallen to Germany. Yes, Willkie lost. But the convention was good for the country.

The stakes won't be as high in Denver, as the ideological differences between Clinton and Obama are minuscule. In all likelihood, if the fight between the presidential rivals and Senate colleagues goes on all summer, McCain probably will benefit—for a time. But once the party votes in Denver, in a transparent, massively televised event, there will be plenty of time for healing before the fall. What won't help the Democratic Party is forcing Clinton out or pressuring superdelegates to vote before they're ready.

We're still learning a lot about these candidates, especially Obama, who has not exactly been on the national scene for a long time. It may be that the months of June, July, and August will help the superdelegates come to the same conclusion as the pledged delegates—that Obama is the right person to lead the party. But the summer might turn up more doubts about Obama (just as the spring has), and better to let them come out now than in the fall. Either way, the place to resolve all of this is in Denver, and not in some smoke-filled room, but at a televised convention for all to see.

Exhaustion is a real factor driving this. I'm as eager as anyone to get this campaign over with. I know that my spouse, who, as I always note, works for Clinton, is as tired as everyone on the Obama campaign. No wonder top Obama aides were seen sporting T-shirts reading END THE DRAMA. VOTE OBAMA. Every Democrat wants a vacation. Tough.

If the ethos prevails that no real work can ever get done at a convention—that all must be decided and choreographed in advance—then we should really abolish conventions. They are fueled by taxpayer dollars that shouldn't go to a stage production. (We have Congress for that.) If no work can ever get done at a convention, then they are mere expense-account junkets for reporters and shows for the two parties to put on. All of the work at the convention could get done with software. Why waste everyone's time?

That's not what I believe. I think conventions matter and are good for the republic. Too bad so many Democrats want to emasculate one of the great political traditions we still have.

For more see this.