How the Obama Team Ginned Up Superdelegate Controversy
The Obama campaign and its shrewd manager, David Plouffe, have outsmarted the Clinton team when it comes to whipping up pressure on the unpledged Democratic delegates who may prove critical in determining who wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
"You know, this, this issue of how the superdelegates ought to vote, you know, this great epistemological, metaphysical issue, no one thought about it three months ago," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a Clinton supporter, said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press.
When the delegate tallies started coming in from the first four primary and caucus states in January, there were so few delegates at stake that the numbers for Obama or Clinton were often aggregated -- the count of elected delegates pledged to Obama or Clinton plus the results of surveys by news organizations of the unpledged delegates who are entitled to attend the Democratic convention in Denver because they are elected officials or party activists.
The Obama campaign has embraced the commonly used word "superdelegate" as it has advanced the argument that these people should heavily consider the results of the primary or caucus votes in their localities and states when deciding whom to support.
Plouffe and company have been successful in underscoring the notion that there are two categories of delegates and they needed to be counted separately in stories, if for no other reason than the unpledged are able to change their minds up until the delegates gather in Denver.
By pounding the point home, most of the scorecards on the delegate count now separate out the pledged delegates from the unpledged. Plouffe's team has been able to argue -- quite well so far -- that the distinctions are important. You can see why they are taking this tack.
According to NBC, Obama has 1116 elected delegates to Clinton's 985; Obama has 183 superdelegates to Clinton's 257. Obama has won 23 states and the District of Columbia and Virgin Islands to Clinton's 11. So far, Obama has racked up a popular vote of 9.3 million to Clinton's 8.6 million.
The Clinton campaign in the past days has been using the word "automatic" and not superdelegate. "As you know," said Clinton adviser Harold Ickes on Saturday, "we refer here in this campaign to them as automatic, not super. Super has some sort of sense that they are going to descend on us from Mars."
Whatever you call them -- superdelegates or automatic delegates -- they are the backbone of the Democratic party Obama is running to lead. These are the Democrats who will be there in the future no matter what. Obama has made a successful effort to bring in Republican and independent voters to the Democratic primary and caucus contests.
The permanent residents of the Democratic party should be able to feel as at home as these visitors. For now, the Obama forces have succeeded in shining a spotlight on superdelegates and enlarging the Obama "movement" to target them.
Ickes and the Clinton folks are on the defensive because of what Ickes called "all the controversy ginned up by the Obama campaign."
Ickes nailed what happened. Ginned up and ready to go.
Originally published in the Chicago Sun-Times.
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
You are ignoring the purpose of the superdelegates. They are to ignore the mass vote. They are not to give in to coercion or intimidation. They are to balance the scales against uneducated, biased voting. We have entrusted them with the responsibility of looking beyond the "Kings new clothes" and basing their decision on common sense. There has been very little of that in the current primaries.
Ok by logic the majority of the people are idiots and the superdelegates all knowing. What do you think of the super delegates who support sen. Obama. Don't bother to respond, I know idiots like the rest of us for not agreeing with you.
Looks like Hillary is lying about not stealing pledge delegates, Wolfson is Dishonest: They Are Going After Pledged Delegates www.dailyk
There is a fair bit of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Obama supporters here.
When it comes to the superdelegates, they argue that the will of the people must prevail, and that superdelegates should be forced to vote the same as the popular vote.
But, when it comes to Florida and Michigan, they have no problems ignoring the will of the people. In that case, they are all about the rules being followed.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue for the rules when it benefits you, and argue against them when it hurts you.
I can argue that Democracy is about counting the vote of the people, and not the vote of a few party insiders.
You are ignoring the DNC rules when you make your statement about Fl and MI. That's not an Obama supporter 'rule'.
If Florida and Michigan really were fairly contested, and therefore representative of the will of the people, those would also be counting.
However, with the current polls, you can count FL and MI for Clinton, and at the end of the day, on June 8th, Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates. I guess that is what it is going to take for some of you to believe it.
Actually as a Obama supporter I don't think either of them should have agreed to not campaigning and not letting the delegates be seated. Sen Clinton also agreed to these rules but now wants to change them. Let see who is being intellectually dishonest? You may want to ask yourself why after she had agreed to these rules, she promised the Florida voters that they would be seated only after she won the State. I think the voters of Florida and Michigan were unfairly penalised but that rests on both candidates and to call that election the will of the people is a stretch, since large numbers who bother to do their research stayed home. The argument to the super delegates does not force them to act in any specific way but suggests that they should consider the peoples preference when voting.
The whole idea of "Super Delegates" is a disgrace. Party insiders pick each other, and decide that they will each get 10,000 votes so they can ignore the citizens and choose one of their own.
Why should Diane Feinstein get 10,000 votes when I only get one? How much more un-democratic can it possibly be? This is like a monarchy, or a dictatorship, in which a few of the top-level party insiders decide everything. It's really disgusting.
Beyond the obvious political implications that the party wants to prevent the citizens from having a voice, there is the money issue. Show me the money. These "Super" Delegates get money. They sell their votes. In that respect they are exactly like the other prostitutes who show up at the party conventions and are paid money by the politicians in return for doing as instructed. Both candidates have been giving money to the "Super" Delegates.
So it isn't just offensive because of the intent to prevent citizens from having a voice in their own country, it isn't just offensive in being so sneaky and so insulting and so corrupt, it is also offensive because it is essentially another way for party insiders to solicit bribes and sell their votes. I'm so sick of this corruption. This whole system has got to be ended.
As a Democrat, I am glad that they got the spotlight shined on them. They all to often do things that the Party People don't like. The elected ones are still doing it. It is about time the people took back the power and damn anyone for saying we don't have that right!
Absolutely wrong! Obama isn't fighting to lead the Democratic Party. He's fighting to destroy it. In his world, the last 20 years have been marred by partisan fighting. There's little doubt that he's striving to create a newer version of the Democratic Party that dominates the center - hence his ability to attract Republicans and Independents.
Republicans won't stop fighting because the messenger changes. They'll stop fighting because the message changes - and that's his strategy.
Point is that it's probably for the best. The Democratic Party has been beholden to the left fringe for too long to be more than a loyal opposition party to the Republicans. A party that dominates the center will dominate politics for some time to come.
This issue is only one of the reasons that I personally will not rally behind Obama. I found it very off-putting as a life-long Democrat to hear the supposed Democratic candidate talking about this like it was stealing people's votes.
That's third-party talk.
OK, but then he's not supportive of Democratics.
OK, but then he's signalled he prefers his constinuents over core party members.
OK, message recieved. And I will, indeed, go away.
Are you saying the savvy Clinton machine was politically out manoeuvred by the naive young neophyte with so little experience? How is this possible?
Wow ... The "empty suit" is a genius. apparently he understands how to get things done politically. How awful - get over it.
There's a TV show that comes to mind, LOST IN SPACE, WOW. REEEAAACH.
REEEAAACH doesn't even begin to describe it.
is there nothing the clinton supporters will not grasp at to try an vilify obama and his people?
Like saying Obama is 'ginned up and ready to go'
Disgusting. And having this Clinton surrogate repeat the degrading and disgusting racial stereotype is beyond understanding.
Lynn needs to retrieve her self respect.
BACKBONE???????
The central pillar? The core from which all action is distributed and coordinated? Yeah, they would like to think so, because megalomania is a b*tch.
Superdelegates were a mistake, are a mistake, and better go bye-bye before the next election. Wait, what was the name of our party again, the "DEMOCRATIC" party? Since when does a group of people, some of whom were never elected to ANY office, some of whom were never elected recently, or by me count more than the vote of the people of this nation?
They don't, and refusing to get rid of this modern patriarchal variation on the patrician uber class is the best way to convince many Dems to find a new home.
I agree. We don't need a "Counsel Of Elders" to overrule the democratic base. We need democratic (big d) leaders that are not in the pocket of the big business, and unfortunately alot of these superdelegates are tied to big business.
And as a side note, I'm so glad a true progressive, Donna Edwards, beat Al Wynn, who at one time was a good congressman. But when you supported going into Iraq, and start showing up at meetings given by big business like Haliburton, Al has no one to blame but himself for the outcome. Donna had the support of labor, environmental, and civil rights groups.
absolutely! how can anyone who claims to respect the democratic process — one man/woman, one vote — defend a manufactured flaw within the process that essentially tells voters 'yeah, we know you like your choice of candidate, but we, the party elders (privileged class) think we know what's best for you, so we're gonna make up your minds for you...like it or not.'
The time for automatic or super delegates in the Democratic party has passed-as if there was a time to foster & use this obscene anti-democratic ploy. It's way past time to discard this obscenity & reform the rules which govern the operations of the Democratic party. We can do that after Barak Hussein Obama wins the general election in Nov '08. Perhaps it would be a good idea for his supporter to use Barak Hussein Obama's full name to defang Barak Hussein Obama's critics who take feigned offense at a Christian having a Muslim name as if Barak Hussein Obama wasn't a sincere Christian. There may be some voters who don't have a Christian friend with a Muslim name who weren't aware that it's what is in the heart & soul that makes one a Christian, not the name used for the body which houses a Christian heart, a Christian soul & is a temple of Jesus Christ.
I have never seen one Lynn Sweet column or tv appearance that did not have some veiled or direct negative Obama overtone--
The question is why?
Where's the evidence? I heard questions about superdelegates on foreign blogs a long time ago, because their existence seems so undemocratic. Again, where's the evidence that this is all due to the Obama campaign? Is this all just made up? Are you guessing here? Plouffe has "embraced" the word "superdele
Yet another Hillary surrogate with purposeful words. Taylor Marsh links Obama with being a convict, a convict. This one links Obama to Gin. Not so thinly veiled racist stereotypes. Shame on both of you.
Give it up ladies. None of the old dirty tricks will work from here on out.
Hillary is now killing off her own political career. She will take the Democratic Party with if she thought it would work.
Obama crushed Hillary. The nation is fed up with this kind politics of personal destruction.
Its done.
I wanted Hillary to take Reeds spot as Senate leader. Not anymore. I wouldn't want her out catching rabid dogs.
Big congratulations to Mr Obama and the Obama family! Thank you Wisconson!
If you read the entire article, you'd see that the title is misleading, it's actually fairly even-handed (for a conservative paper that Bob Novak writes for).
Why did the surrogate choose the word 'ginned'? Could have been anything, but the banner was 'ginned'. Marsh's banner was 'Con'.
It could have been stirred up, could have been any number of words. But she decided on 'ginned'. There is a sad and degrading racial stereotype that black people, from the 'hood', drink 'gin and juice'.
What banner will it be now?
Obama Hood Winks the Electorate?
Obama's Campaign is Cracked?
The Clinton campaign has planted the following:
Obama is a muslim
Obama sold crack to teen agers
Obama is a fairy tale
Obama is no different than Jesse Jackson
Obama is an angry black man
Obama is unpatriotic
Obama is not fit to be president
Obama is a con man, a convict
Obama participates in knife fights
Obama hasbeen brutal to Hillary
Obama steals stuff
Obama is a liar
Obama gins stuff up
Obama doesn't have the right experience for the job (racism!)
and more.
Now they are saying that he 'sings a good song but is unfit to be president'.
I could go on. In the face of these attacks, in the midst of the dirty politics of personal destruction and political division-Obama remains true to himself and his supporters. He does not attack back. He turns his cheek.
Clinton surrogates and supporters now need to ask themselves 'Is this who I really am as a person?' 'Is this the road I want to walk down'
I hope not, its an ugly road.
Obama 2008 and on and on and on
Jacee please turn the other cheek.
There is clearly a problem with the current system. As you point out:
"Obama has 183 superdelegates to Clinton's 257. Obama has won 23 states and the District of Columbia and Virgin Islands to Clinton's 11. So far, Obama has racked up a popular vote of 9.3 million to Clinton's 8.6 million."
So while Obama is winning, technically he could lose. Most Americans believe in the "one person, one vote" idea, even though that is not what we have. I think that should change - the current system is too much of a throwback to the days of dirty, backroom politics.
"Ginned up and ready to go." And absolutely correct. The suer delegates were created in order to prevent people like Jimmy Carter, who had little party support but a great deal of grass roots support, from gaining the nomination. That's just historical fact. You may not like it as it is detrimental to the candidate you so obviously favor, but it is, none the less, a fact.
Can't imagine why we, the people, don't like the idea of OUR vote being overridden by folks who supposedly work for us.
Is it "the rule"? Yes. So is the Electoral College. Doesn't make either one less dumb.
Didn't Jimmy Carter...u
And didn't the two Democratic party candidates before him...uh..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
