Nebraska is proof that the caucus system, while it admittedly has some garish holes, is another part of the answer in building a viable "50-state" Democratic strategy.
Prior to Saturday, your best chance to support progressivism as a Nebraska Democrat was to turn out to vote for Sen. Ben Nelson, who -- while he's not a bad guy at all -- isn't the sort who pumps life into one's progressive blood. It's no surprise, then, that Democrats overwhelmed caucus sites in Lincoln and Omaha yesterday in handing Sen. Barack Obama yet another massive caucus-state victory.
The caucuses here -- held for the first time in history -- did have a number of snags. While there were 53 caucus sites in Lincoln (population 250,000) there was one site in Sarpy County (population 28,000) and 15 for the entirety of Omaha (population 400,000). The Sarpy County caucus broke down, literally, into writing one's preferred candidate on slip of paper and dropping it into a box. Similar incidents played out across Omaha. Whoops.
Given that some of these voters ended up waiting in line for hours to participate in those broken-down caucuses, it may even seem totally futile that we ultimately pledged only 24 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. It was fun, to be sure; but now it's Sunday morning, the press has flown away, the votes are cast and Nebraska has had, as usual, very little impact on the national picture.
We're used to being marginalized, though. Saturday's caucus was an overwhelming success for us, no matter the national implications. As far as Nebraska Democrats are concerned, it's not just the size of our caucus that matters. It's how we used that caucus -- we re-energized the blue side of a state that's every conceivable shade of red.
Breaking away from the state primary election in May brought Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and the Clinton child to Nebraska last week. Impressive, considering no Democrat has campaigned for the nomination here in more than 30 years. People were understandably excited by the idea of mattering to someone in a place that -- let's face it -- doesn't matter to most. For a few days, they were re-invested in democracy.
Democratic officials succeeded in translating that excitement to a massive Caucus Day exercise in party-building. By early estimates, 1,500 new Democratic voters were registered in Lancaster County (Lincoln) alone. The numbers in heavily-democratic Omaha will likely be several times that number.
In a place where Democrats are outnumbered by tens of thousands, this doesn't immediately strike one as significant. But down-ballot strength increases considerably with even 100 new voters in a city; considering local elections anywhere often come down to the last dozen votes, we'll take another 4,000 people any day.
Even better, the whole process -- the chance to feel involved again -- almost certainly made voters both new and old much more likely to turn out for the November general election. Again, even if the eventual nominee has a proverbial snowman's chance in hell of winning against John McCain, down-ballot Democrats will benefit exponentially from this newfound interest in politics among disillusioned progressive voters in the state.
This isn't a phenomenon that's exclusive to Nebraska. We saw the same response in heavily-Republican Kansas on Super Tuesday; they're still counting heads in New Mexico.
The concept of bringing together Democratic voters in GOP-heavy states is the equivalent of a mandatory "MeetUp." In primary elections, voters show up alone, in awkward silence, with the aching knowledge that hundreds of thousands of Republicans are waiting to stomp out their petty ideas. Caucuses provide and reinforce the strength-in-numbers attitude that's so crucial to galvanizing a minority into a movement.
I guarantee that everyone sitting at caucus sites across Nebraska yesterday had a really jarring, really crucial epiphany as they filed in to caucus: "Yes, there are other Democrats here!"
"The school principal is a Democrat! Old Joe down the street is a Democrat! The pimply 17-year-old kid who mows my lawn disavowed his own parents and signed up to be a Democrat, too!"
Voting doesn't have to mean sneaking into a polling place, requesting the Democratic ballot, being treated the same polite courtesy as a man whose cat just died and slithering out without a word. Even if fewer people can participate in person at a caucus (although Nebraska did have an absentee system Saturday), 15 percent caucus turnout benefits us far more than 20 percent primary turnout, if those 15 percent leave invested in the future of the party.
Voting in a red-state primary is like drinking fish oil and prune juice just because they're supposed to be good for you. Going to a red-state caucus is like throwing away that foul juice and drinking beer to make everything feel all right again; everyone's together in the same room, debating and laughing, feeling for a few minutes that the Democrats have a chance.
That feeling -- that we have a chance -- is the way to bring Democrats out of the woodwork of the states we're supposed to be crushed in. Caucuses accomplish all that and more, and can play a huge role in building the party as the years go on and more states make the switch.
Both sides "just want to win" but the key to Democrats winning both the Senate and the House is coat tails, and Obama's are wide and long. He's brought people into the process (blacks and young people) that have traditionally seen futility in voting, but who no longer have that as a reason not to vote. All these voters are going to sweep Democrats into power.
If superdelegates are foolish enough to support Hillary, then they did not learn from the Vietnam era coronation of Hubert Humphrey--a nice fellow, a happy warrior, but uninspired and symbolic of the political establishment. Give us Nixon, the depleted crowd decided. McCain will be the victor if the superdelegates break for Hillary because the youth and the people of color will once again see that they are needed only when they conform to party regulars' will.
The obvious change we need is pure open government on the decision making level. I should have the right to turn on C-SPAN and watch the lobbies and special interests armtwisting the executive, representatives and senators. seeing their tactics and motivation. By then observing the game we don't see now, we will be much more empowered as a nation based on true democratic priciple.
Since Obama is the same animal as Clinton this is not the case. I am afraid he has the same stripes and draws his sustenance from the same well as Hillary does.
Now how about the spouse? Michelle is a high paid hospital administrator with a position title received by political influence peddling. Her job is to make a profit for a hospital with a smiley face on issues having to deal with outreach and community. She is entrapped into fund-raising, kow-towing, sucking up to the rich in a way that may not be as huge as the Clinton Foundtion but it follows the same tennants.
We can believe in change, it is inevitable as the earth turning. Funny how the inevitable always happens.
To say that Harvard Law educated Michelle Obama somehow didn't earn her position is facetious at best and down-right insulting at worst. There isn't a single credible news organization who has suggested such a thing and given who her husband is, it would be national news.
A non-profit hospital that raises money from rich benefactors is not the same as an ex-president's non-profit foundation that has already had some stories written that demand further investigation.
At any rate, if your primary political goal is to remove the influence of lobbyists in Washington, Barack has passed both transparency bills and ethics reform at the national level, a progressive legislative feat that Hillary has been unable to achieve.
Obama '08!
What we have with Obama is a wonderful resurgence of faith in possibility and change, and this faith is reflexive, coming from the bottom up and the top down.
Obama represents the chance to rebrand America to itself and the outside world. All the debunking energies of the establishment cannot win over the crowds of his supporters and believers. Trust the electorate because they are new and vital.
They say the process suppresses turnout due to the time requirement, but that misses how it gauges enthusiasm.
People rearrange their schedules for things they care about, and the time requirement to attend a caucus is about the same as a nap, a weekly dose of American Idol, a game, concert or movie. If the future of the country doesn't rank with those priorities, something is amiss.
We must make sure any who can't physically attend can still participate as I believe Nebraska and others did. I do not see the relevance of many of the arguments being used to diminish their results.
Now we have caucuses that are giving people the opportunity to discuss among themselves why they are for or against their preferred candidates, and even more people are drawn to this participatory democracy. If we use these new faces and voices, we can take what establishment Democrats and Republicans call Red States and make them simply American states, as Obama argues so persuasively.
Obama is no flash in the pan, and his followers are able to read between the lines and see the superior character and vision we need to change this country in dramatic rather than incremental, compromising ways.