Superdelegates To Clinton's Rescue?

The Nation: Close Race Puts Vestige Of Machine Politics In The Spotlight

(The Nation)  This column was written by Ari Berman

---

The Democratic primary contest is shaping up to be the closest since 1984. The campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are preparing for a delegate battle. If the race goes down to the wire, an elite contingent of superdelegates — unpledged party operatives and elected officials not chosen by primary voters — could play a decisive role, even though most voters don't know they exist. How could the Democratic Party be so, well, undemocratic?

Rewind to the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which showcased the undue influence of the party's old guard. Big-city bosses like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley handed the nomination to Hubert Humphrey, despite Humphrey's support for a deeply unpopular war and the fact that he hadn't won a single primary. As Rick Perlstein recounts in his forthcoming book, "Nixonland," Eugene McCarthy won 79 percent of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary but got less than 20 percent of the state's delegates at the convention. The rest were picked by the party machine. The will of the voters was ignored at the convention, and protesters on the streets outside it were met with clubs and tear gas.

Despite the backroom double-dealing, supporters of McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were able to pass a rule at the convention mandating a study of how the party picked its nominee. This rather innocuous effort, initially led by Iowa Governor Harold Hughes, a popular liberal reformer, led to the McGovern Commission, whose 1970 report, Mandate for Reform, led to a sweeping revision of party politics, which greatly expanded the number of primaries and ensured that convention delegates were roughly proportional to primary vote results; drastically reduced the power of party officials to serve as delegates and dictate the choice of nominee; and mandated a greater role for rising forces within the party — young people, women, minorities. The new rules helped catapult two dark horses to the nomination, McGovern himself in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976.

By 1980 the party establishment had seen enough. It struck back with a commission of its own, led by North Carolina Governor James Hunt. It returned power to elected officials and party regulars — the superdelegates, who will make up about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates at the Democratic convention. They include all Democratic members of Congress and every governor, but roughly half of them are Democratic National Committee officials elected by state parties, who range from top party operatives to local city council members. Key interests in the party, like labor groups, can also name superdelegates. According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries."

That's what happened in 1984, when Senator Gary Hart launched an insurgent challenge to front-runner Walter Mondale. Hart won sixteen state primaries and caucuses to Mondale's ten, and barely lost the popular vote. Yet Mondale locked up virtually all the party's 700 or so superdelegates even before the primary began. Hart likely would have lost anyway, but the superdelegates sealed his defeat. "I got almost none of them, because [Mondale] was considered inevitable," Hart told me.

The obvious beneficiary of the superdelegates this time around is another establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton. Before Super Tuesday, Obama had sixty-three pledged delegates, compared with Clinton's forty-eight. But as we went to press Clinton had a huge advantage in superdelegates, 184 to ninety-five, according to CNN. "Many of the superdelegates were in and out of the Clinton White House, invited to dinners, have received contributions from Clinton allies," says Hart, who has endorsed Obama. "There will be pressure brought to bear to cash in those chips."

Clinton has a wealth of contacts to tap, in the party and in her campaign. There's the former president himself, of course, and Clinton's campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, who ran the DNC from 2001 to 2005, and a top Clinton surrogate, Harold Ickes, who serves on the DNC's influential rules committee. The Clintons are working hard to bring the large bloc of uncommitted superdelegates into the senator's camp. "I know Hillary is calling superdelegates regularly, which is a smart play," says Art Torres, California Democratic Party chair. Interviews with superdelegates in Alabama, California, Colorado and Massachusetts — a random sample of February 5 states — illustrate this close attention. After Ramona Martinez, a Denver city councilwoman, switched her support from Bill Richardson to Clinton, she received immediate thank-you calls from McAuliffe and Clinton adviser Ann Lewis. In Alabama "Hillary would get the majority of the superdelegates," predicts state party chair Joe Turnham. "A lot of it is longstanding relationships. People go back to the 1980s with Bill Clinton, when he first came to Alabama."

There's often a disconnect between the choices of rank-and-file Democrats and the preferences of superdelegates. In Colorado, Martinez admits, "Obama has a lot more troops on the ground." Obama is expected to do well in Alabama, whose African-American population matches South Carolina's. Even so, the Obama campaign argues that the tally among superdelegates is closer than reported in the media — and that the so-called uncommitted delegates lean his way. "Bill and Hillary got what they could," says a senior Obama campaign adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They picked the low- to-midhanging fruit. The rest of the superdelegates remain neutral or undecided and may be resistant to the Clinton pull."

There's disagreement within the party about how many of the 400-plus uncommitted superdelegates have yet to make up their minds. "There's a lot of people claiming to be undecided," says Pomona, California, mayor Norma Torres, a superdelegate who backs Obama. "I think by now they've decided, but they don't want to say." Superdelegates are notoriously fickle, and can swap candidates at any time. Before the 2004 Iowa caucuses, for example, Howard Dean enjoyed a commanding lead among superdelegates. But after his disappointing third-place finish, they jumped ship, rallying around the eventual nominee, John Kerry. The same thing could happen to Clinton if Obama wins enough primaries and establishment support. And with John Edwards out of the race, he could advise his superdelegates to switch their allegiance, presumably to Obama.

No matter what happens with the superdelegates this year, it's unsettling to have a large bloc of party officials who are not answerable to the party's electorate. "I certainly think their influence should be curtailed," Hart says. In 1988 Jesse Jackson won the primary in Puerto Rico over Michael Dukakis. Yet a month later, Puerto Rico's governor instructed his fifty-one delegates to back Dukakis. "This is clearly machine politics," Jackson wrote then, "and should have nothing to do with the 1988 campaign." The 2008 campaign has again exposed the undemocratic influence of the superdelegate elite. But just as the activists of '68 pushed aside the party bosses, forty years later voters can demand that the party's nominee reflect their choice.

[uwbizkid]

It is a well known fact that many non-party people salt he elections with individuals who are from the outside or do as the Obama team have done, leap frog. There are individuals who have witnessed power plays inside the party and it is up to the superdelegates to blunt that attack rather than some secretive insider job.

The superdelegates serve to "keep the wheels on the wagon" when youthful exhuberance overstates itself or a war inside the party threatens the upcoming election. So don''t read more into it other than the fact that we don''t know Obama really.

Kennedy left the party divided in 1980 after the Carter Administration so it is no surprise HE of all people would jump into this now and not be an honest broker about WHO is devisive. Please media get this one right for HISTORY. This is precisely why the democratic party has superdeligates, unfortunately Kennedy once again has put his nose in where he should not have and truly divided this party. It wasn''t a nod what he did was the whisper of a guillotine slicing the party in half as we heard in 1980.

[ioweign]

But there%u2019s another factor at work as well. We are seeing a return to the idea - first championed by socialist - communist planners in the progressive era - that government can and should play the role of parent.


Posted by frankIy6 at 12:22 PM : Feb 02, 2008


As in "No Child Left Behind" - the Federal Government dangling a carrot(money) in front of state schools if they teach and meet certain criteria...

[jon2012-2009]

frankly6
What do you do? Write one opinion, then post it on every article''''s comment section?
Posted by Emma915 at 11:16 AM : Feb 01, 2008

Yep, that''s exactly what he is doing. And it''s just typical Republican trash.

[nodemotwit]

The lib concept of political fairness is always amazing to behold. They''re like many bike riders you tend to encounter, ie: Those who encounter a stop sign-light & suddenly become a ''''pedestrian'''' & run it. But past the sign-light they suddenly revert back to ''automobile''''.
In a similar fashion liberals, infuriated by Bush%u2019s ''04 win, pulled their hair in John Cleese-esk tantrums, screamed about INDIVIDUAL VOTES not being counted, then set about championing efforts in states which had minority but growing lib representation (eg: CO) to NOT award all electoral college votes the state%u2019s presidential winner. But then they got to CA, & creaky wheels began to turn, & they realized that CA could then potentially result in a non Dem president, due to CA''s sig but minority non-lib representation, so the CA effort was quickly squashed.

What liberals really want:
Each state''s electoral vote will be allocated, state-by-state, in a variable manner (in every presidential, A.R.) that is most helpful to a liberal winning the presidency, other wise the entire election is void.

Similarly, superdelagates are just a liberal tool to guarantee that liberal party elites can strongly influence, and virtually guarantee, that exactly the candidate they want wins the nomination, irrespective of the general party members INDIVIDUAL VOTES. Obviously liberal elites feel their general party members are incompetent, one of the traits of socialism exhibited thru history.

[irliberal]

GO HILLARY 08, WOOHOO!!

Those who hate Hillary are:

A) White males who feel inferior before a woman of obvious power.

B) White females who think they should stand by their man, at least as long as it does not interfere with getting their hair done or interrupt their shopping.

C) Republicans, because she would end the Iraq war, balance the budget, and set this country back on the right course it was already on when Bill left office. If all that is possible to do in eight years anyway. You see, a single Hillary term would do much to illustrate to the world what fools the Republicons are and yes, they fear that. They fear it desperately.

D) Religious zealots of all shapes and sizes, who know that Hillary will preserve the line between Church and State, and that the tax free money that flows to pad their coffers and build mega churches and pay for se.x scandal lawsuits will likely stop.

E) Hunters, because the NRA tells them to think that way. Sure, those independent and fiercely free gun owners, true cows that they are.

F) The rich, who know that they will have a LITTLE LESS money than they do now, because they will be taxed at a higher rate. They might run a little short of cash for that second sailboat or that little villa in France and that JUST WILL NOT DO!

G) The military establishment, who no longer will get unlimited money to pursue pointless wars. Hillary would make sure the vets were properly taken care of though, something GW Bush OBVIOUSLY does NOT care about.

[denn034]

The very existence of those super delegates is an affront to democracy. Period!

[alanrobisch]

Hillary is a very bad example of a woman making it on her own. she should not be a hero to women. She is benefiting from nepotism not from her own ability. I hope either John McCain or Barack Obamma beat her like a drum

[tibu987]

Do you really want four more years of the Clinton twins?

I do not.

[cbsespo]

YES WE CAN ! The super delegates shpould all realize who can really mobilize voters by now !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LOvWoK_8f8

[irliberal]

Do you really want four more years of the Clinton twins? Posted by tibu987 at 06:33 PM : Feb 02, 2008

Sure I do!! The clinton years were absolutely fantastic, unless you get all worked up about a lie about a bee jay. The lies about the iraq war, the economy, the disappearing line between Church and State concern me, and I know that Hillary will take care of those things for us!

GO HILLARY 08! WOOHOOO!!!! You go girl!!

[cbs_oliver]

The thing to do here is make the names, political and public service positions, and support of the superdelegates public knowledge.

I''ll certainly be following up with my elected representatives who are Democrats to let them know who I hope they will support and that I will looking to see what they do.

We need better Democrats.

[blazercoach1]

I''m sure someone is calculating this: Consider the reaction of the black community if Obama wins more elected delegates but is denied the nomination by the superdelegates.

[tibu987]

This letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, published February 1, 2008, struck me with it''''s brief but necessary approach to what is holding this Country from regaining it''''s supremacy in the world. Nothing will go well unless our politicians can drop this political partisan divisiveness and work for the common good and the uniting of all the people of this great Country. Only during World War II was this country united.
Together we can defeat any problem. To continue to be divided, is to lose control of our future.
......tibu987

Drastic Measure

For the second time in 35
years I''''ll take a Democratic
ballot. The first time was
when Barack Obama ran
for the U.,S. Senate. This
time it will be to support
his candidacy for president
The most critical problem
facing the U.S. isn''''t the
economy, global warming,
or Iraq. It''''s the divisive,
partisan politics that
dominates Washington.
Until we have leaders who
don''''t view every issue as a
"wedge" to divide the
electorate or as an
opportunity to make the
other side of the aisle look
bad, our government will
remain gridlocked --unable
to solve the problems that
affect its citizens.Obama is
the one candidate who
might be able to change
the tenor of the debate
in Washington.

Brent Grossland,
Petersburg, Ill.

[brianbwb-2009]

Four viable candidates left, two from each party.

Let us see, we have a choice between a loose cannon war pig, a corporate slime hog, an old so and a smooth talking swine. Its all pork, to me.

America''s life expectancy can be calculated as follows

Loose cannon war pig, six hours after he bombs Iran

Corporate slime hog, three years max

Old saw, four years of trickle down to nothing.

Smooth talking swine, by using band aids on machete wounds, maybe five years.

Pick your poison.

Yes indeed, this primary does remind me of 1968. I will never forget the bitterness.

We were mired in an unpopular war, there was great enthusiasm for McCarthy among the young and those opposed to the war, and the pro-war party establishment declared war upon the supporters of the popular anti-war candidate.

The result was the election of Richard Nixon.

[vet_sk]

How can people be voting for Hillary? She voted for the war people and then just the other night lied about how she hoped her vote would be used for diplomancy. Think back to Oct 2002 people. We all knew what this vote would mean and so did she: We were going to war for obscene reasons.

And then all the devisiveness she will bring - deserved or not back to the Whitehouse. Can we just have a few years of someone with character (and who did not vote for the war) where they will not be torn apart by everyone.

Folks, for a soldier who is tired of rotations to Iraq and everything a soldier see there, let''s not add a hawk like Hillary to our Presidential roles. We need someone fresh in there to give a new American face to the world.

[jendaly]

You are probably right, IRLiberal, about people who *hate* Hillary. But plenty of us who don''t *hate* her also don''t want to see her nominated.

For one thing, I don''t think the radical right will even really show up for a race between Obama and McCain. But seeing how much they *do* hate the Clintons (particularly as he seems to be as much the candidate as her at this point), they will come out and vote against them.

And, please, who could be *more* of a "little lady," standing by her man, than Hillary has been? I could give a *** about Bill Clinton''s *** life, but I would think his *wife* would. If your husband is a serial philanderer who repeatedly makes a fool of you in public, you ought to kick him to the curb. Hillary''s message to young women is that you ought to tolerate anything from him again and again, and pretend to like it, because he might be able to help you professionally one day? In what way is that a step forward for women?

[bluesjones63]

The Super Delegates, the "GROWN PEOPLE" in the Democratic Party, are risking the "agony of defeat". I am NOT sure that people will "forgive & forget" the Clintons'' antics come November. I am NOT sure that people will forget the Democratic Party''s undemocratic operations,the Super Delegates being the prime example. I am NOT sure that people will forgive attempts to stifle average Democrats'' voices. I am NOT sure that the party will be forgiven for eating its young.

But I am SURE of one thing: as a 63 year old, very southern African-American female, I will NOT VOTE for Billary.

[bluesjones63]

The Super Delegates, the "GROWN PEOPLE" in the Democratic Party, are risking the "agony of defeat". I am NOT sure that people will "forgive & forget" the Clintons'' antics come November. I am NOT sure that people will forget the Democratic Party''s undemocratic operations,the Super Delegates being the prime example. I am NOT sure that people will forgive attempts to stifle average Democrats'' voices. I am NOT sure that the party will be forgiven for eating its young.

But I am SURE of one thing: as a 63 year old, very southern African-American female, I will NOT VOTE for Billary.

[andersenme]

There is no incentive for Sen. Obama to accept an offer of the vice presidency from Hillary Clinton, as unlikely a prospect as that is anyway.

Hillary Clinton in the White House means a co-presidency with Bill.

Why would anyone what to take a position that, while it may be a heartbeat from the presidency, is also second fiddle in influence and power?

Who with any self-respect would accept being second-guessed and undercut by Bill Clinton?

The Clinton-Obama ticket idea is being floated by Hillary''s trained seals in part to create a sense of moral equivalency between the two candidates--to the enormous detriment of Barack Obama.

The Clintons have nothing to say to a generation of young people looking for authenticity, honesty and transparency in their leaders and in their government.

That''s why more and more, young people are turning to Barack Obama.

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN