My Father the Superdelegate and Why There's Nothing to Fear

My father Don Fowler is a superdelegate. I love my father, and I trust my father. And I gave up letting my father dictate my life since he determined how late I got to stay up at night.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee.

Truth is, they won't.

There is a tremendous amount of discussion and even paranoia suggesting that a group of party insiders are already at work cutting some backroom deal to pick the nominee they want ... damn the will of the voters and damn the democratic process.

That's pretty much hogwash when one looks at who these superdelegates actually are.

Half of them are superdelegates precisely because of the will of the voters -- all Democratic House members, all Democratic senators (except Lieberman), and all the Democratic governors. The other half are the 450 or so members of the Democratic National Committee -- a sort of oversized board of directors for the national party. These folks come from every state and represent every wonderful, vibrant piece of cloth that makes up the Democratic electoral quilt.

Establishment, you say? These very same DNC members are the reason Howard Dean is Chairman of the Party ... despite the vocal, aggressive, even nasty opposition of the establishment. One very powerful establishment leader said of Governor Dean's chase for the chairmanship after Kerry's 2004 loss, "I don't care who the Chairman of the DNC is, it just can't be Howard Dean." Oops. That was not a lonely sentiment coming from DC. Yet it was the 450 DNC members -- superdelegates all -- who put him exactly where he needed to be.

Let's take this superdelegate analysis even further. At the end of this nomination process when the voters have spoken, the superdelegates will want what is best for the party (meaning a victory in November) and will almost all resist any temptation to overturn any decision made by a clear majority of voters in the states. They are just as susceptible as anyone else to the momentum changes that have come with this super-close election ... and, unlike many delegates elected because in state primaries and caucuses, superdelegates are not bound to their decision even after they publicly endorse a candidate. They can change their minds.

Most superdelegates have spent the majority of their lives serving the Democratic Party. Many, like my father in South Carolina, started in that state's civil rights movement of the 1960s with Democratic House Whip Jim Clyburn, another superdelegate. Others, like Jenny Greenleaf in Oregon, rose up with Governor Dean's presidential campaign only four years ago. Some are old bulls, like Jim Roosevelt, grandson of President Roosevelt, and some are future leaders like Mona Mohib, a thirty-something and for a while the only Muslim on the DNC.

So the superdelegates are, in fact, "super" because of their commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals. And most were elected to that position in one way or another. They are not "super" because they have extra votes or because one presidential campaign controls them. Could the superdelegates be a tiebreaker? Of course. But that would mean we would have a tie, not a clear frontrunner.

Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.

So not to worry, when the Members of Congress, the Senators, and the governors cast a vote for president, they will not be making backroom deals. And when the members of the DNC from every corner and pocket of the world's oldest political party cast their ballot, remember that they are from and of the party that Governor Dean chairs.

Sorry, Ari.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added February 15, 2008
The Pelosi's Back the Will of the Voters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/15/christine-pelosi-superde_n_86836.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=24286

Added February 19, 2008

It's OK for Obama & Clinton to Lobby Each Others Delegates

Comments

[Futuristic]

What a dumb group (Superdelegates publicly declaring their support for a candidate). By making their choice publicly known certainly have influenced voters. I thought the Democratic party was different from the Republicans, guess I was wrong. In the end they all operate sleezy and treacherous. Pathetic Hillary have no respect for rules of the party, and no respect for rules she had previously agreed to. The republicans will mop her up on this issue alone, as to whether she can be trusted by the voters. If Hillary is the nominee I'm sure Mccain will be elected.

[charlesrfd2003]

I am tired of people complaining about the super delegates. These are professionals who want the strongest ticket in November. They want a ticket that will energize the voters to come out an vote for the nominee and all the other Democratic candidate. In this race one of their functions is to get the two candidates to unite and win in November. Both Obama and Clinton have energized many new voters. If the super delegates get the two to work together, this will be a banner year for the Democratic Party. Hopefully we will hear Obama and Clinton in rallies in October ask the crowd, "What do you want?" and the crowd will yell back "CHANGE!!!!"

[JanetBerns]

I have to appreciate Donnie responding and having a conversation with us. Thanks

[Donnie Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

you're very welcome

[jabee]

People are/were nervous because NY's Bloomberg had sent little ants out to scout out buying
delegates. The quote was something like...see how firm they are...

Do NOT faint denying such. it was on the front page of the NYT. You can find it about the time the mayor changed his regstration to independent (from republican..from Democrat.
No surprise he'd think no one would stick on principle.

If his many polls had shown he could win by hell or high water, he'd have gone ahead.

[townsurrl]

This voting process is as undemocratic as it can be. Most voters are so naive and blinded by their I'M PROUD AMERICAN feeling that they still believe their votes matter. Their memory evaporated as quickly as boiling water, therefore it is not surprising that nobody is mentioning the fraud associated with electing our present president.
Since the superdelegates won't go away anytime soon and most likely will evolve into Super, super delegates in the future, the only good thing about them today is that they are mostly democrats.

[Donnie Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

that's a terribly cynical and even misinformed opinion in the middle of this historic election where Democratic turnout is at record levels and where more than half the states have already voted and each election has mattered!

[StephenCRose]

Democratic Superdelegates who are uncommitted are listed here state by state. I have included territories and other jurisdictions alphabetically in this list and moved DNC and other related persons to their respective voting groups. Please comment if you have information that is relevant.

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/02/state-by-state-uncommitted.html

[Cugel]

I'm just glad that my father ISN'T a super-delegate! If he were to decide things, Rush Limbaugh would be the nominee!

Fortunately, the Super-delegate controversy is just hot-air. No way will they decide the nomination. They will go with whoever gets the most votes and wins the most states and appears to have majority support in the party and nation. They are all politicians and they know how to hold their fingers in the air and see which way the wind is blowing!

By the time of the convention every delegate wants to know exactly how to vote to minimize risk. Nobody wants to make enemies or be crucified in the media for having made some kind of "back-room-deal."

They don't want to look bad and getting together in a smoke filled room to decide the nominee would look like Tammany Hall to the American people and media.

[sdean7855]

The problem with superdelegates, all the stuff here not withstanding, is the problem with power in /any/ organization. It largely ends up in the hands of people with latent spider DNA, the hoarders, the schemers, the blackmailers, the people who love power beyond everything else and stick through boring meetings, interregnums, betrayals and deceit. Even if they started out as idealists, they are corrupted at the very least by expediency until they end up like Pelosi and Reid who apparently no longer have courage or convictions and would break the filibuster of party members (Chris Dodd on no retro-active immunity for lawbreaking telecoms) when they have cravenly let outrage after GOP outrage slide by.
I hold no strong case for Obama, but I see Clinton as just such a power operative. We need a term limit on the leadership of the Democratic Party....the old farts (like me) can advise all they want, but they should be running it for long

[jimstinson]

Well said! Some years ago, my wife rose to within two positions of the top of a powerful state-wide California political organization. Then, having achieved what she set out to do, she retired, like Cincinnatus, to her farm. Her colleagues were aghast: how could she walk away from all that POWER? Attempts to explain that she was after not power but social improvement were met with uncomprehending stares. Moral: people who persist and thrive in organizations because they like it have usually lost sight of what those organizations are for.

[cmpnwtr]

A naive post. Yesterday my Congressperson, Darlene Hooley from Oregon said she didn't care what the people of Oregon wanted, her first loyalty was to Hillary Clinton and she would cast her vote for her, unless released. The super-delegate system is a fraud and a disgrace to the Democratic Party. It should be eliminated immediately. It makes the name of the Democratic Party a lie.

[Mollye]

Good for Darlene Hooley.
Hillary 2008

[rwferr]

As soon as Obama is ahead in superdelegates all his supporters will then be for them.

[Doofus]

As long as Clinton is ahead in superdelegates all her supporters will be for them.

[Loeb]

To Donnie Fowler on superdelegates.

That was a very wise description of how the
process works. It also reveals an allegiance
to the Democratic Party.

Being the son of a democratic functionary
(national campaign manager for Adlai Stevenson,
employed by HST, JFK etc.) I know that all
politicians are not "angels". Neither are we.
We do the best we can and then do some more...

[Doofus]

As the son of life-long Republicans, who broke away, I would say that one would think that a party which calls itself 'Democratic' actually would be *democratic*. What, *extra votes* for those who are 'more equal' than the rest?

[Bettysdad]

I'm curious as to who the hell Donnie Fowler is to decide who "dangerous and insurgent candidates" are?

If the majority of Democrats want a certain candidate, NO ONE should be in a position to stop it.

This is why Fowler and his superdelegate father should fade away.

[permissionmag]

This sounds vaguely reassuring, but it seemed likely to me, even before I checked, that Don Fowler would be a Clinton supporter.

At this point, it's looking like Clinton's only chance is if the superdelegates put her over the top a la Mondale in '84. The arguments put forward here feel like a practice run at what we will hear after the convention if the superdelegates decide to put the candidate with less popular support on the ticket.
I can already imagine the arguments about "electability" and how the Democratic base isn't enough to win the general election.

The DNC has a right to put whoever it wants up for nomination, no matter what Democratic voters decide. If Clinton gets the nomination through any shady business, whether it's Michigan and Florida or superdelegates, though, I'd say the Democratic party can watch the Republicans hold the White House for at least eight more years, if not more.

[bowserbois]

Mr. Fowler, you said "neither Obama or Hillary was what the party had in mind when the super delegates came into being 20 yrs ago". I thought the democratic party was inclusive of all peoples 20 yrs ago, so why wouldn't the national party invision this? Are you saying they only invisioned white men running?

[Donnie Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

No, I'm not saying that the creators of the superdelegates only envisioned white men running. That is what you want me to be saying.

Remember one of the main points ... almost every superdelegate is elected either by the voters (governors, congressmen, senators) or by party activists (the DNC members). Remember that Clinton's folks and Clinton herself is saying that caucuses and convetions are undemocratic because only "activists" participate.

So which so you choose ... activists are undemocratic or superdelegates elected by activists are undemocratic?

[townsurrl]

This is exactly what I thought when I read that line..I always thought that the old democrats were classic in their democratic values that are missing in the present, often corrupted new democrats many of whom resemble the new republicans themselves.
Good writing!

[foreffectivegovernment]

If the Super Delegates are treated like the Barack Obama supporters want, does that mean Ted Kennedy and John Kerrey have to give their support back to Hillary Clinton. She won the State they represent in both votes and delegates. Why not play by the rules, even though you didn't question them in past years because you didn't know what they were.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Donnie Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

This is a great point. As one California superdelegate just told me, she is willing to go with the will of the people ... but what is that will - (1) San Francisco, where she is from, went for Obama, OR (2) California that went for Clinton, OR (3) national vote that is to be determined?

[suntzu]

I have just written to the DNC the following email: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

******
Dear DNC:
This is a letter to express my increasing concern that the superdelegates in the coming convention will contravene the wish of the electorate in case of a very close race between Senators Clinton and Obama. This scenario I am concerned about is one in which one of the two candidates leads the other coming into the convention by a very slim margin. The nightmare scenario is that the delegates, acting on political expediency rather than fairness to the leading candidate and the electorate, will throw the nomination to the candidate who actually has the fewer committed delegate votes.

If this happens, this will threaten to destroy the the Democratic party and jeopardize its future and lose millions of loyal Democrats, including this one. Not to mention that the Republicans will occupy the White House for another 4-8 years.
Please do not wait until convention time to declare to the electorate a plan to ensure transparency and fairness to both candidates, and thanks for not insulting our intelligence or determination with empty assurances and political gobbledy-gook.