A tragic and occasionally incoherent Op-Ed by Geraldine Ferraro in the NYT. The underlying rationale is essentially Stalinist excessively doctrinaire, hierarchical and, ultimately, dated and a dead end: SuperDelegate Party leaders should decide contested issues in their infinite wisdom; they should use their control of internal party rules to enforce their judgments; voting in general, and especially votes by the ideologically suspect, should be discounted; the Party is an end in itself. Thus, the lost election of 1984.
As to incoherence: Ferraro argues that it is inconsistent to argue for the voters to decide the nomination and simultaneously refuse to seat delegates from FL and MI because some fraction of those voters are “rank and file Democrats.” Yet she never explicitly defines the “rank and file,” doesn’t explain why the rule that applies to FL and MI can be broken but others kept, and ignores the fact that our leading candidate (Senator Obama) wasn’t even on the ballot in MI.
As to tragedy: the limitations of the Democratic team that organized the disaster of 1984 are on very public display here.
…after all, she isn’t offering to send those who disagree to mass graves.
<
p>
<
p>HERE is a link to a brief essay about his stance; the article notes that his Parliamentary career was ‘short lived’.
And reluctance to accept control from the bottom-up. Ferraro is a hero of the Democratic Party in many ways and deserves admiration for many things — but this essay missed the mark by a wide margin, in my view.
<
p>As to old Burke, he lost his seat when his patron Rockingham died, as you no doubt know since you are a contemporary more or less. In general, indeed, a friend of tradition, clubby insider politics, and Party — albeit in his case to solidly liberal, reforming and, dare I write it, progressive ends.
<
p>Anyway, I changed the phrase on your advice.
Add to that the part about owing constituents not just industry, but judgement. At least a couple of our US Reps. are publicly neutral, namely Tsongas and Tierney. If you want to play this game and you are a constituent of either of them call their offices and voice your opinion on how they should vote. In some ways they are more accountable than the elected delegates, by virtue of needing to keep constituents happy.
Sounds awesome…if you’re a Republican.
She makse an excellant point that if Obama supporters really cared about the people being heard, then they would be pushing for the votes to count in Florida and Michigan where the people did speak. Oh, but then that would mean Obama might lose!
<
p>It is hypocritcal of Obama to say that the superdelegates should vote according to what the people who voted want (which I guess means that Kennedy and Kerry should vote for Clinton), and then say that the votes of thousands of people in Florida and Michigan should not matter because the party leaders say so. Hmmmmmm I guess he will say anything and do anything to win the election. BTW, Obama did campaign in Florida by running tv ads there.
Florida and Michigan broke the party rules. They jumped their spot in line.
<
p>Some might point out that in fact GOP elected politicians (Sec of state, etc) forced the move. Nonsense. The Democratic Party offered to pay for a caucus out of Dem coffers if necessary. The states jumped the gun. The rules were made clear. You don’t change the rules later — that’s a part of integrity.
<
p>I haven’t seen anybody in the Obama camp argue that superdelegates should be stripped of their voting credentials. They’ve argued that it’s a dumb system — but they haven’t argued for changing the rules of the game midstream. That’s an important difference in my book.
<
p>As for the ads, it was “a new 60-second national cable-TV ad”. It ran in all 50 states. You can’t black out some regions of a national ad. That’s how it works.
Why are we cherry-picking on rule-breakers? The other three hustled the schedule, too.
NH, IA, and SC have their privileged positions by virtue of party rules. You may not like it (I certainly don’t), but they played by the rules that were in place. FL and MI did not, and that’s why they lost their delegates. I can’t see seating those delegates now — at least, not without some elaborate compromise being worked out.
<
p>Best option: if Clinton wins OH and TX on March 4 (and thus the race continues), the party will authorize caucuses to be held in FL and MI between March 4 and April 22 (PA primary). Plenty of time to organize it, plenty of time to campaign, fair process, everyone gets seated at the convention, win win all around.
Those three states were not supposed to have their candidate selection events until after a certain date according to the agreed-upon DNC schedule. All three ignored it.
<
p>I realize that some rules may be seen as more important that others, but if we’re going by the letter of the rule, let’s do it for real. I don’t understand why the 11 swing electoral votes of NH and IA get treated nicey-nice, and the 44 swing EVs of MI and FL are flushed.
My understanding is that DNC rules are provisional and that the convention, as the highest governing body of the party, is free to overrule them. Downthread there is the question of why Clinton was on the ballot and others not. Each campaign had to make a strategic decision whether or not to stay on the ballot. Clinton decided she might as well collect any votes she could without campaigning in the event this became an issue and it appears she gambled correctly. Personally if I were a candidate I would have told the DNC to go jump in a lake and campaign wherever primaries and caucuses were held. I would also call on my fellow candidates to join me in this move. The voters of these two states did not get a say in teir respective primary dates and should not be disenfranchised. I don’t want to hear that people didn’t show up because their candidate wasn’t on the ballot. They should have gone and marked uncommitted anyway then raise a stink so their votes would be counted.
Except that Obama followed the wishes of the Democratic party establishment and did not campaign in either state, and Clinton did. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in MI. So the results of those primaries are fundamentally invalid.
He had an ad buy that ran there. Funny, none of the other candidates did that. Oh, but then it’s Barack Obama, so we will give him a pass on that. At least show some support for your statement that Hillary Clinton campaigned in either Michigan or Florida. (She did not, by the way.)Oh, wait, I forgot, the Obama campaign strategy is to make misleading statements with no basis in fact and then keep repeating them until people think they are true. Then, when people call them on the falsehoods, claim that its the politics of old at work. Brilliant.
Obama spent a bundle in Florida, but wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan.
<
p>Is it reasonable to differentiate between the two? I mean, both states broke the rules, but in Florida it seems that both candidates ran a stealth campaign but not in Michigan.
Where Clinton was the only person on the ballot? How exactly did the people there get the chance to choose? How representative can either election be when it was very widely reported and known throughout those states that the party was not going to grant them any delegates from those primaries?
<
p>And isn’t it hypocritical of the Clinton campaign to suggest that MI and FL should count when they didn’t feel that way prior to those primaries?
<
p>However, I wish that both states would have a do-over election and remove this stupid issue from the equation.
I agree with Bob. What a bizarre Op-Ed that was. You’d think Ferraro would have chosen to either explain the historical superdelegate issue or choose to endorse Clinton. Doing both simultaneously cheapens the superdelegate story quite a bit.
<
p>I also was particularly offended by the notion that states that allow people to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary are worth less than voters elsewhere. Those are the moderates that the Democrat party should be hoping to bring back into the fold. Those moderates are the voters that have heavily influenced many elections since 1980.
<
p>It wasn’t exactly a showing of wisdom and thoughtfulness that one would hope a party elder would have. If anything the Op-Ed lowered my respect for the Democratic party superdelegate system significantly. Goes to show you that sometimes the way things are are perhaps not the best way things should be.
I have to completely disagree with the notion that Ms Ferraro’s point is Stalinist. That is inflammatory at best and misinformed at worst. By selectively rewriting her piece with your pull quotes you bias the reader before they have read Ms Ferraro (provided they read it at all)
<
p>I think her Point is well taken. The Rules are what they are. They have a purpose.
For example; the Caucus system is not the will of the people. It is dominated by Party insiders who drum up support using the politics of social intimidation just like we see at Stacked NE Town Meetings. You can’t really count the will of the people in a Caucus state since they throw out any candidates with under 15% of the vote and while the turnouts have been larger they still represent very, very little of the ultimate voters in the General or even what might have occurred at an open primary.
<
p>Obama is leading but not blowing out Hillary on the delegate count but the reality is you have a Moderate Republican, with a record of standing up to his party’s extremists and a record of reaching across the isles vs. soaring rhetoric about same. Hence a formidable candidate in the general. Everyone thought we would get George Bush ReDux but that didn’t happen. Obama can rant his third Bush term mantra all he wants but it is just misinformed politics as usual, the Say something long enough and it just might become the truth. (Hmmm, Right out of Karl Rove’s play book. Now where did I hear that before?)
<
p>All of the rock star frenzy should (in the light of day) give one pause and if they (the supers) set aside that frenzy’s impact on where things stand at the convention then the super delgates have done exactly as they were intended to do. Like it or not (and I don’t like it)
<
p>Don’t seat Florida and Michigan and the Super delegates (By the rules) get to choose who they want to. And all this whining about going against the will of the people is based on the possibility that your candidate could lose. Well these were the rules going in and if they place one candidate over the other then change them next time around. I believe you get a healthy chunk of support from many demographics that the way we elect people from too much money through hanging chads is broken.
<
p> Why don’t you just admit that what Ms Ferraro did was give a reasoned intelligent explanation about why the Supers are there (also declaring her own Bias in the matter) and why they should vote as the rules intended and that you disagree with that as it could end up not supporting your candidate
<
p>For the Record it’s still HRC for me regardless of the outcome.
<
p>But more to the point let’s agree that if what you want is the will of the people then all states should have proportional, open primaries and no one gets super delegates.
<
p>Or how about the notion we eliminate the Parties influence and just have open primaries ( no conventions) leading to a general election and then run off for the top 2 till one gets 50%?
to lay the foundation for the possibility of superdelegates throwing the nomination to Clinton.
<
p>Personally I expect the superdelegates to be split, at least unless Obama continues to sweep and they unite around him.
<
p>But I wonder how you would feel were these same arguments on the other foot? Suppose Joe Lieberman were narrowly ahead of Barack Obama thanks to his [Lieb’s] appeal to Rs and independents in open primaries. (I know this is a stretch in the real world, but I’m sure BMGers have the mental flexibility for this thought experiment.)
<
p>So: Obama favored among Ds losing to Lieberman because of R and I support.
<
p>In that case, doesn’t Ferraro’s argument–that superdelegates represent the party and should “determine what is best for our party and best for the country”–appear in a different light? But it’s really the same argument.
<
p>Anyway, broaching these arguments now softens things up for later. But I don’t think there will be a later.
While it is sentimental to believe that right beats might, the real situation is that Senator Clinton has the upper hand. Her group is well entrenched in the Party and has the wherewithal to push the nomination to her. It may take a bit of grease, but the Democratic nominee will be Senator Clinton.
<
p>Only Pollyanna would believe otherwise. Obama? Maybe in eight years.
<
p>So, our efforts now should be to take the Party back to the Whitehouse. In-fighting only hurts that effort.
then the next president will be either Obama or McCain. Clinton cannot win the election if, despite the will of the Democratic primary electorate, the supers hand her the nomination. If, on the other hand, Clinton wins one or (especially) both of those races, then it’s anybody’s game.
The “electorate” don’t remember anything that isn’t dangled in their faces on TV every day. The reason for the superdelegate is to provide a safety margin from the electorate. We have to be practical.
If Clinton wins the nomination despite a significant deficit in popular vote and assigned delegates, the Democratic party will not be at full strength in November.
<
p>I, for one, will likely sit at home that day; one reason I support Obama is that I see a real need for fresh blood in Democratic Party leadership. Seeing said leadership override the expressed will of the voters over the course of several months won’t make me very warm and fuzzy.
<
p>Leadership that sees
<
p>
<
p>as some sort of great achievement needs sacking, toot sweet.
<
p>If Hillary can pull off a comeback and win based on assigned delegates and the popular vote, good for her. If she needs FL and MI to do it, not so good. If she needs superdelegates to do it, hello President McCain. That’s a prediction.
If Joe and Josephine Sixpack can be upset about not being a part of the “process”, I’ll be very much surprised. Would they seek revenge by voting for “100 years of war” with the other guy? Do you think the Sixpacks can keep thoughts in their heads from the Convention to the election?
<
p>The vast majority of people care more for Brittany than the politics of America. They just ain’t that deep. Senator Clinton will be the next president.
pretty dismissive of the electorate, but at least you’re consistent.
<
p>So Hillary’s group is “well entrenched in the Party”‘ and any “in-fighting only hurts” the Party.
The “vast majority of people …just ain’t that deep”, therefore Clinton will win.
<
p>Yeah maybe.
<
p>But speaking of “Pollyannas”, here’s Bill’s former chief of staff (and current Hillary supporter) Leon Panetta talking about Hillary’s campaign:
There are people who say that Hillary will have to consider dropping out of the race altogether if she fails to carry Texas and/or Ohio. So far, it sounds as if McCain will get the Republican nomination by default, and possibly Hillary or Obama will get the Democratic nomination, depending on whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win one or both of the above-mentioned states.
Clinton has the upper hand? Then how come she hasn’t picked up an endorsement in weeks? How come Obama has been slowly but surely eating into her superdelegate lead? How come her ground operations are significantly smaller than Obama’s in every state? How come she is spending much less money on ads in every state? How come the polls are consistently moving in Obama’s favor? How come on political futures trading markets, where people risk real money, Obama keeps going up? Practically speaking, Clinton is just about finished in this race.
<
p>What pull does she really have with the party? All of the people on her side have already come out and endorsed her. What influence does she have over the others? What “grease” is she going to use? She has already called in all her favors and know owes others more than they owe her.
<
p>I expect that unless Clinton makes a signficant dent in Obama’s delegate lead, that the remaining superdelegates are going to go over to Obama in droves after TX/OH/VT/RI.
Ferraro’s op-ed is pretty inept, but it hardly reveals her to be a Stalinist. It doesn’t work because she’s arguing that the superdelegates ought to do more than they should — tilt the scales in a contest that has been won fairly.
<
p>But let’s say some horrible revelation came out about Candidate A just after he had wrapped up the nomination over Candidate B. It’s important that there be some sort of process for denying the nomination to Candidate A and thus avoiding electoral disaster in the fall.
In response to constructive criticism.
<
p>And before you posted your comment.
<
p>We all can use good editors, after all, and that is one of the virtues of the extended conversation we call the blogosphere.
<
p>I stand by my point that the thrust of her editorial is excessively hierarchical, too devoted to Party over people, and representative of a kind of thinking that is dated and, as I wrote, a dead end.
“Stalinism,” I mean, clearly a joke and not a serious attempt to link Geraldine Feraro to the Third International.
<
p>Of course “politically correct” was originally a bit of self-depreciating wit from lefties, taken up with a vengeance by folks with no sense of humor.
<
p>The “Stalinism” crack reflects the inherent tension between party discipline and utopia. In this case, Will Roger’s comment comes to mind.
In fact, I’d say at this point that a sense of humor is desperately needed as the primary campaign lurches to a close.
<
p>To practice what I preach, some late night jokes from About.com.
<
p>