Michael R. Steed is a member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from Chevy Chase, Maryland, and as such is also a "superdelegate." As the former National Director of the DNC in the early '80s, as well as a current member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, Steed offers interesting perspectives on several issues that confront the Democratic Party in 2008.
After a legal career in California that included a stint as a Los Angeles prosecutor, Steed came east to Washington in 1981 to be the Democratic National Committee's special counsel under incoming DNC Chairman Charles Manatt. He subsequently became National Director in 1983. It was during his time as director that superdelegates were invented.
Steed related that the use of superdelegates began in 1984 "largely because of the 1980 convention, which tore the party apart." In 1982, the DNC formed a committee to enhance the role of elected party members in the candidate selection process. The Hunt Commission (named for its chairman, former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt) came up with the idea of "automatic uncommitted delegates," a.k.a. superdelegates.
According to Steed, "this ensured that our candidates at the convention would have the support of those members of the party who had been elected." DNC party leaders were later added to the original mix of Democratic Senators, Congressmen, Governors and major city mayors. It is as a member of the DNC that Steed today holds his superdelegate status.
SUPERDELEGATE FOR CLINTON
In February, Steed's name appeared on Hillary Clinton's website as a part of 150 Maryland State Democratic leaders who endorsed her. He said his status as a Clinton superdelegate still "remains strong" and won't change.
Steed made his decision to support Hillary Clinton in late 2007. He chose her, he said, for "her depth of experience, her intelligence and for her ability to get things done that no other candidate running has exhibited, especially in the Senate."
Steed said his decision was informed by the "extraordinary efforts" Clinton has made to represent and to win the support of heavily Republican areas in upstate New York. He also cited the high opinion that several Pentagon generals and admirals have expressed to him about Clinton's thoughtfulness, focus and willingness to listen while serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Steed does not agree that the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season should be the eventual nominee.
"That's not how the system was set up," he said. He believes that the undecided delegates can certainly chose that as a personal criterion, but that each should make a "thoughtful, moral decision."
THE FLORIDA & MICHIGAN DEBATE
Appointed by DNC Chair Howard Dean as a member of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee and of the upcoming convention's Credentials Committee, Steed is right in the thick of the Michigan/Florida issue. "I bless Howard Dean every day," he laughs.
In 2007, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates because those states moved their primaries to dates earlier than allowed by DNC rules. Originally, those rules would have stripped the offending states of only half their delegates, but also prohibited the candidates from campaigning (i.e. raising money) in those states. Steed said the eventual solution to allow campaigning while stripping 100% of the two states' delegates was reached as a compromise acceptable to the candidates and to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Although he supported the decision, Steed described a process held hostage to Iowa and New Hampshire, who threatened to move their election dates in 2007 to maintain their "first in the nation" cachet.
"The tragedy is that it was done so that Iowa and New Hampshire remain first rather than the Democratic Party being about all fifty states," said Steed. "The party should very seriously think about 2012 and whether those states should be allowed to create this type of problem."
As for a solution to the current problem, Steed said that the Rules & Bylaws Committee will review any solutions that Florida or Michigan bring before it, but that nothing is on the schedule from them for the March 24 meeting. The only pending request is Puerto Rico's to change from a caucus to a primary.
Because the next move is up to each state's party, Steed is not sure how the situation will play out. If it does reach either of his committees, Steed said they must make a decision based on the greater good of the Democratic Party. "We need to consider whether we made a mistake in the first place, and see if there is a need to make changes. We also need to consider the impact on the general election to not have those two important states at the table."
"Whoever is the nominee or presumptive nominee has to find a way to seat these delegates at the convention," he added.
When asked if that implied that the nomination could be decided prior to the convention without input from Michigan and Florida, Steed said "I'd be surprised if the superdelegates don't meet ahead of time and reach a decision. It would be the next logical act." Steed felt that if that did happen, it would be in mid-June, after all the scheduled primaries.
WOMEN & MINORITIES
Steed was DNC National Director during the 1984 Presidential race that saw Jesse Jackson win 5 primaries and caucuses and the eventual ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. He sees the difference between then and now as "night and day" for the role of women and minorities in politics. Said Steed, "the country is ready today for an African-American to be president, for a woman to be president. I'm not sure the country was ready in 1984."
Since then, he continued, "we've made enormous strides in civil rights and human rights, in business and social matters, for women and minorities, and in particular for African Americans."
"But we're not done yet," Steed added. "One of the last glass ceilings to put aside racial and sexual differences is to put an African American and/or a woman in the White House."
This piece was produced as part of OffTheBus's Superdelegate Investigation. Read more profiles and interviews here.
BARACK THE VOTE!
That was true last fall, that was true in January. That was true before Hillary decided to go Rovian in her campaign. That was true before she endorsed McCain!
But not now. She decided to wage war on another Democrat and that really is a sin...an unforgivable sin in this instance.
We voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The fact that O'Malley, Milulski, etc are Hillary Superdelegates makes us worried about how they will use their superdelegate status in opposition to the outcome of our primary. You see, their wholehearted endorsements meant absolutely nothing to Maryland's voters on March 5th. They should vote for the winner of our primary or face some serious repercussions
Michael Steed is going to be hearing from me.
But we are where we are where we are. I say finish the primaries with no super delegates committed to either candidate. If neither candidate has the required delegates then let them draw card’s to see who gets the super delegates. Each card they draw get the number of super delegates based on the value of the card. That way neither side can complain that they were cheated because without the super delegates neither candidate can win.
We will have no buying of the super delegates as has been charged or blackmailed like one state wanted to do. The winner get the head of the ticket and the loser is the VP. They are both on the ticket which will give some consolation to their supporters who will be less likely to rebel and either not vote or vote for The MacAttack. Everyone will be sort of happy and maybe we can still salvage the election and not destroy the Democratic party in the process.
"In 2007, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decided to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates because those states moved their primaries to dates earlier than allowed by DNC rules. Originally, those rules would have stripped the offending states of only half their delegates, but also prohibited the candidates from campaigning (i.e. raising money) in those states. Steed said the eventual solution to allow campaigning while stripping 100% of the two states' delegates was reached as a compromise acceptable to the candidates and to Iowa and New Hampshire."
This makes crystal clear that Hillary was willing to sacrifice Florida delegates, and voters, so she could get that big time Florida money.
Fascinating!
http://politicalamnesia.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-soon-we-forget.html
Part of understanding a "democracy" is that it beholds to a set of "laws" or "rules". If you choose to break "said" rules then you are penalized to some extent. Our "democracy" through the establishment of the DNC set up "rules" for FL & MI . . . . they broke "said" rules and you believe they shouldn't be punished? 50/50 affords both the opportunity to participate & the cost for breaking the "rules" - Democracy 101
Hillary Clinton 41%
Barack Obama 41%
Unsure 18%
Source - Rasmussen Reports
Keep in mind folks, the delegates can vote any way they want at the convention, they aren't required to vote for the candidate they are selected for. So... it allows the states' delegates to be seated without starting a windfall of litigation and legal precedents. Those delegates can then go to the convention and vote for whomever they choose.
The re-votes proposed to this point would entail a closed primary - meaning Independents and Republicans couldn't vote. That is clearly not fair. Since the Democratic party's success depends upon expanding its base, disenfranchising those voters that would like to vote for Obama or Clinton, is not in their best interest. There are good reasons why the party legislators of Florida and Michigan voted against the proposed re-votes, and blaming Obama for their decisions is absurd.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-27-clinton-florida_N.htm?csp=34
The point was that the (many, at that time) candidates still wanted to be able to pull funds out of the two states, even if they didn't "publicly" campaign there.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Chip
Then, if so, perhaps Obama supporters should chuck it in. This is more then "their candidates" this is about Dems getting in the White House so the mess can be started to be cleaned up.
Every time there has been a Republican who has made a mess of things, Dems are elected to clean it up.
So, as passionate as everyone is. We have look at the whole picture. If supporters are so delusional, not to be able to see the big picture....then perhaps they should not be voting at all?
It's Obama or bust for Democrats in '08.