Clinton Superdelegates Echoing "Screw Democracy" Message
Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy -- as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination.
Here in Colorado, we get this dispatch from Mannie Rodriguez in the Rocky Mountain News:
Because regular delegates are allocated proportionally, some calculations show that even if Obama were to roll through the rest of the primary season, he would not be able to secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. That could result in a floor fight during the convention -- with superdelegates key to the outcome."I'm going to stick to her 100 percent," Rodriguez said. "I hope it doesn't go to superdelgates deciding, but if it does, I'm with her all the way."
Forget that Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported Obama, forget that Obama may win the total, democratically awarded regular delegates...
Then in a suburban Philadelphia newspaper, we get this from Clinton-backing superdelegate Marcel Groen:
"It's worked for the past 40 years, for the most part, and largely it's an honorary position," he said. "But if it's going to be real close, then I think it's wise to let the leaders of the party do the right thing."
This follows Clinton hack Lanny Davis's missive on Huffington Post saying almost exactly the same thing (after embarrassing himself by claiming Adlai Stevenson was elected president). It also comes as the Boston Globe today reports that Clinton is determined to "take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote" with a plan to "persuade enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention." Clinton "will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson."
So that's the coordinated message: If democracy has been allowed to be trampled in the past, then we should all sit back and be fine with democracy being trampled now...as long as it is trampled in defense of the Clintons.
Egomania knows no bounds and no loyalty -- not even to the founding principles of democracy.
Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly "disenfranchised." What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections -- no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot. Puh-leeze.
To sign a petition demanding superdelegates respect democracy, go here. And make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project 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
Rethinking this, it now seems to me this could be something of a hopeful sign for Obama supporters. It is possible that this very politically gauche move -- which can't but cause a firestorm and hurt Mrs. Clinton in the end -- might've actually been made out of deperation, as a means of convincing her campaign contributors that they can trust her to stay in till the very end and trust her to win, by golly, any which way she can. I mean, it can't have been easy this past week, flogging her people for yet more money. No one wants to bet on a horse that's going lame. So, really, maybe this is just another back against the wall buck up attempt. I'll take it back on Super Tuesday. Oops, er, I'll win in Ohio and Pensylvania. Or, okay, even if I don't win in Ohio, I'll win at the convention...
John Lewis, Representative from the 5th district of GA, an honored Civil Rights movement leader, and Superdelegate, said today he could never, ever do anything to reverse the action of those who voted for Obama in his district by so large a margin.
As a result, he plans on switching his previous commitment to vote for Senator Clinton to Senator Obama.
Representative Lewis is a noble example of how superdelgates can voluntarily assure voters that the Democratic party will function as a true democracy at the Denver Convention rather than a top to bottom Oligarchy.
It's a temporary remedy until the DNC does away with this insane superdelegate status and insures that the votes of these party insiders will count no more than yours or mine.
I really do understand how HURT you FLA voters are. But the truth of the matter is, by no fault of you Joe Voter, your state broke the rules. You were told very clearly that your votes would not count if you did not abide by the DNC rules. Hillary gave her word, as did all Dem candidates, to NOT campaign, and to remove their name from the ballot. She is the only one who did not remove her name. I'm sorry it hurts to have your vote disenfranchied. Imagine how we in CA feel? Our vote never counts for SHIT! and we have more delegates than ANYONE. We fought long and hard to get our primary moved up, and finally, we did. We still have basically no say in the General as it is basically a done deal before our polls are closed. So I'm sorry you're hurt, but in all fairness, it would be really WRONG to allow those delegates in. If you think you feel disenfranchised, imagine how the rest of the country will feel if you are rewarded for breaking the rules ... esp those states who don't get to vote until May or June
Google "Obama knows ballots" if you want to know how much Sen. Obama cares aabout democracy.
So this means that a lot of Political officials are prepared to lose their seats for Hillary. I hope she is worth it.
David, you don't have to post this, ... for I already have, on another HuffPost thread; I'm just wondering if you have see this ...:
"*** Report: Obama Far Outpaced Hillary In Contributions To Super-Delegates ***
1. Obama: $694,000 (40% of his superdelegates)
2. Clinton: $195,000 (12% of her superdelegates)
"Here's some interesting context to the behind-the-scenes battle that's underway between Hillary and Obama for the support of super-delegates. It turns out that the super-delegates have received campaign contributions from both sides, though its unclear whether this money has had any impact on any decisions they've made.
The Center for Responsive Politics has a new study out which finds that the two have donated a total of more than $890,000 to those super-delegates who are elected officials in the past three years. Who's donated more? Obama has, by far.
According to the study, Obama's PAC and campaign committe have given out $694,000 to such superdelegates. Some 40% of the supers who support Obama received cash from him, the study finds.
Hillary's PAC and campaign committee, meanwhile, have donated only $195,000 to supers, less than a third of what Obama has, and only 12% of supers supporting her have received her money.
So, Obama's financial apparatus appears to have given out far more cash to the supers than Hillary's has -- though again, it's not possible to assert at all conclusively that there's a direct link between donations and the decisions by the SDs.
Late Update: I should have made it clear that these numbers refer to donations in the 2006 and 2008 cycles, so many of these could have been ordinary contributions to fellow Democrats before either was running for President. I've revised the above accordingly."
Source:TaylorMarsh.com(Report: Obama Far Outpaced Hillary In Contributions To Super-Delegates, TPM Cafe, Greg Sargent , Feb. 14, 2008)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/report_obama_far_outpacing_hil.php
Follow the money trail. It's just the good old backdoor politics as usual. Praise to Obama.
From ABC Report:
"The study found that Obama has sent more than $694,000 from either his campaign account or his political action committee to superdelegates.
By contrast, Clinton sent out only $195,500 to superdelegates.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-clinton-s.html
* Democracy First ... Chosen Candidacy Second: Part 1 *
David, I agree that super-delegates are not the way to go about picking the Democratic nominee. But you have to honestly admit that no one was complaining about the pre-approved system before this '08 presidential election began. I have a great memory, and I don't remember anyone at HuffPost blogging about the so-called evils of super-delegates! I agree that, after this election, the DNC should do away with super-delegates. But since all Democratic parties involved agreed to the current DNC rules before this Democratic national election process began, it would be unethical to change the super-delegate rules in mid-election game. At this point in the Democratic election process, to change the rules to do away with super-delegates would clearly disenfranchise super-delegate's votes, and that would be clearly improper in terms of honest -&- ethical support for our American Democracy. After seven long years of a disastrous Bush administration, a sitting Dem majority that has a *WORSE* approval rating than George W. Bush because they reneged on the peoples mandate for "change" in their promise to bring our brave troops home, compounded by all of the unfortunate culturally-divisive rhetoric stemming from both camps of Barack Obama -&- Hillary Clinton, with all due respect, I just can't seriously buy into the latest main stream media talking points, that the super-delegate votes, leading to a very possible final choice for our Democratic nominee, will lead to some kind of so-called 'civil-war' in the Democratic Party, and it's voter base; I just can't take this ridiculous notion, seriously.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton -&- Barack Obama, are both pledging to bring our troops home from Iraq, and have an almost 'identical' voting record in the U.S. Senate. So, in my opinion, if by chance there is to be some kind of anger if super-delegates end up deciding who the Democratic nominee is, ... oh well, ... life *WILL* go on. The DNC rules were agreed to and *must* be contractually abided by in both Hillary -&- Obama camps! In competition, there is only one 1st place winner, and in this election, many supporters who have supported *other* candidates besides Hillary -&- Obama, have been disappointed as well; Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson supporters were very disappointed their candidates didn't win! But, once again, at the end of the day, you have to respect the Democratic process, and you have to put greater respect for Democracy over chosen Democratic candidacy. It is *not* ethically correct to suggest subverting honest Democracy, to disenfranchise super-delegates in mid-election game! In the current accepted and abided by rules, in this '08 Democratic presidential nominee process, honest -and- ethical Democracy means that American voters not be disenfranchised; honest -and- ethical Democracy *ALSO* means that "American super-delegate voters" not be disenfranchised, either! If there is to be some kind of hypothetical anger over super-delegate votes deciding our Democratic nominee, I guarantee you, that in this hypothetical situation, any expressed anger will clearly be ... "misplaced anger."
*May the best candidate win*
:)
Your comment expresses a great deal of common sense. I'm bemused by all the rhetoric purportedly arguing how Obama and Clinton are politically different. In fact, they are not different with nearly identical voting records. They differ with respect to public perception of what they stand for. I don't want to belittle the importance of perception but let's just keep in focus the fact that the two candidates are largely political clones.
Clinton is just plain wrong on this one. I for one am a little shocked that her supporters are on board with this. I think it will backfire. If not before she "steals" the nomination, then in the general election. Honestly, this is just wrong.
Unfortunately, superdelegates are not legally or morally obligated to vote for the most popular candidate and I have no idea where Sirota gets the idea they are. Personally, I wish this wasn't the case but this how the system works. If Obama wins the popular vote and most of the superdelegates vote for Clinton, she won't be stealing anything. If people want a different system they should work to change it not whine about it. i agree that if this happens a lot of people will be more than a little annoyed. Last I looked, Obama was ahead in superdelegate count so I'm really not sure why Sirota is paranoid about this purported problem. I would further add that the primary system is about the stupidest system for electing a nominee imaginable. I would prefer the old smoke-filled room approach to what we have. Before people whine about such an approach they should consider that combined, the candidates spent more than $150 million just for the honor of running for president. That is an obscene amount of money that could have been better spent. If state primaries are the best nomination system we can come up with, I suggest we scrap the system and go back to what we had before.
You are correct and horribly misguided all at the same time. You realize that if there is a clear winner in pledged delegates and the superdelegates vote against WHOEVER that is, they have handed the election to the Republicans.
As long as you are good with that, I am in agreement with the technical accuracy of fyour argument.
Seating delegates where no one campaigned or only had one person on the ballot is ridiculous. Please stop using the word "disenfranchised" to try and change the rules. Those states lost their delegates because the state party leaders went against the DNC and lost. Those are the rules.
SuperDs are free to choose who they want, but they have to know that if they go against the people's choice they will cause a civil war in the Dem party and will lose the White House and future seats in Congress, Governorships, and state legislatures.
The Obama camp is not trying to change the rules, it is honoring them and upholding what is best for the party and nation.
Did Marcel Groen really say "It's worked for the past 40 years"? He had better check his facts. As far as I know it was adopted in the early 1980s so it has only been around about 25 years, and hasn't "worked" at all since no know knew anything about it until now.
Actually, the modern primary system was a direct result of the 1968 election.
David, you better calm down or you choke on your own bile. The hatred for representative government that the Obama supporters show would make the Founding Fathers shed a tear. Let the super delegates vote.
Oh come on. Back then you couldn't even vote for the representative who would pick your president for you unless you were a landowner. You think we should go back to that too? You're playing games.
Dont worry they will vote, And it will be with the People and for Obama.
Bush stole the last two elections and earned the enmity of the entire nation plus the world.
So if there is even a wiff of scandal that Hillary got the nomination in a less than democratic way.
Well, people would turn on her and the democratic party... Bloomberg would jump into the race and all those pissed off people would vote him into office!
Actually, some Dems would vote for Bloomberg, some for Clinton. Then we would be inaugurating President McCain. Doesn't sound too promising.
Obama is not trying to change the rules. He is simply pointing out that the Superdelegates would be wise to listen to the will of the people and vote accordingly.
Sounds like good advice.
Clinton IS trying to change the rules by tearing up an agreement she signed to punish the states of Michigan and Florida for trying to circumvent the new "Super Tuesday" primary schedule.
The repugs took away half of Floridas delegates . I do not see a single one of you crying over that.
I saw Kerry this morning. He said, reflecting the Obama camp's view, that if a candidate has more delegates and more popular vote he OR she should get the nomination. Sounds fair to me.
Personally, I have faith in the unpledged superdelegates to shift the balance. They haven't been bought out by the Clintons and I think they, like Donna Brazile, will see their role as reinforcing the will of the public.
I think they'll have the guts to stand up to pressure from the Clintons. After all, being unpledged, they have already.
Did you not read this article? Sen. Clinton is not trying to pressure the super delegates. It is the Obama supporters that are threatening the SDs.
Who cares what any of them say now. The super delegates will put their fingers in the wind and pick Obama at the convention. This is just a vain attempt to keep all you Hillary supporters from giving up.
What will the voters of Texas think when they know Hillary doesnt need their votes... after all, she got her some SUPER delegates.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
