The Only Way Out For Dems? A Superdelegate Primary

Democrats are balancing on a live wire and after the primaries are finished need to take decisive and immediate action to ensure the nomination battle does not make it all the way to Denver. That, surely, would cost us the general election in November.

I am writing today in strong support of a plan I've been reading about for the past week to end this primary process with transparency and fairness. If you haven't already done so please check out my recent appearance on MSNBC (here comes the plug!) where I argued this prolonged primary process is good for Democrats and especially good for Obama. I want to see him tough and tested in the primary so he can be ready to stand against the crap that McCain will have coming in the general. If Clinton only managed to throw the kitchen sink, McCain and his doofi will surely throw the sink, cabinets, bathroom fixtures and the family minivan.

So, how does this all end neatly?

Phil Bredesen, the current Governor of Tennessee, has proposed a plan to hold a superdelegate primary immediately following the final party primaries in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, 2008. The plan, which Bredesen outlined in a recent New York Times editorial, makes sense because it brings closure to the process and pressures superdelegates to act swiftly in casting their votes.

Here is some more from Bredesen and the New York Times:

"Here's what our party should do: schedule a superdelegate primary. In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus.

Of the 795 superdelegates, over 40 percent have not announced which candidate they are supporting; I'm one of them. While it would be comfortable for me to delay making a decision until the convention, the reality is that I'll have all the information I reasonably need in June, and so will my colleagues across the country.

There will have been more than 20 debates, and more than 28 million Americans will have made their choices and voted. Any remaining uncertainty in our nominee will then lie with the superdelegates, and it will be time for us to make our choices and get on with the business of electing a president.

This is not a proposal for a mini-convention with all the attendant hoopla and sideshows. It is a call for a tight, two-day business-like gathering, whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem. There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote.

This is our electoral process at work in a way the founders would be proud of.

The formal nomination itself obviously awaits the Denver convention. However, if most of the superdelegates were to come to the table in June, there could be a clear conclusion, and enormous moral pressure on the candidates to accept the result and move on.

Some might raise reasonable concerns about the cost and logistics of assembling these superdelegates. But those would be manageable; this is a business meeting of a few hundred people almost three months from now, not an extended, cast-of-thousands convention.

Possibly the nominee will become clear by June and such a gathering will no longer be needed. That's fine: it can be canceled or turned into more of a formality. The chance to have our nominee clearly identified in June as opposed to late August far outweighs any logistical or financial concerns."

Much ado been made about the rules that govern the Democrats' nominating process. The angst that been expressed from many people comes from the feeling that, after all of the campaigning and votes cast, there would be a chance that superdelegates could make a decision that would seemingly overturn the "will of the people."

My biggest concern is that with over three months between the final primaries and Denver, all parties will have too much time to meddle, court and lure the uncommitted superdelegates and as a result we could end with a stalemate or worse- a result that is seen by many as tainted.

The superdelegates have had over a year to study the campaigns and analyze each of the candidacies. After the Montana and South Dakota results are reported and the campaigning officially ends, the ball moves squarely into their courts and they must immediately get off the fence and pledge their support.

We all know there is a lot at stake in the coming weeks. Without a superdelegate primary, I fear we stand a good chance of squandering an opportunity to win this election and change the direction of our country. However, worse than losing an election, we stand to lose the trust of millions of voters from around the country and that will prove fatal for the future of our great party.

-Matthew Slutsky

Check out OffTheBus's Superdelegate Investigation to read superdelegate profiles and interviews.

Comments

[TrustMeImASalesman]

Helloooo Faithful Democrats! I hate to be an "I told You So!" but I told you so much earlier this year!

The "elitists" of the Party are just smarter, more competent, and a better judge of YOUR OWN needs than you! So relax, you are in good hands. Go back to texting on your silly new palm device! Watch more RUMOR TV, go back to shopping at Mega-stores! The "elite" of the party are in control! You really don't know what you want; leave it up to them! Go back to sleep! And oh, continue to feel guilty about using so much more world resources than those in Zimbabwannaway!

The individual's choice is really a method of soothing the masses in their "ego" complex of societial multi-culturalism! It's not really meant for your to actually chooze a candidate! You really didn't think that would really happend did you??? Oh Gwad, how sad!

We at the UN are in control of your country! Trust US! Go back to sleep. The right candidate will be elected by us for our agenda! Your individual vote is meaningless! We at the UN(Universal Nihilists) in New York and Denver will arrange your future!

Sorta Pisses you off when your voice is thwarted by "Elite Guardians" Super Delegates! I voted damit and I want my vote counted! Screw the Super-Delegates!!!!

[Suprshrink]

If I had the power to settle the issue of superdelegates, I would re-assign the superdelegate votes back to the states on the basis of population. Then the delegates would be assigned according to the vote already taken. In this way, no one can claim the process to be unfair. The superdelegates could not overturn the voters, they would not be able to negotiate for their vote, the candidates would not have to court them, they wouldn't have to try to develop a real conscience in order to vote their conscience, and the voters would finally count.

This election is not a certainty for either candidate. Even if Obama has won more states and delegates, done a different way, such as winner take all, he would be behind by insurmountable numbers. The popular vote is barely different and two states are being disenfranchised. We would be smart to make the decision that fairness is most important and that the voters need to have their votes count. Only then could I support the nominee in November.

[barry5]

Relax. You sound like doubting Toms. Time will take care of this grave matter. 10 months is enough time for even the hardest head to learn something.

[Larry Kegel]

How many more Super delegates Obama going to pay off to get them to vote for him??? It's funny how he accuses Hillary to trying to steal his delegates.­.. But all Her Delegates are going to him not Her....

[gevan]

Another way out: Run Obama as the candidate for President in the states where he won and Clinton as the candidate in the states where she won. If it didn't work for the Whigs in 1836, that doesn't mean that it was a bad idea. The electors, if neccessary, can switch their pick in December when they cast their votes.

[mamamay]

Rules are rules. Presidents, Moms & Dads, etc must follow rules. If one cant follow the rules on this side of Denver, why are they being considered for President? And if one is following the rules as well as having all the plusses that matter on his/her side, why not get this nominee BEFORE going to Denver. At this time, the rules for conducting oneself should apply . Remember the rule, Mom said no acting out or Ugly while in public? Or Else? The SD's should endorse the candidate now and move on with this election. The very idea of moving dates ahead, dividing the delegates per state, is another clue that sound judgement has not been utilized properly by the DNC or by Clinton. Now, for a long term strategic measure, she did not count on her number of may get delegates, for the sake of taking time to go negative, has cost her dearly. Taking time off for trivials, even to devour Thousands of $$$$$ worth of donuts, combined with revamping the camp again and again has caused her to seek out even more long term negative strategies that arent working either, obviously did not allow her to see that she was losing delegates big time. Throughout this struggle, the SD's were jumping ship,left and right, and she hasnt caught up and she will never catch up. Therefore, a rule should be utilized. Hil said that Mi, and Fla would not count for anything anyway. Now she needs them and they won't be there for her. My question is this. Why are we continuing this Dem primary without a Nominee, when you already have the answers. Hil Is behind in delegates. Winning the remaining states would not help her win, so why not drain the pool, stop the bus, etc, on Hil? Obama is the most electible, He has the most delegates, and He is leading/winning. What part of paving a way for our Candidate is not understandable? Say Get off the bus, the road ends here and move on. This is the rut, static, or page that we need to turn from, Now, and MOVE on. Vote for Obama and stop the drama

[eddiemyboy1]

Screw the superdelegates with their own agendas. We need to go with the chosen delegates from each state and by the way Florida and Michigan should have a say so too.I mean they are americans also ,yes?

[PracticalMagic]

Just remember - NEITHER Obama or Clinton can win the nomination with pledged delegate counts ... so if we look to the US Constitution for democratic guidance(not a bad place to look) - in the case where no one wins the Electoral College for the Presidency, the election is thrown to Congress to decide, the House of Representatives and the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Electoral Count, the Popular Vote, or anything other than who the Congress picks. I believe the House picks the President, the Senate picks the VP. Since it would be between Democrat and Republican, we could have a Republican President and a Democratic VP, if the Congress is divided so. And, we did have that once in history.

In the nomination, the "Congress" is the Superdelegates. The same conditions apply. Who's ahead in the Delegates (=Electors) doesn't matter (except when added to the Superdelegate count), Popular Votes don't matter, the "will of the people" could not pick a winner, period. Sooo, the Superdelegates vote on who would be the best nominee to win in November. I'm sure they pay attention to all factors, but who can win is most important, I would think. Those are the rules, they "mirror" the US Constitution process, and Obama, a constitutional lawyer knows that - everything else coming out of his campaign about delegates, 'will of the people', etc. is to convince the superdelegates, since he cannot win on the 'will of the people' alone.

[mojomagic]

There is no reason for Hillary to get out of the race at this point, it is pretty even considering the primaries left. Then there is the question of Michigan and Florida...­....both of which she won. I think the only reason people are dreading a brokered convention is the threats, veiled or blatantly direct, that if Hillary gets this nomination there will be (1)riots in the streets all over America is he doesn't get the nomination and (2)the black vote will stay home and be lost to the Democratic party forever. Should this nomination process be settled out of fear? That is what I fear is happening.

The DNC has really screwed up this process by trying to punish Michigan and Florida, two distressed states economically, that probably wanted to bring some of those millions of dollars into their state revenues. Can you blame them? Why should Iowa (I'm an old Hawkeye myself) and New Hampshire every four years have a multitude of candidates, volunteers and press people spending money in their states for months? Is that fair to other states? Whatever the answers are the fact is that Michigan and Florida are two swing states and desperately needed in the general election to win the presidency. I can see why the Obama campaign has vetoed every suggestion of those two states to have a re-do, because without their votes and delegates it is almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination. But would the nomination of Obama based upon denying two states their voter's votes be legitimate? There are many people in those states who don't think so, and many others around the country who fee the same.

And what will be the outcome of the general election if the Dems. lose either of those states or even both? Four more years of Bush's policies. Will that make you all happy? Well, in some ways it would still be historical with Obama being the first black candidate for President of the United States, just as it was when G. Ferraro ran for Vice President. But you can see that being an Icon in the democratic doesn't mean too much......­....if Ferraro can be thrown under the bus to promote one's candidacy. And the other thing, it seems, is the Democrats unforgiving and only give their candidates for president one chance to win and then it is off to a new face..

[Mattjs220]

Hi there-

Thanks for your comment.

I feel the need to respond because your comment was thorough and passionate. Hillary should not and probably will not get out of the race. She has earned her right given her narrow win in the Texas primary to soldier on. I think she should stay in the race until every last vote is counted. That is what I've argued all along. This primary process is great for our party and especially good for eventual nominee- whether it be Obama or Clinton.

Regarding Michigan and Florida... the path forward is clear. It is unfortunate that a fissure will exist between those delegations and our nominee because we need to win at least Ohio to gain the Presidency. However...­what would be far worse for our chances would be counting FL and MI and having them in some way- this late in the game- changing the outcome of the race. Yes...the ideal for all of us would be that their votes count. But powerful politicians like..well­...HILLARY CLINTON...­supported their sanctioning and therefore their votes just will not count for the nominating process. As soon as we have a nominee...­they will be seated with honor and the red carpet will be rolled out to ensure that their seats are padded at the convention.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people on earth. Had she voiced opposition to the war in Iraq...it would have had an impact on the tentative Democratic delegation that ended up overwhelmingly supporting Bush's war. Similarly, had she voiced opposition to the FL and MI sanctionin­g...it would have had a major impact on the decision to follow-through and for that she should kick herself tomorrow.

My piece urges not that we change the rules but rather that, after every single vote has been counted and certified, that we move on from the primaries and gear up toward the general election. It is relatively simple (given many of the suggested fixes out there) and will be a way for the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to pledge their support on camera and in front of the 13+ million people who anxiously await their decision after having cast votes.

That's all for now...than­ks for your comment.

Matt

[RButler]

How many white candidates have lost the run for the nomination or election to the presidency in over 200 years? Yet, the Obama crowd thinks he must win the nomination and/or the election OR ELSE. Talk about entitlement. A nice big loss would do him good. It showed what kind of man Al Gore was when he gave a gracious concession speech in 2000 and then went on to continue making a contribution. I don't think Barack and princess Michelle have that kind of commitment in them. But, we'll see. I predict that if he loses either the nomination or the election he'll be out of the Senate at the end of his term to make some big bucks in the private sector. He's not in this for the long haul.

[mamamay]

I hope that you are right. Why do you think we have so many prisons available in every state? Why do you think the Rep Gov of Fla. supported and agreed with the Reps to move up the election date, without working with the Dem Party? It should have been agreed upon by the Election committees to set up this date for the good of the People not for the benefits of the Republicans. Now The Dems were not wronged by the Dem Candidates and they should not be punished. The leader of Fla and Mi are the ones caught up in this web. Nevertheless, One way of difusing this ticking time bomb, is for hillary to get out, Democrats come together in unison, this time, and revamp the strategies to support our nominee, go to Denver and come out with the shilds up high to ward off any type swiftboating.
Train up a child in the way he/she should go and when he/she is an adult, they will not depart. Hil is viewed as a spoiler. Stopping now is to show good sportsmanship a newer kind of winner for her. We cant give her this nominee. and she cant win it even if she goes to Juvember. We need to be Adults and the Parents here and stop this bus. We need this to bring the Dem Party together. This is our hope for saving our Country, our election, our Dem Party, and protecting the many other valuable voters interests engaged in this election process aka YOUNG People under 50. We need to grow up yesterday. When we cant think beyond this point, then we are not ready as a party and we deserve 4-8 more years of Bush under McC. This thought alone should make The Democrats want to save this baby.

[Mattjs220]

WASanford-

Thanks for the comment. In writing in support of this proposal I in no way want to change the rules. I believe and have argued that the primary process/the rules are a.) good for the party and b.) a good thing for both Clinton and Obama in terms of being better general election candidates.

I haven't heard any sensible arguments for why having a convention fight will in anyway help our nominee beat John McCain. Yes...I understand that conventions were set-up to house these types of fights but given the dynamics of this race, the fundraising that will be involved, the massive campaign field organizations that will be crucial in winning and many other reasons- getting a start five months behind the Republicans will mean disaster on Election Day.

Rules are rules and we should follow them. I just think that once all votes are counted and certified we must come together, decide on a nominee, and make a hard run towards November.

Regarding Florida and Michigan- we all know that Hillary and her campaign (i.e. Ickes, etc.) were for sanctioning the states when the politics of IA and NH were at play. Now, they have changed their tunes and it is just, well, desperate.

Thanks- Matt.

[JerryJef]

I have one small suggestion. Call it what it is--PLEO caucus.

It is not a primary by any sense of the word. So why call it that?

There is no such thing as a "superdelegate" except in popular jargon. But popular jargon is destroying the English language by its shifting imprecision.

There is such a thing as a PLEO. He or she is either a Party Leader or an Elected Official.

[heavyrunner]

Hillary Clinton came in third in Iowa and has never led in delegates in this entire primary season. Barak Obama came in first in Iowa and has held the delegate lead throughout the entire process. I'll say that again: Hillary has never been in first place and Obama has always been in first place.

Obama's lead is insurmountable, in both popular vote and delegate count. That means he has won, and any Machiavellian twisting of the process that results in anyone else getting the Democratic nomination will split the Party and have severe consequences in November.

The Superdelegates must confirm the will of the people.

[mojomagic]

So in the big states that Hillary won, like NJ, NY, Calf. and Mass. the super delegates should follow the will of the people and vote for Hillary...­.....

Fat chance....­Sens. Kerry and Kennedy and Gov. Patrick won't do that! That whole argument is hypocritical that the Obama campaign makes. They only follow the rules when it benefits them.
They will do anything to win! which is what they accuse the Hillary campaign of doing.

[RButler]

"The Superdelegates must confirm the will of the people."

Except, that's NOT THE RULES. How many time do you have to be told that for you to get it? How many? The supers are there to prevent the taking over of the party by an American Idol contestant or whatever. Or how about preventing the nomination of a candidate whose supporters are threatening the party with revolt or a disturbance? That's a good enough reason.

[davemyers]

I'll start from early on in my evolution.­.. I am a biracial man whose father is African-American and mother is Caucasian. My parents met in 1959 when my un-wed mother was in a nursing school where my father was employed as a nurses aide... my mother was engaged to a white man who was attending engineering school. My father had an African-American wife and (5) children at the time of his extra-marital relationship with my mother. At some early point of my mothers pregnancy with me she made the decision to marry her fiance, and to lie to everyone about who the father of her un-born child was... she achieved this by claiming that I had been afflicted with a skin-disease called "melanism".

My mother and step-father had four more children together in the space of nine years after I was born, and we grew up together in a middle-class household in white america where the subject of "race" was never discussed. My earliest recollections of having to be aware of race was when I was asked questions about the color of my skin by other classmates in first grade... "Why was my skin dark?", "Was I adopted?" race was certainly a hot-button issue in 1965-66 when I began school , but any awareness that my mother and step-father had achieved from growing up in their white neighborhoods in the 40's and 50's was insufficient in preparing them for raising a biracial child... and to complicate things, they were both in complete denial of their complicity in my mis-education. When I came home from school after having been asked questions by fellow students from my all-white school district, my mother then explained "the skin-disease story" to me... "other kids with this disease usually have dark blotches all over their bodies, so you should feel fortunate". When I would tell my mother about other boys and girls who would call me names or act aggressively for no apparent reason, I began to understand that I would get no further assistance from her to explain this rationale.­.. my step-father was even more removed from the conversation and would only add, "You know what your mother said".

By the time that my step-father transferred jobs and our family of (7) had moved from the all-white Cleveland, Ohio suburb of Stow to the all-white school district of Portville in Western up-state N.Y. it was the spring of 1970 and I was in fourth grade, and already the veteran of many racial incidents and altercations between myself, classmates, and even some adults. My four younger siblings had also been told the same story, and had to explain the same things to their friends when asked why they had a brother who was black... "Hey, did your mother fool around a little bit??" I remember how much that hurt me when I heard it, and I'm sure that they felt just as badly when they did... nonetheless, this was a "subject" that we never discussed as a family, not once, at least in my presence.

I was taught through my observations of my mother and step-father to keep quiet about things that I wasn't sure about, and I was also taught to ignore the obvious.

As I matured into my teen-aged years and began to experience societies issues and insecurities in coming to terms with this countries racial in-equalities during the 70's, I felt an increasing need to rationalize and then codify the information that my mother had given me, regardless of what I was beginning to realize inside... I felt a growing discomfort­/conflict, yet there was no one in my life to offer any other perspectiv­e... I had learned that black people were a part of society that we didn't talk about. ( There was a black family in my small town, and they were poor and lived in a run-down house near the river...I never had any opportunity or reason to associate with them)

I was a "B" student and also began taking an interest in sports where I was above average. Meeting other schools and student athletes were opportunities to then be exposed to populations that had not been inured by my story yet...I was just another black kid to them.

Communicating my experiences to my mother and step-father was difficult because they had no experience with racial prejudice, therefore when I had problems with other children it would be looked at as an issue that "I" had in getting along with others(as well as intra-family sibling issues).
Because "race" was being ruled-out entirely, by my mothers denial of my father, she could not logically use that rationale to explain any conflicts that I would have. My step-fathers complicity in this was to blindly support my mothers viewpoint.

The "white" viewpoint has always been that blacks(black society) were pretty well cared for, and what contact they did have would be polite and careful... What, with the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts being passed, the playing field had been leveled.(r­e: my mother and step-father's generation)
The feelings and comfort of my mother were apparently what was important, and her inculcation had to have been partly comprised of the idea that white society acted as the gate-keepers and care-takers of an infantilized black population.




questions:

How has black society formed its identity?

What role models have been used, and how does white society react to positive
black role models today? (Are they held to a more critical prism??)

Is there enough information readily available for black people to easily form a
positive racial identity?

Is it important that black society is able to connect accurately the dots of its social
evolution in America? and is it also important that white society can connect those
same dots??

What is White Privilege?

What is White awareness?

What is Whiteness?

What about Affirmative Action?

Is Race just a social construct?

How do we improve our society in America?

Is there any other way(besides the attrition of the old guard) to achieve this??



Dave Myers
www.discussrace.com

[jmk65]

that might be one of the more sensible ideas i have heard in a while!

noone has enough votes or delegates. and that is why we have superdelegates. the race is too close (yes it is!) and divided and unless everyone feels they have been treated fairly the democratic party will be greatly damaged. and that is tragic.

[athenalong]

Dave -

Thanks for posting this.

KEEP POSTING THIS.

It's important that people take the time to listen, and go further... challenge yourself.

Go to his website and read. It won't take you long, and you WILL learn something.

[WASanford]

Gee Matthew that sounds like chaniging the rules in the middle of the game to me. Isn't that what the Obamabots have been arguing against all along. Where's the consistancy? Ok, I get it; anything to help Obama and the voters in Michigan and Florida can just go hell.