My Brother the Superdelegate and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President

My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.

After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.

The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.

Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete.

After the democracy-snubbing arrogance of the Bush years, the last thing Democrats should be doing is wavering on our democratic principles on these issues. No super-power granted to superdelegates. And no backroom fudging on Florida and Michigan. Are you listening, bro?

Comments

[morphitologist]

Yeah, yeah...president schmesident...I'm just glad you helped brokered the peace between the studios and the WGA, Ari, so all us below-the-line schlubs could get back to work. Well done!

[research]

Tell your brother he had NOTHING to do with the dems win in 2006!

It was all anti war and anti BushCo.

Rahm is risking the world to avoid the constitutional duty of the congress to impeach Cheney and Bush.

[AvasTiaJeanne]

I agree with you, Ari, regarding the superdelegates.

Regarding Michigan and Florida, another poster here wrote that the "playing field was level" in those states, and the delegates should be awarded according to the "results."
I disagree. There was no campaigning in those states, so the playing field was NOT level. It was in fact, a popularity contest at that time. Had the candidates actively campaigned, I am certain the results would have been vastly different.
Therefore, the only viable solution is to either hold another primary in those states, or discount the votes altogether. It is sad for the voters in those states, and I am still not understanding WHY the party did this. However, Hillary should not be the default winner.

[tysgram]

Obama was the only one to campaign in Florida on tv. Why do you say Hillary was the only oneto campaign? Oh, that's right it's okay for Obama just not for Hillary. My bad!

[BlogAngel]

Always one set of rules for Obama, another for Hillary. The Party made a huge mistake in dissing Florida, which is likely to again be The Decider State. They darn well better correct it or lose the election. Floridians are furious that their votes won't count and they blame the Democratic Party. Keeping FLA out of the nominating process will cost us the election. A 2nd choice alternate solution would be a re-vote. The worst path would be to just eliminate their delegates.

Hillary, who won FLA by a landslide can win Florida in the national election. Florida will be a very tough campaign for Democrats and we need all the advantages we can get. The governor is a Republican who endorsed McCain. Jeb Bush is still extremely popular and he'll campaign hard for McCain. Demographically Florida is HILLARY COUNTRY: older, focused on the economy and experience, often poor or on a fixed income, a majority female. FLA's large Hispanic population loves the Clintons, they're comfortable with women leaders and there's a long-time conflict between African Americans and Hispanics in the State. Hillary can win FLA. Obama probably can't. Eliminating FLA delegates and nominating Obama would hand Florida to McCain.

[Larry Buchite]

There was only name on the ballot in Michigan that was Hillaey Clinton. How do you award deligates seeing no one else got any votes does Hillary get them all?

[Ecomom2008]

I was very disappointed to see some of the endorsements by major Democrats before Super Tuesday. I was extremely disheartened to see John Edwards suspend his campaign just days before February 5th. I believe that John would have picked up many delegates in California, and he would have been able to play an even greater role at the Convention. He might have even become President on the second round.
Some of the elected officials should have been worried about their endorsements. Look at what has happened to Congressman Kucinich. He spoke out for the people against big business, and now his future in Congress is at stake.
I agree with Ari that there should not be all of these "Super Delegates". We are not electing the President that we choose during the Primary or the National Election anymore.
Florida and Michigan - the agreement was that the delegates should not be seated. This was at a time when John Edwards was still in the race. Therefore, if Florida and Michigan hold new elections, John Edwards should also be on that ballot, and not be barred from campaigning in those states.

[orleans]

howard dean doesn't want edwards to be "able to play an even greater role at the Convention" because he wants this decided before the convention. didn't he recently say that he would "knock heads" together in a room to figure out who was going to be the nominee? if florida & michigan hold new elections edwards should NOT be on the ballot. but obama should be. edwards is out. he quit (even though he said he'd stay in for the "long haul") so now we need to decide between 2 candidates. or mcpain. or whether or not to vote. i say make a decission and vote.
as for superdelegates? they certainly need to go. the democratic parties in MI & FL need to pay for a new election primary after the other primaries are over, let those people cast a real vote and whoever comes out with the most voter delegates wins. done. end of story.

[suntzu]

I have just emailed to the DNC the following letter. Whether you are a Clinton or Obama supporter I suggest you do the same expressing your own views.

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

******Dear DNC:This is a letter to express my increasing concern that the superdelegates in the coming convention will contravene the wish of the electorate in case of a very close race between Senators Clinton and Obama. This scenario I am concerned about is one in which one of the two candidates leads the other coming into the convention by a very slim margin. The nightmare scenario is that the delegates, acting on political expediency rather than fairness to the leading candidate and the electorate, will throw the nomination to the candidate who actually has the fewer committed delegate votes.
If this happens, this will threaten to destroy the the Democratic party and jeopardize its future and lose millions of loyal Democrats, including this one. Not to mention that the Republicans will occupy the White House for another 4-8 years.Please do not wait until convention time to declare to the electorate a plan to ensure transparency and fairness to both candidates, and thanks for not insulting our intelligence or determination with empty assurances and political gobbledy-gook.

[Larry Buchite]

If the supper deligates would vote against the will of the people I will vote for John McCain.

[ghiaurov1]

Would you even be writing this blog if Obama were far ahead in superdelegates? Would you reaffirm your position here if we get to the convention and Clinton has just one more pledged delegate than Obama? Somehow I doubt you'd do either.

[suntzu]

I got news for you. One of the networks is showing Obama ahead INCLUDING superdelegates, and very close behind when he is not ahead. NBC is the only one that shows committed delegates, and Obama is ahead. Committed delegates are of course the ones that are actually won in primaries, as opposed to having DNC blessing.

****

NBC: Obama 943, Clinton 895 (Not including super-delegates)

ABC: Clinton 1,127, Obama 1,110.

CBS: Obama 1,134, Clinton 1,131.

AP: Clinton 1,136, Obama 1,108.

CNN: Clinton 1,148, Obama 1,121.

[tysgram]

But the Obamites only watch MSNBC!

[ParacleteofKavorka]

You're absolutely right. You must have been reading all the Obama supporter comments for the last few months to have such a good insight into their thinking.

[research]

"Super delegates" is just a shiny way of saying:

"incumbent party leaders and elected officials."

The same DLC.ORG dems who lied to us about ending the war.

It's just more DLC.ORG bull. In 1980 when the DNC brought the "party insider delegates" back,

The dems mucky mucks picked Mondale over Hart.

The incumbent dems will go to Hillary, probably. Hillary has been the chair for the DLC, Obama has been trying to distance himself from them.

[nads2985]

many of the superdelegates have been elected, despite your contention in your third paragraph. They are elected officials and are therefore the leaders of the Democratic Party. This is one of the powers that comes with their office.

How do you define the "decision of the voters" that you want the superdelegates to support? Should they vote for whoever wins the most states? The most overall votes across the country? The most delegates? Their state? Their district? There are lots of ways to define the "popular winner". This doesn't even go into problems with how the 'pledged delegates' are allocated (ie Clinton winning more support in Nevada, but fewer delegates).

This piece is based on the idea that whoever has the most pledged delegates coming into the convention is genuinely more popular among Democrats, but that isn't necessarily the case. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013093.phpp)

As for Michigan and florida, they're seperate cases.

Florida is less problematic - all candidates were on the ballot, and no one campaigned there. It was a level playing field, and should be counted. The Democrats in florida shouldn't be penalized because the Republican Governor adn state legislature set a date for the primary to screw them over. Florida Democrats didn't control when their primary was, but still voted in huge numbers. They shouldn't be silenced.

Michigan is harder, because Obama wasn't on the ballot, but I'm not sure how to resolve the issue. There are three plausible solutions, but all of them end badly

a) have caucuses, which favor Obama because his more affluent, more educated voting base is better equipped to take time off and devote a couple of hours to caucusing compared to Clinton's blue collar supporters.

b) seat the delegates, in which case Obama supporters are pissed that clinton stole the election by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

c) dont seat the delegates, in which case Clinton supporters are pissed because Obama stole the election by silencing 2.2 million democrats who voted in the primaries, only to have their votes ignored.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Bravo!

[benskull]

FLORIDA was NOT a level playing field. Clinton lead in many polls early on that can be attributed to name recognition, because once those states were campaigned in, Obama either won, or closed the gap dramatically. Not to mention that Clinton threw the statement out there that she would still celebrate in FL. Obama wouldn't be silencing anyone. The ONLY FAIR solution to Florida and Michigan is to reschedule for a later date with campaigning before hand.

[nads2985]

Yes, Clinton announced that she would celebrate there, but if anyone actually violated the pledge, it was Obama whose national TV ads ran in Florida. To me, these are both negligible and I think should be discounted. Announcing that she would celebrate her victory is hardly campaigning...

As for the argument that he did better where he campaigns - it's not like Florida has been in a media black out for the past few months. They have the internet there. They've got newspapers. They've got TV and radio. These were informed voters. Its not as if they had never heard of Barack Obama and were unfamiliar with his positions.

Lastly, you claim that Obama either won or was close everywhere he campaigned. This simply isn't true. That was the case in alot of states, yes, but he campaigned in California and Massachusettes for last Tuesday, and he had campaigned in Nevada and New Hampshire before that, and yet lost all of these states by wide margins. Who knows how it would have gone had he campaigned in florida, but Clinton wasn't there either. You're argument is entirely hypothetical.

As for the rescheduling, the only fair way to reschedule is a primary, because caucuses uniformly favor Obama (see my original post for why), but this is cost prohibitive. I know for a fact that running a primary in New York City costs the city board of elections over $10 million. The cost of doing that across a state and publicizing it, in addition to having to secure polling sites which the state won't necessarily guarantee, makes this an unfeasable proposition.

[BlogAngel]

Excellent, informative post! 100% right on.

[research]

Let's stop calling them "super delegates"

It's just the "party mucky muck delegates"

[jp5472]

When are we ever going to get away from this?

From Wikipedia - Political Machine:
Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it.

[shockinaw]

Convince the Super's with your intelligent arguments, but don't try to change the rules in mid-stream. It doesn't really matter how "you" define what/who/where/when/why the super's evolved from, they are here under the present system.... We'd look desperate trying to change it now, reminds me of the "throw out the electoral college" rant of 2000 after that election .... Fix these things after the election, and don't forget the voting machines and no paper thing....

[Merg]

This is, no doubt, a HUGE DILEMNA for the Democrats. SuperDelegates were originally created to prevent (presumably) unelectable candidates, like McGovern (who I think could not even hold his home state) from becoming the Democratic Candidate. In this 2008 election, we have 2 very strong, capable and electable candidates. The Superdelegate role is not needed here and should simply be suspended.

[moodyring]

Thank you for your interjection of common sense! Amen, amen, a-f*cking-men.

[benskull]

Amen!!!! The party will surely be sorry if they go against the voters. The number of voters this year is historical. And there is a reason for it. Young people have given up the old idea that their vote doesn't matter and realized, it does!!! That is an amazing event. Not only that, but many have changed parties because of Bush, or independents have leaned left, or people who don't normally participate want a say, to prevent the country from going down the tubes for another 4-8 years. If the party goes against that and the super-delegates back a candidate now, before all voters have had a say, or if they do wait and go against the voters, many of those who hadn't participated in the past, will again become jaded to the process, and believe again that their vote doesn't matter, especially if their own party tells them it doesn't. Also, I fully agree on the Florida and Michigan situation. There is no way those delegates can be seated. A) Michigan didn't even have Obama on the ballot, only Clinton, and B) Many of the polls that had Clinton leading early on can be attrubuted to name recognition, because after campaigning there, Obama has won, or closed the lead considerably. If these two states are allowed to have a say, there needs to be another contest. And I live in FL. The Democratic Party better be responsible with this situation, or risk a huge upset.

[AgingPopulist]

Anything that might cause the increased numbers of minorities and young voters turning out in the Democratic primaries to become "jaded to the process," and turn away from politics might be just what some old pros and beltway types want. These new voters are too independent and hard to control. The last thing professional politicians want is to lose control of the nominating process.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Obama withdrew his name from being on the ballot....let's clarify that on the Michigan ballot.

Carry on!

[ParacleteofKavorka]

Let's see Ari. You want everyone to abide by the agreement regarding seating the MI and FL delegates. But, then you want to change the rules regarding the super-delegates in the middle of the campaign. You must be an Obama supporter. They think like that.

[BlueHeel]

The nomination should be based upon the informed decision of the voters. Since the candidates did not campaign in FL and MI under the agreement that there would not be a determinative vote in those states, then the votes cast there were not based upon fully informed decisions. A large function of the primaries is to serve as a test run for the general election, and absent the full force of campaigns before the vote they represent nothing more than a beauty contest or straw poll. They offer little if any insight into how the candidates would perform in the fall battle because their swords remained sheathed. Retroactively seating the delegates from these states would neither serve democracy- a vote taken after a genuine appeal to the voters by the candidates- nor help to answer the crucial question of electability. Michigan and Florida, like the party hack superdelegates, should play no role in the nomination.

Those who live in districts and states with Democratic members of congress should contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to vote for the candidate with the most delegates after the will of the voters has been shown in the primaries. We the people must hold their feet to the fire and demand accountability.

[SimonOne]

Unfortunately, the Democratic party has repeatedly shown that they are not truly interested in the democratic process. I used to be a member of the party until the Democrats gained control of both Houses in the last elections and pissed away their influence by bowing to the Bush Administration time after time. Consider the first act of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid was to take impeachment "off the table". Who can deny that if there was ever a President in the entire history of the United States who deserves impeachment it is George W. Bush?
For me the final straw was to watch as corporate media decided that Dennis Kucinich was far too dangerous a radical to be allowed to continue with his candidacy that he was barred from debate after debate, only to see the other candidates and the Democratic party leadership itself remain silent on the issue. How much more supportive of democracy they would have acted if they had boycotted the events en masse to teach these corporate powers a lesson. This was a ripe opportunity to demonstrate that power is not vested in greedy, self-serving corporations and that the will of the people can prevail. To me, the lack of support for Kucinich from the three main candidates, Obama, Clinton and Edwards, simply confirmed that they each cares more for power than for democracy - and are happy to join in the suppression of contrary views that could gain traction if given a wider airing. By surviving the process of elimination audaciously devised by the agents of corporate greed both the remaining Democratic candidates have been approved by the corrupt establishment and have been shown to be beholden to those interests.
Whatever happens when the Superdelegates make their deals makes no difference. The fix has been in from the start.

[gallery]

I'm with moody,
After your brothers last appearance on "Real Time" I started to get a little worried that he wasn't listening to "we the people" in fact, he got booed by a mainly democratic audience for trying to dumb down the reasons for the lack of action from congress. We weren't buying it then, and were not buying it now.
Donna Brazille stated it quite clearly. If there's any fuckery with the will of the voters, she's out, PERIOD.
I hope your brother, and the rest of the party leadership correct course NOW so we can put the current garbage to the curb in january, and start anew.

[ymax]

Only delegates that where chosen by the voters should have the right to cast a vote for the NEXT President.
The one that most votes WIN the race.
To all the so called super-delegates: Sit on your hands and smile.


Ari, col hacavod
Y M

[pheepher]

The House of Clinton should not attempt to overrule the will of the people. If they do, they will have a convention like the one in Chicago in 1968. If this happens, the Democratic party will pay for this mistake for years to come.

Krugman of the NYT and other Clinton supporters are stunned by the movement of the masses.

[kentj]

pheepher:

You are correct, the 2008 election is starting to appear that it might resemble the convention of 1968.

There is no way on earth that our votes for Barack Obama, are going to be dismissed so that the old democratic party status quo supporters of Hillary Clinton can enforce their Bush=Clinton=Bush wars agenda.

Is it even Constitutional for a few to have more power than the rest of us Americans who want change with Barack Obama as our leader?

[BUSHsurvivor]

So this superdelegate issue WAS NOT discussed prior to the primaries? Wonder how you would feel if the situation was reversed? Don't bother answering, the spin is making me dizzy.

[Karenina44]

Those of you who are concerned about the super delegate situation, I urge you to lodge your opinion with the DNC ... http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.