Maryland Superdelegate Discusses Florida, Michigan And Breaking With Pledged Delegates
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Not ALL Obama supporters are Clinton haters. While I don't like the nasty tactics of the Clinton machine, I will vote for her should she become the nominee. I want to believe Independents like myself and the majority of democrats who can see the big picture will help usher in a new generation of leadership and end the Bush/Clinton era once and for all. There is just too much at stake for anyone to sit home during this election cycle. So check your egos and take the advice Bill Clinton gave to Randi Rhodes years ago: you will fall in love with during the primaries, but you must fall in line during the general election.
BARACK THE VOTE!
I would assume (and yes, I know what that means) the superdelegates and DNC in all their wisdom (?) would step back and consider the importance of the registered Independents' vote. No one seems to take into account that in many states Independents were literally disenfranchised in their state's primary. It would be disastrous for the Democrats not to consider the impact of the Independent voters. This election is not going to be decided by the Democrats or Republicans, but by the Independent vote. And, wouldn't it be advantageous to contact Democrats in other states where primaries have already taken place, to get a sense if Obama and Clinton voters are still supporting the candidate they voted for in their primary? So much has happened since the early primaries, I believe this could also be a signifactor factor.
I talked to some of Obama supporters, and they will not vote for Hillary, they say they will vote for McCain.
They are not Democrats anyhow. Carpet baggers and quick two steppers like Richardson who jump on the bandwagon and off again for the next hero. Their loyalty is to themselves not to the Democratic party.
Of all the names that have been called on these comments I know this is pretty lightweight. However, implying that if someone doesn't agree with your choice then they must not be Democrats is harmful for the Democratic party that I would assume you're a part of. If someone doesn't agree with you are they also "not Americans"?
I must say the Democrats are consistent, to screw up three election's in a row is a pretty good record. McCain will be the next president, and i will change my party affiliation from Democrat, to Independent. This is the sorriest political party i've ever seen, it's sad, so sad. Most of the Hillary supporter's won't vote for Obama, and most of Obama supporter's won't vote for Hillary. ANd all that hate on this site just solidify my thought process. It don't matter who's the nominee, because they CANT win.
Steed,as a so called leader, should know that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. A fair solution would be to split the delegates 50/50 and don't seat the super delegates. both states should be punished for breaking the rules. Michigan and Florida cannot not have it both ways. What kind of message are we sending our children, our young voters and first time voters. We need to stay the course if we intend to win in November.
It's correct to start from a level playing field and the delegates from Florida and MI should somehow be seated. However, Steed, the governor, both senators and most of the politicos in maryland made pacts with the clintons a year before maryland voted overwhelmingly for Obama. They will face a backlash in the next maryland election cycle if they hold to their commitments and play a role in changing the outcome of the democratic presidential primary.
There is a myth that democrats are happy with all thier choices for president.
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.
So let's change the rules since it's Hillary? If you over ride the will of the people the Democratic party will go up in a puff of smoke, sort of like the Republicons are doing with all their morally high and mighty career politicians. Time for a change in this country or we all go down.
As a citizen of the State of Maryland, I would like the address of Michael Steed.
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.
Obama does not want a revote because he is ahead and Clinton does because she would take both states but the DNC screwed the pooch on this one, They should have moved Iowa and New Humpier or stripped them of delegates,
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.
IF U WERE IN OBAMAS SHOES WOULD U BE BILLARYS VP????? KNOWING THAT BILL IS ALREADY FIRST IN LINE TO HER NO MATTER WHAT! HE WOULD END UP BEING VP-2
you could say the same of Mass. and other states as well
I wrote to Senator Bill Nelson as did my husband ... we both told him that we voted for him and sent a great deal of money to his campaign only because he was running against Katherine Harris ... but his recent actions including his senate votes (he is a DLC neo-con like Senator Clinton) ... will make it impossible for us to support him in the future --- we asked to be removed from his campaign donation list in the future and told him we would support any reasonable democratic opponent ...
It probably does not mean a darn think ... but at least we expressed our feelings ...
This article contains a most startling statement:
"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!
Read- research- look around- HERE IS WHAT BOTH candidates were saying.
http://pol
If Clinton was winning, she wouldnt care about the MI or FL delegates.
Clinton rejected Sen. Dodd's suggestion that the Michigan delegates be split evenly between her and Obama (NYT). Clinton apparently flatly rejected the suggestion. Can it be any clearer that she doesn't give a damn about Michigan or seating its delegates at the convention unless it benefits her?
No, what is clear is this: anyone who understand democracy in the slightest understands that arbitrarily splitting delegates 50/50 between the two remaining candidates, versus having those delegates actually represent the votes cast by the VOTERS, is a complete subversion of democracy. Even not seating our delegates is a better option than the 50/50 split, although I'm STRONGLY for seating our delegates. But at least not seating them "merely" takes away my representation as a voter in the primary process. Splitting them 50/50 actually MIS-represents the voters, and that is flat wrong. THAT is what is clear.
You're "twisted" too tight . . . . so no participation at all is better than 1/2 of the FL & MI delegations participation at the convention?
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
Are you serious? That is just as bad if not more offensive than not seating the delegates in the first place! 50/50 is just as meaningless and arbitrary as a 0-0 tie. Unless there was evidence that the voters were that evenly split it is completely undemocratic to seat delegates in a proportion that has no basis in reality. No delegates at all is better than ceremonially seating delegates that do not correlate to the voters' wishes.
Delegates aren't just numbers - they're people, with voices in fact, so it is ignorant to assume those numbers are meaningless. By the way, do you think perhaps this might be why he offered a 50/50 split of delegates?
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.
First, I want to correct one error in the article, which is contained in this quote: "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.
P.S. Clarification to my original post: while campaigning was not allowed per the daft "pledge" that the DNC pressured all the candidates into signing, "fundraising" was allowed. So maybe that is what the quote I referenced in your article meant, that fundraising was allowed?
Yes, they signed a voluntary pledge not to publicly campaign, but they were not *prohibited* by the Rules Committee from doing so. And they certainly *did* go in and have private campaign fundraisers, as this example shows:
http://www
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
Thank you for your article! And thanks for clarifying that point. Isn't it interesting how the DNC was all for fundraising here in Florida, just not "campaigning"? They still wanted money from Florida Democrats, even as they disenfranchised us. I understand that Dean was in a bind and had to do something, but stripping away all our delegates was draconian and self-destructive to the party, not to mention totally unfair to the voters. Anyway...I get very worked up on this issue, as you can see, so I'll shut up now, but thanks again for your piece!
Will Obama's supporters be so desolusioned and over passionate that they will go over board if "their candidate" doesn't make the nomination? Will they abandon what really has to be done because of a man who inspires?
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...
See Cybersense that would be correct if Hillary represented Democrats. After doing extensive research on All three candidates I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary. I've concluded that putting her in office will not only speed us straight into a deeper recession, the special interests who have her in their pockets will come first before the constituents. Hillary will say and do anything to get the people to swing her way but she already knows what she is going to do when she gets into office and that is to finish the agenda she didn't get to implement while her Husband was in office. I also feel that most Obama supporters who choose not to endorse Hillary are doing so for the same reason. I have a good conscience because I did not vote for Bush and I stand or sit here not disappointed in the least by his 2 terms. He did everything I expected he would do and even though I'm affected by the majority's decisions I can at least say well this is what you wanted. The same will be with Hillary if she gets the nomination and if she manages to become the President. So no it isn't because I think Obama is the Messiah and my candidate didn't get the vote it's because I don't want to have to look into the eyes of my children and know that I contributed to the destruction of this country.
Unleash the CLinton machine? They're irritating fellow Dems for unleashing themselves on a fellow Dem. That kind of campaigning will only further alienate Obama supporters and ignite the conservatives far beyond anything about Barack would.
It's Obama or bust for Democrats in '08.
This is the first volley in the move to give the nomination to Senator Clinton. Senator Obama is done. No amount of time will undo the harm done to his campaign, especially with the repubes, and all of the hate talk radio, jamming it down the throats of folks from the "Heartland" and the Deep South. The only chance the Dems have is to unleash the Clinton machine on the repubes once again. They've beaten them numerous times, and can do it again. Obama, as lovable as he is, is a feather weight going up against the heavy weight of the repube party.
Numerous times? You mean like when Perot helped Bill get elected in 92 an 96? Or when Hillary took on the OH so powerful Republican Rick Lazio perhaps?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
