Our Superdelegates, Ourselves

When the Huffington Post put out the call for "citizen journalists" to create profiles of and to interview the Democratic Party's superdelegates, I clicked to volunteer myself without really much thought, perhaps not enough thought. I reckoned that the ominous rumblings of a possibly decisive roll for the superdelegates at a traumatic convention (to say nothing of complicating shenanigans with the liminal Michigan and Florida delegates) meant that the superdelegates needed some exposure to sunlight. A lot of sunlight. Since I interview strangers frequently for my day-job, I figured that this might be an opportunity for me to genuinely help. The 2008 election is really important. Really. The kind of lives my daughters will lead in the future (happier v. sadder) hang in the balance. I care, I clicked, I was committed.

I was assigned two superdelegates from Maine. I live in Greenfield in lovely western Massachusetts, but I thought, "That's okay. I've been to Maine a time or two. I should be able to recognize some of the place names. At least I know who the Senators are." Scheduling the interviews was surprisingly easy - my superdelegates were happy to talk, and to have our interview taped. I was surprised, but why?

Finding out information about my superdelegates was quite another matter. Their email addresses were easy: they are both superdelegates by virtue of their involvement with the Maine Democratic Party, and Mainedems.org led me straight to them. Next step: find something out about my superdelegates: Marianne Stevens and Sam Spencer. As I trolled the web, I was again surprised. Why was there so little information about these two floating around in cyberspace?

This puzzlement made me reflect on my assumptions. Perhaps prejudice is more accurate. The image of a superdelegate that I had was some guy, fat or with newscaster hair: a political apparatchik, a party boss, a professional pol. The latent script was one of operators who could be bought and sold through political favors, cash, or patronage. These operators would derail the Democrats' democratic party and make Senator Clinton the nominee when the people (like me) had called for Senator Obama. Thus ruined, the Democrats' would collapse. President McCain would bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran. I'm probably not alone in this prejudice.

Like many (all?) prejudices, this one had difficulties standing up to a close look at reality. As I found out from infoscraps on the web, and as I would learn in much fuller detail in my interviews with them, Maine's Marianne Stevens and Sam Spencer were nothing like my image of the superdelegate. Marianne has retired to Maine, where she grew up, after a vocation as a training manager at the phone company in Massachusetts and an avocation as an unpaid campaign volunteer for Democratic campaigns. Inspired to political action by a father who took her to see JFK as a young girl, Marianne didn't sound like someone who would smoke cigars with Boss Tweed. As a retiree, she decided she could devote some serious time to the Democratic Party, becoming the Maine party's Vice-Chair, and to help insure that Supreme Court appointments will be done by someone who shares her stances on civil liberties and reproductive freedom. Again, this did not fit with someone who would sit across an onyx conference table from Dr. Evil.

My prejudices did not fare that well with Sam Spencer either. Initially, my prejudices thought that they had a shot: Sam went to Harvard as an undergrad and then to Vitamin H's business school. He has worked in the Clinton-Gore administration. He was now a real estate developer in the Portland area, and had been elected in 2004 to represent Maine on the DNC. "Aha!" my prejudice announced. What goes better than real estate development with political corruption? Perhaps only lobbying.

But when I spoke with Sam, my prejudice's hopes were dashed. Turns out he has what strikes me as the most ethical stance that a superdelegate could take, one that I'm not sure I would have thought up on my own. Oh, and the real estate development angle: turns out it's converting old brick mills into mixed commercial and residential spaces for community development. We have a lot of that around us in western Massachusetts. It's great. Sam's take on what he should do as a superdelegate is to do his best to take himself out of the equation. Refuse to endorse. Hope that the primaries and caucuses lead candidates to drop out of the race, leaving only candidate going into the convention. Bet on normal voters being determinative before the convention.

But what if that doesn't pan out? Well, Sam says that he'll have to choose between a number of possible methodologies for making his superdelgate vote reflect the will of those normal voters. He could vote to try and make the Maine superdelegate split mirror that of the results of the Maine caucus. He could vote for the candidate going into the convention with the greatest number of normal delegates. He could vote for the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes. Each method has its logic, its charm, and its warts, but each is aimed at, in effect, eliminating the role of superdelegates. A superdelegate who explicitly thinks having superdelegates is a bad idea? A superdelegate who is trying to eliminate the power of superdelegates? Sounds like something I hope I'd do if put in the same position.

And Marianne, who spoke to me just after putting her roast in the oven for Sunday supper, what's her take? She had endorsed Edwards early on. Now she's undecided, but may endorse before the convention. She's taken calls from President Clinton, Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama. Her decision about who to endorse will come when she has decided one basic question: Who has the better chance to win in November? It's as simple as that. For Marianne, the stakes are so high that she feels the right thing for her to do is to figure out who has the best odds of winning the general election and doing all that she can to make them the nominee. As for Florida and Michigan, Marianne and Sam were in agreement: they knew what they were doing and should live with the consequences.

It was Marianne who shared a thought with me that finally dispelled my preconceptions about superdelegates, and make me think "Our Superdelegates, Ourselves," echoing the title of a book that's been a perennial presence on the bookshelves of my home. Marianne said that from watching the media, you'd think all superdelegates were high powered political professionals like Donna Shelalea. "Not so," she said, "many of us are just ordinary people." I hope that's true. It certainly did seem to be the case with Marianne Stevens and Sam Spencer - they are just ordinary, unique individuals, who are thinking hard and struggling with the question of just what they should do, and when they should do it. That hard thinking and that struggle give me hope.

Comments

[dbotto]

Grendl,
I wish I were a paid shill. Turns out I'm just some schlub who is worried about the superdelegates. I agree with you (and coincidentally with one of the superdelegates I interviewed) that the Democratic Party should get rid of superdelegates and let the votes of ordinary voters speak for themselves. That's clear. What gives me some hope in this mess is that at least some of the superdelegates appear to be decent sorts who are genuinely struggling with the question of what to do in this extraordinary situation. What I also found kinda heartening is that many of these superdelegates appear to be much more of "free agents" than I'd previously thought. Independent individuals struggling with their conscience: could be worse.

[grendl]

I disagree.

Because if they are decent, upstanding, brilliant people it will give advocates of superdelegation some sort of foundation for continuing this undemocratic system. If the convention doesn't boil down to the superdelegates deciding to give Hillary a nomination that rightly might be Barack's it will further give them cover under which to hide.

We need this inequitable system exposed, entirely, and abolished. The more I hear how great these superdelegates are, the more it makes me wonder why the hell they don't do the right thing. Rescind their superdelegate status, turn in their cape and cowl, and purify the party I thought was the one that sincerely believed in democracy.

[texanna]

grendl, you've overlooked the fact that this is a primary not the general election. The difference is that the former is run by the political parties who make the rules and the latter is where you're supposed to have one-man-one-vote. So, get a grip. The Democratic Party has it's rules and if you don't like them, I suggest you start showing up at your local party meetings and get involved. BTW, the candidates knew the rules going in and if you think for one minute that both of them aren't trying to do whatever they can within the rules, then your just naive.

As to your opinion of the superdelegates, read some of the profiles. You will find that pretty much across the board they are people that have devoted a lot of years to actual work inside the party to advance their ideals and try to make things better. They have also contributed actual money and not just lip service to many Democratic candidates over the years in small Congressional races as well as the important ones that you probably pay attention to every four years.

[grendl]

I overlook nothing.

This is the party of John F. Kennedy and FDR and there were no superdelegates back then. The Democratic party is one in a two party system in this country right now. And the elemental difference between them is the term "democratic". It means fairness. Look it up.


Don't tell me to get a grip, I know when Im being pissed on and told its rain. The Democratic Party looks to the American electorate to decide their nominee. If they want to do in some back room fine, be honest about it. But change the name of the party, hypocrite.

[texanna]

You can spit in the wind all you want, the fact of the matter is you won't change a thing by doing so. You have to actually work to make a change. Have you missed the point that most of the super delegates are not completely happy with this system of nominating a national candidate? This could be a great time to take all of your passion to your local Dem meeting, actually join up (as in pay dues, etc.) and start to work on figuring out another way to nominate Presidential candidates. Of course, you would have to learn to speak a little more courteously, since politics is not about clubbing people over the head and calling them names, notwithstanding what we've had in government since the Neocons took over.

[grendl]

BTW, their record is irrelevant. Irrelevant. I R R E L E V A N T.

To say this is just the preliminary process to find the Democratic nominee is bullshit. If someone like Mr. Obama gets railroaded by the system, due to the votes of 800 some odd people, then I won't have the opportunity to vote for him against McCain. And being a Democrat, I'd like to, especially if he wins the majority of votes.

Playing the party off as a private organization, as many do is laughable. We only have two viable choices in our current system of government, realistically. Either a Democrat or Republican will win the White House. So if the Democrats are going to the mass electorate to find a nominee, whats the point? Why not pick him or her in some smoke filled room, then come out and say here America, heres the one you're stuck with. You don't like it vote Nader, losers.

Ridiculous.

[grendl]

You wasted your time.

The issue at hand isn't who these people are, if they have done great things for the party, or how they're going to vote. It doesn't make a difference if they're curers of cancer, savers of puppies, Mother Theresa, Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer combined.

The issue is it is a fundamentally undemocratic vote they wield. If you don't see the intrinsic problem with the system, you're just not looking hard enough. Or these Off The Bus people are paid shills meant to distract us from the real issue: the fact that another American citizens vote counts mroe than mine.

This was a colossal waste of time. You may as well interview serial killers about their favorite brownie recipes.