How To Make Love To A Superdelegate
Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have boiler rooms working 24/7 to squeeze public endorsements from as many of the 796 superdelegates as they can before the Party's convention in August. Both campaigns are deploying every gun they have, and they're whispering every blandishment they can muster. But the right question isn't which side this insider's contest will lock up the nomination for; the challenge is whether the recipients of all these love-bombs can turn the individual attention they're getting into something good and important for the country as a whole.
The superdelegates are being barraged by calls from the likes of Tom Daschle, Janet Napolitano, John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton, right up to the candidates themselves. The boiler rooms have files that the FBI would envy, dossiers telling them that, say, DNC member Rachel Binah of Mendocino County, CA cares "most about the environment and about funding research for Alzheimers, the disease that took her father." As Harold Ickes, the seasoned hunter-and-trapper running Hillary's operation, explains the strategy, "You try to figure out, what factors influence them? Who do they talk to about presidential politics?... Sometimes, it's two or three close confidants, sometimes it's a chief of staff, or someone who raises money for them. Maybe there's an issue that's important to them."
How many superdelegates are so far supporting whom? Estimates and claims differ; Clinton seems to have between 213 and 270, and Obama between 139 and 170. But the truth is that all 796 are still in play, because the rules permit them to change their minds right until they vote at the convention. My friend Tad Devine, the original superdelegate arm-twister with whom I worked in the 1984 Mondale campaign, had a piece in Sunday's New York Times called "Superdelegates, Back Off." He says that they
"should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say. The party's leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves... before Democratic voters in the remaining primaries and caucuses have made their decisions.... After listening to the voters, the superdelegates... can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest...."
I think Tad is half-right. Superdelegates ought to hold out. But these nearly 800 party activists shouldn't just wait around decoratively, like potted plants, until the voters of Montana and South Dakota speak on June 3 (let alone whenever and however the voters of Florida and Michigan speak for a second time). Not only might the delegate and popular vote totals still fail to produce a clear-cut winner by then; the superdelegtes will also have surrendered a tremendous opportunity.
Instead of superdelegates responding individually to calls that push their hot buttons, why don't they organize themselves, right now, and act collectively? Instead of selling their votes separately in exchange for personal pet projects, why not coalesce around a great national issue, and attempt -- while it's still going on -- to affect the course of the campaigns currently being conducted by both candidates?
Imagine what might happen if the usual political G-spot touching that transpires during these calls to superdelegates didn't work. Imagine instead if the campaigns got an earful like this:
"You know what might win my support? You're a Senator. Why are you waiting around until you're inaugurated? This is the most brazenly lawless administration in history. Every other day the president spits on the Congress with signing statements. Every week George Bush and Dick Cheney and their minions figure out a new way to piss on the checks and balances system. They torture, and then they lie about torture, and then they get away with it. They've got the pardon power in their hip pocket. They destroy evidence, they refuse to testify, they forbid their Justice Department to enforce contempt citations, and there's zero accountability for it. The only contempt is the contempt they have for Democrats every time you cave and compromise with them on core principles. These war criminals have you so freaked out by the possibility that they'd call you bad names -- terrorist-appeasers, Osama-enablers, jihad-symps -- that you're scared to stop them from raiding our treasury, ruining our armed forces, and condemning our kids to tragedy. You do a lovely job of talking about the future. But there's nearly nine more months for this Republican junta to do damage to our country. What are you going to do to stop it? If you're not as mad as I am about the past seven years, and if you're not as scared as I am about this eighth year, then it may not matter who on our side tops the ticket, because some of this trashing may be undoable. You want to know what my political erogenous zone is? It's called the Constitution, and it's on fire, and I want to know what you're going to do about it -- not next January, but now."
I know, I know. How romantic. But a guy can dream, can't he? After all, Valentine's Day is coming.
Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan
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
Forget the chocolates and flowers!
That incisive summary paragraph got right to my heart.
I'm inserting a copy (I hope it's okay I copied it, Mr. Kaplan) into my Dennis Kucinich edition pocket Constitution.
Thank you, thank you from one of your devoted readers.
~Kristine
I think the two candidates can control this. If each of them pledge now in public that they will not accept anything at the convention but the superdelegates being split pro-rata based on the popular vote, then I think that will go a long way to ensuring that the superdelegates will comply and the convention will vote to apply that rule.
I think both candidates need to be pressured on this issue in all upcoming debates to come up with a fair solution. Write the moderators in advance telling them you want to see this question answered.
I think basing a split on the number of states won would be bogus, and on total delegate count would be problematic (although it might be possible), but would be fine with having them split pro-rata on the total popular vote nationwide. Still leaves FL and MI, however, where both the total vote and delegate count leave something to be desired.
Those of you who are concerned about the super delegate situation, I urge you to lodge your opinion with the DNC ... http://www
Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.
Agreed. Thanks for posting the link!
Sorry, I just couldn't help it. I sent your next to the last paragraph to both my senators and my rep. It really said it all, Marty. Fat lot of good it will do, though. I'm from Texas. Oh, well. It's really not that bad to live in a 3rd world state in a first world country. Kind of quaint, ya know?
Hey Marty; Sounds like you are writing speeches for Ron Paul.
You know nothing gets done in Washington without compromise. Democrats and Republicans are equal for blame. Patriot Act.
You cant buy a super delegate with principle. In theory, the entire primary /caucus could vote 100% in favor of one candidate and the superdelegates could vote the other candidate, and win. It was designed that way.
Those of you who are concerned about the super delegate situation, I urge you to lodge your opinion with the DNC ... http://www
Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.
I love it. Your calling Chelsea Clinton AND everyone else calling those superdelagates and rhetorically fellating them Ho's, and being both truthful AND funny while doing it.
You should either apply for Shuster's Job, or write him a letter of recommendation when he applies to work at some network that does not cave when confronted with an ugly truth.
Your absolutely right. It's a sickening business to be wooing individuals who might be able to usurp the will of the people.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Ha ha.
We have had elections before where Super-Delegates were instrumental.
I trust they will handle the pressure just fine.
Even the "not-big-names" have been working within politics for a long time.
THE DEMS ARE GOING TO BE IN ***BIG*** TROUBLE...
If the so-called "super delegates" choose a different candidate from the popular favorite; for example, in this plausible scenario, if Obama goes in to the Democratic Convention in August with substantially more primary delegates than Clinton but she wins the nomination by the "supers" who vote for her....
Yes that would be bad, so bad that it would destroy the Democratic party.
Right, so don't you think the superdelegates would want to avoid that? Trust me, they will follow the voters, if the candidate is electable in the general, which Obama is. They are party loyalists and they aren't letting Chelsea sway their decision.
THE DEMS ARE GOING TO BE IN ***BIG*** TROUBLE...
If the so-super delegates" choose a different candidate from the popular favorite
__________
If Clinton and Obama really cared about the fate of the Democratic party and, in fact, democracy in this country, they would agree and announce that they will abide by the voters' choice. If one or the other gets a majority of delegates coming out of the primaries, the other will step aside and not accept any super delegate votes.
I can think of no act that would demonstrate more clearly that Democrats are actually the party of democratic principles. It would be a show of unity unprecedented in American politics.
Unfortunately, I doubt anything like this would ever happen. It's just not the way political battles are fought in this country.
Well said, Marty. Getting back to core values is SO long overdue!
Because the real name for superdelegates is:
"party leaders and elected officials.
The same DLC.ORG folks who punked us about ending the war.
Pelosi has been trying to pass the super delegates off as "grassroot" dems. I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.
Yesterday I was told by an older couple, who are quite progressive, that the Clintons and their corporate friends are going to buy off the convention. Then I read this. Those free trade agreements are going to pay off big time for the Clintons. Get ready for 36 straight years of a Bush or Clinton in the White house.
Marty, love your post, it's right up my scenic river in EVERY way, but didn't we all decide that sexualizing the courtship of Super Deligates was a BAD thing, a RISKY thing, a NO NO that can get you KILLED?? Do you want to end up sharing a cell with David Schuster?
No matter how you parse it, there will be some Quid Pro Quo. You wash my hands and I'll wash yours. This superdelegate system is tarnished and smacks of backroom "good old boy" business as usual found in both parties.
Please excuse me for stating the obvious. If we The People are having such a HARD time understanding the rules of this primary/caucus why not throw out all the rules and all the parties. NEITHER “Party” really stands for “We the People”, you know, the COMMON Man/woman, at any rate. Why NOT just make it simple stupid. One vote for 1 person, winner takes all. If I was in charge, I would have LET EVERYONE RUN FOR THE JOB. When all the candidate threw their hats into the ring they would have 6 weeks of Politicking, and debating. Then everyone could have gone to the polls, on the same day, and voted their choice. All the wasted time/money spent on this campaign is OBSENE. Who benefits from all that money thrown dawn a rat hole? The MSN and a bunch of RICH ASSED people. I can promise you it did nothing for me & mine. I call the current way of dong things “Bull Biscuits”
Amen to that Ms. Maggie.
I heart you Marty. That rant about the Constitution made me so...hot. Happy Valentine's Day. Can't wait to see what Barack and Hillary get you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
