By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
Neutrality guided my thinking as an uncommitted superdelegate during the recent Democratic nominating process, largely because I prefer building the Party to picking horses. Voters decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our presumptive Presidential nominee.
Sure, superdelegates came out to break the deadlock, but they opted for the candidate who had earned the most pledged delegates. Based on the rules that were in place, the nominating process came to its appropriate conclusion.
That’s different than saying the system worked.
Like any idea committed to paper but unproven in the real world, the flaws in our process only became evident when it was put to the test.
The last eighteen months have made it clear that there are many improvements needed, and that reform means more than preventing superdelegates from becoming the central front of another nominating process. Here are some of the things we should consider.
Superdelegates
The idea of superdelegates – or, more officially, an unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegate – strikes many as undemocratic. Many proposals aimed at curbing their influence center on making their votes more dependent on how the voters in a Congressional district, state, or the whole country voted.
Among these ideas was one I heard from many of Senator Obama’s supporters in Maryland, who believed superdelegates should pledge to vote the way their state (or Congressional district) voted.
The trouble is, Democratic superdelegates aren’t evenly distributed around the country – by population, by percentage of the nationwide Democratic primary vote, or by any other means. Several states – including Maryland and the District of Columbia, won by Senator Obama, and California, New York, and Massachusetts, won by Senator Clinton – are overrepresented by superdelegates. Others states are underrepresented.
This inequity happens for a number of reasons. Many superdelegates are appointed to be at-large DNC members, representing a particular constituency – Young Democrats, African-Americans, GLBT Americans, etc. Former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and some other high-ranking officials also continue to be superdelegates. Wherever these superdelegates live, they are counted with that state’s delegation.
If this logic had been followed by everyone, and all superdelegates had voted the way their States voted, the final numbers would have been much, much different – and this would have probably helped Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.
Later in the campaign, as the process was nearing its end, I began to hear another argument emerge, mainly from Senator Clinton’s supporters: superdelegates should pledge to support the winner of the national popular vote. But this argument, too, is more complicated and problematic than it seems.
First – in addition to the disagreement about whether (and how) to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida – there was a lack of consensus about whether (and how) to count the votes cast by Michiganders and Floridians. Second, the contests weren’t all held on the same day, making the national popular vote a “photo montage” of the electorate rather than a snapshot. Third – and most importantly – the caucuses held in just over a dozen states do a poor job at capturing “popular” sentiment (more on that in minute).
For these reasons, using the national popular vote for a nominating contest would be as flawed as requiring superdelegates to vote the way of their state or district.
What does it all mean? What should we do about superdelegates?
We could require them (or certain categories of them) to remain neutral until after the primary contests have all concluded, as I did. We could devise a system to bind them (or certain categories of them) to primary vote totals in a way that wouldn’t give some states an outsized influence. We could reduce the overall number of superdelegates, making it less likely that they would exercise as much influence on the nominating process.
Or we could do away with superdelegates entirely.
Caucuses
After Senator and Michelle Obama move into the White House and we’ve secured expanded majorities in the House and Senate, the DNC needs to review whether or not we continue allowing states to hold caucuses. Though cheaper to hold than primaries, they are an imperfect way of nominating a President.
First, and most obviously, caucuses are a bizarre creature in a democracy that values secret ballots. But they also depress overall turnout, and skew what turnout there is away from older voters, working-class voters, voters with disabilities, and other who have trouble making it to a caucus site and staying there, sometimes for hours. There are no absentee ballots for caucuses, and so voters with unmet child care needs, voters who make a living through shift work, deployed members of the military, and voters without reliable transportation are shut out of the process.
We should invest in our democracy by requiring primaries, not caucuses.
A Rotating Regional Primary System
If only Michigan and Florida had followed the rules, their influence on the nominating process may have been greater. But they were only marginally more ambitious than most states in trying to increase their influence on the primary process. (See: Tuesday, Super)
It is past time to allow more states an opportunity to hold the first in the nation primary. We should strongly consider fundamental reform to our party’s nominating contest, taking a close look at a regional primary system. The DNC could carve up the country into 5-8 regions and then use a lottery system to determine the contest dates for each region. This would allow new, different voices to be heard.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Let’s use what we’ve learned from this extraordinary nominating contest to make further improvements for years to come.
Editor's note: This guest post is the second part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Democratic Democracy
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On the Sidelines but in the Fray
By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing my fifteen minutes in the superdelegate spotlight.
I hope it’s the last fifteen minutes I’ll have to spend there.
Like a couple hundred other Democratic superdelegates around the country, I remained – as the Post put it – “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared” throughout the primary season. And so for nearly six months, the Clinton and Obama campaigns each lined up a small legion of surrogates, who dutifully called to sway my vote one way or the other.
And that’s the story the Post ran, the story most Americans wanted to read about uncommitted superdelegates: phone conversations and meetings with Governors and Senators, encounters with friends and neighbors on the Metro, and – of course – Melissa Etheridge calling.
But my experience is more nuanced than that.
The night before the article ran and my support for Obama’s candidacy became official, he had become our presumptive nominee by reaching the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
The timing of my decision prompted questions by people who posted online comments, emailed me, or blogged about the article. Why did she wait so long? Why now?
Fair questions – what I haven’t ever articulated well enough was why I stayed on the sidelines.
It’s quite simple: I wanted the voters to decide.
We have never had an election like this one, and we may never have another. Since their creation in 1982, superdelegates had never played a significant role in choosing our Party’s nominee for President.
Even when it became clear that we might be forced into that role, there was no rulebook to guide our decision-making process – or the campaigns’ and the public’s efforts to sway our votes.
I became a superdelegate when the Maryland Democratic Party chose me as one of its representatives to the Democratic National Committee. When I was elected as a Committeewoman in 2005, I pledged to work hard for our Party, to grow our base, to shape our platform, and to support our candidates. Since then, I have remained neutral in Party primaries, which isn’t always easy in a state and a county boasting a bumper crop of talented Democratic leaders.
Last fall, when faced with a heavily contested presidential nominating process, I decided to remain neutral until at least after the Maryland primary had concluded. Doing so lets me be an unbiased resource connecting voters and activists to all Democratic campaigns. It also allows me to advocate and assist all our candidates.
I held a house party for Bill Richardson, and offered to do the same for the other candidates. I volunteered at rallies for Barack Obama and John Edwards. I drove elderly voters to the polls for Hillary Clinton. I took pride in helping other Marylanders do the same.
As Maryland’s primary concluded, it seemed increasingly likely that the contest would remain close and the national dialogue would continue to unfold and flourish. My gut told me that it was important to let that conversation run its course – that Superdelegates should not prematurely end this race. Though my resolve to remain uncommitted was sometimes tested, it was never broken.
Along the way, I was encouraged to declare my choice for the Democratic nominee by both sides of the contest – campaign surrogates, advocates in Maryland and across the country, neighbors, and the candidates themselves. Sometimes it seemed that there were as many rationales as there were pundits to deliver them.
These were oftentimes compelling, but none ultimately convinced me that I should abandon my neutrality. And so I remained “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared,” waiting for the process to play itself out.
On June 3rd, it had ended. The last primaries and caucuses had been held, the last votes had been cast and counted. Senator Obama and his campaign had masterfully developed and executed their national strategy and he emerged as our presumptive nominee.
Never has staying out of a fight proved to be so bruising.
Committing my support when I did has been misinterpreted by some as political opportunism; remaining undeclared through the end of the races has been misconstrued by others as a self-interested joy ride. While I can probably do very little to change these opinions, I would like to offer some insights.
The Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, and our candidates up and down the ballot are stronger than ever as a result of this primary season, and we stand ready to defeat Senator John McCain and the failed policies of the Bush Administration in November.
Because the process was allowed to play itself out, each state played an important role and we sent organizers to states and cities where Democrats normally do not compete. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, tens of millions of people voted and we registered record-breaking numbers of new voters. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, Senator Obama is ready to win in November, and we are all ready to help him.
And finally, because the process was allowed to play itself out, America decided – instead of me.
Editor's note: This guest post is the first part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Thoughts on the Vice-Presidency
By Marc Korman.
I try to keep my posts limited to Maryland politics, but the national political climate is too exciting to ignore. If you are a political junkie, and I suspect you are if you are reading this blog, then you have been talking about who will be the Democrats’ Vice Presidential nominee.
No One Says No
Last weekend, a friend of mine wrote to me upset that his favored Vice Presidential candidate, Jim Webb, had said on Meet the Press that he was not interested. John Edwards has also said he is not interested in the Vice Presidency. There has also been a lot of discussion about whether or not Hillary Clinton would accept the Vice Presidency. Setting aside the question of if the likely nominee, Barack Obama, would even ask any of these people, pundits and junkies are already trying to determine whether these people would or would not accept the job.
Let me share with you a secret about the Vice Presidency: no one says no.
The two people who have had the best reasons to turn down the job were Speaker of the House John Nance Garner in 1932 and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson in 1960.
In 1932, the Democratic Party gathered in Chicago and picked FDR as their nominee. The convention turned to Speaker of the House Garner to serve as the Vice Presidency. Despite his powerful position as Speaker of the House, he gladly accepted the nomination.
When the Democrats gathered in Los Angeles in 1960 to nominate JFK for the presidency, Democrats in the Senate had 65 seats and Lyndon Johnson was the “Master of the Senate.” The Vice Presidency was a step down in terms of power, but he took the job anyway.
The power and prestige of the Vice Presidency has only increased since these two legislative titans abdicated power for it. President Carter’s Vice President, Mondale, brought the office into the West Wing by getting office space in that center of power. Al Gore had weekly lunches with President Clinton, an unprecedented level of access. Dick Cheney’s power and influence in the current Administration is well known.
Not The Best Launching Pad
The political prestige of the Vice Presidency is also, despite some sobering history, quite high. Despite most people’s conception, the only proven path from the Vice-Presidency to the Presidency are circumstances of death or resignation. Nine times in our nation’s history Vice-Presidents have ascended to the Presidency this way.
But short of those death or removal circumstances, only a handful of Vice Presidents have directly succeeded the Presidents they served in elections. These are John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who defeated the President he served as Vice President under), Martin Van Buren, and George H.W. Bush. Harry Truman was also the next elected President after the President he served as Vice President under, but he had already succeeded to the office.
Other Vice Presidents have tried, and failed, to be elected president. Alben Barkley, Truman’s Vice President, failed to even get nominated by his party. Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Al Gore all had more luck in the primaries, but failed to win the general election (conceding for the moment that Al Gore lost the election).
By the numbers, Governors (preferably of large states) have a much better path to the presidency. 11 Presidents held governorships as their last political office before becoming president. 5 presidents held Senate seats as their last political office before the presidency. By comparison, three Presidents served as Secretaries of State as their last political office before the presidency. Another great path to the White House, at least until Eisenhower, was being a general.
My Bet
In case you care, my bet for the Vice Presidency is a middle-aged white guy, probably a Clinton loyalist like Wesley Clark, Ted Strickland, or Evan Bayh. Potentially, you could also see a non-Clinton middle-aged white guy such as Jim Webb. Kathleen Sebelius and Janet Napolitano will probably be spoken about because they are able, female governors, but none bring the defense and foreign policy weight that Obama needs (nor does Strickland). But my bet in 2004 was Tom Vilsack, so that shows how poor my track record is.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Governor, It’s Up to You
In a comment on my previous post calling for Maryland’s uncommitted super delegates to jointly announce their support for Senator Barack Obama, District 39 Delegate Saqib Ali said the following:Adam, Why do you only put the responsibility on the 9 unpledged Super-Delegates?
Delegate Ali makes a fair point. Maryland’s pro-Clinton super delegates are:
I agree that all the uncommitted Super Delegates should immediately endorse Senator Obama.
However the 11 Super Delegates who have previously pledged to Senator Clinton should also SWITCH to Senator Obama post-haste. It is their responsibility to heal the party every bit as much as the uncommitted SuperDs.
In fact if "The Clinton 11" switch, it would have a net effect of +22 for Obama. It would be a crushing blow. It would have a huge mathematical and psychological effect. It might end the nomination battle today.
So yes, the 9 uncommitted should join the Obama train. But even more important, The Clinton 11 should join too!
Governor Martin O’Malley
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
State Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Former Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Alvaro Cifuentes, Former Chair, DNC Hispanic Caucus
Maria Cordone, Director of Community Services, International Association of Machinists
Richard Michalski, Vice President, International Association of Machinists
Glenard Middleton, President, AFSCME Council 67
Carol Pensky, Founder, DNC Women’s Forum
Michael Steed, Managing Director, Paladin Capital Group
We should note that both AFSCME and the Machinists have endorsed Senator Clinton. Since the Clinton Administration fought hard to pass NAFTA, which has devastated the Machinists, many of the rest of us in labor have been scratching our heads over their endorsement for many months.
The key figure in the above list is Governor O’Malley. He alone has the power to deliver most if not all of Maryland’s super delegates as a group, as Delegate Ali suggests. Some believe that the Governor has national ambitions. What better way to enter the national stage as a bold deliverer of the party from a continuing bloody primary fight?
There are more parochial reasons for the Governor to intervene. Maryland badly needs federal funding for its BRAC transportation projects, its three proposed transit projects (Baltimore’s Red Line and the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway) and further cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. How would the Governor be better positioned in pursuing those funds? By sticking with a furious, increasingly ugly Clinton campaign to the bitter, losing end? Or by delivering victory in the primary to future President Obama?
Governor, it’s up to you. We are watching.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Enough is Enough
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tough, smart and a hell of a campaigner. But after her crushing loss in North Carolina and narrow win in Indiana yesterday, it is clear that she will not be the Democratic nominee for President. To maximize the chances of beating Senator John McCain, it is time for the Democratic race to end. And the following nine Maryland residents can make that happen.
Now that 93% of the pledged delegates have been selected in the state primaries, the winner will be decided by the party’s super delegates. For the most part, they are sitting or former Senators, Congressmen, state and local elected leaders and state and national Democratic National Committee members. As of this writing, there are 795 super-delegates, of whom 271 are pledged to Hillary Clinton and 257 are pledged to Barack Obama. If the super delegates decide to support Senator Clinton, they will be overturning their own party’s popular vote. That is incomprehensible for a party that calls itself “Democratic.” Out of respect for their own voters and in the interest of taking the fight to the formidable Senator McCain, the party’s super delegates must state their support for Senator Obama. And they must do it now, before another Democrat-on-Democrat attack ad is broadcast or another self-inflicted wound to the party appears in the papers, the cable channels or YouTube.
Maryland has 29 super delegates, of whom 11 are pledged to Senator Clinton, 8 are pledged to Senator Obama and 10 are undecided. The 10 undecided super delegates are:
Senator Ben Cardin
Congressman John Sarbanes
Congressman Steny Hoyer
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chairwoman of the National DNC, Bethesda
John Gage, President, American Federation of Government Employees
Belkis Leong-Hong, President, Knowledge Advantage Inc., Gaithersburg
Heather Mizeur, State Delegate from District 20, Takoma Park
Gregory Pecoraro, City Council Member in Westminster
John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
Ms. Turnbull is unable to commit to a candidate because she is an officer of the national DNC, but the other nine are free to vote their conscience. It should not be a difficult choice. Maryland Democrats voted for Senator Obama by 60-36.5%. Senator Obama won 55% of the vote in both Congressman Sarbanes’ and Congressman Van Hollen’s districts and claimed a whopping 66% in Congressman Hoyer’s district. Delegate Mizeur’s State District 20 voted for Senator Obama by 64-35%.
Senator Clinton cannot win unless she convinces the party establishment to ignore its own rank and file – an unthinkable prospect that reminds us of George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000. How many more attack ads, pot shots, innuendos and whisperings must we endure before marching into the real battle against the Republicans?
If the nine uncommitted Maryland super delegates above declare for Senator Obama on the same day, that could strike the final blow in the Democratic contest. Ladies and gentlemen, please do it – NOW. And then onward to victory in November.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Prediction Fulfilled: More Attacks from Clinton
I thought I had it right when I wrote last night (or early this morning) that Hillary Clinton would continue her negative attacks on Obama because they had been effective in Ohio and Texas. I just didn't know I'd be proven correct so quickly.
As the YouTube shows, on March 3, Sen. Clinton said that "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002", incredibly allying herself with Sen. McCain against Sen. Obama. According to James Fallows, she has already repeated this statement twice more on CNN today.
Meanwhile, despite last night's setbacks, the Obama campaign is hanging tough and preparing to slog it out. Here is a section from a fundraising email from David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager:Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.
That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.
For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.
The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.
They failed.
It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down.
That's her decision. But it's not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He's already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days.
Late Election Night Commentary
Off the cuff thoughts on the results from last night. Hillary Clinton had a night of good press coverage and what look like solid wins in Ohio and Rhode Island--Barack Obama won Vermont in a walk. Texas remains a toss-up at this point though Sen. Clinton currently has about a two-point lead.
1. It's Going to Get Nastier
Negative worked for Hillary. She is going to do more of it--lots more of it. Barack will have to respond. Which leads to my second point:
2. It's Good for McCain
The Democratic nomination contest resembles a boxing ring increasingly. Primaries can strengthen candidates but this is starting to look bloody with the attacks aiding the GOP--not the Democrats.
3. Psychology Good, Delegate Math Bad for Clinton
As I wrote yesterday, this result is essentially the nightmare scenario. If Clinton's lead holds in Texas, she will have won both big states but essentially gained no net delegates. Clinton has gained critical momentum and looks like a tough fighter but the math is still against her winning the pledged delegate count.
4. Clinton is Willing to Split the Party
Clinton is clearly determined to go on--and the results from tonight so far do nothing to discourage her despite Bill's earlier statement that she needed "big" wins in Texas and Ohio to continue. Yet, the math means that she can only seize the nomination through superdelegates and counting the non-contests in Michigan and Florida in violation of her own pledge and Democratic rules. If this occurs, it will not be pretty.
5. Stay Tuned.
It has been quite a wild ride. On to Wyoming and Mississippi.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Save Us Superdelegates!
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue in the race even if she loses both Texas and Ohio tonight. Now, this could be what candidates do--it always looks weak to concede that their campaign is in trouble. However, the campaign has been tamping expectation, arguing that a win in either big state provides a reason to continue.
However, it looks all but impossible for Hillary Clinton to have the most pledged delegates going into the Convention. Unless she has unexpectedly large wins tonight in both states and in Pennsylvania (on the order of some number around 65%), she cannot possibly catch Barack Obama in the share of pledged delegates.
And don't forget that Obama has favorable contests yet to come on the calendar as well. Besides Mississippi, North Carolina--the 10th largest state in the country--has yet to vote and polls indicate it will go to the Senator from Illinois.
The worst scenario is that Hillary Clinton narrowly wins Texas and Ohio. Winning both states would give her campaign a psychological reason to continue even though she would probably gain few if any net delegates over Barack Obama. Indeed, due to the vagaries of the Texas "two-step" system, Clinton could even be further down in the delegate count even if she narrowly wins both states.
Assuming she doesn't achieve massive surprise victories, the only way Hillary Clinton could be become the nominee other than massive victories in the remaining states is by: (1) overturning the rules to which she specifically agreed by seating the delegations from Michigan and Florida even though there was no real campaign there and Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot, and (2) getting the superdelegates to overturn the popular result.
The Clinton campaign has shown a decided interest in overturning rules which don't benefit its campaign. In addition to pushing for the seating of the delegations from Florida and Michigan, Bill Clinton vilified the Nevada Caucus rules and demanded that the system for allocating delegates be changed--until his wife actually won those disputed Caucuses on the Strip.
The Clintons have similarly attacked rules in Texas--rules which have been in place since Bill Clinton sought the presidency. However, they have been mighty quiet on the fact that Clinton won more delegates than Obama in Alabama even though he trounced her in the state due to the quirks of the system of awarding relatively small numbers of delegates proportionally within congressional districts.
While Hillary Clinton would probably gladly take the nomination no matter how it comes, it is unacceptable for a party committed to fairness and equality to deny the clear popular vote winner the nomination unless he or she is completely unacceptable--and neither Clinton nor Obama come close to meeting that requirement. The thought that the Democrats would deny Obama--the first African-American nominee--the nomination even if he wins the pledged delegates is unthinkable.
The superdelegates can bring the contest to an effective close by moving en masse to Barack Obama. If Obama wins Texas and Ohio--or wins Texas but loses Ohio by a relatively narrow margin--the superdelegates will probably move quite quickly. If Clinton wins, it will be harder for them to do even if she has no greater chance of victory.
Clinton certainly has the right to continue her campaign. After all, if Mike Huckabee can continue his obviously hopeless cause to make a point, Hillary Clinton surely has the right to stay in a much closer race in which she has far greater support. However. she shouldn't split the party by attempting to overturn the result or the rules--rules to which she agreed and were designed in many cases to benefit her campaign by former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe.
It is time for the superdelegates to perform a useful role--not nullifying the popular choice but ratifying it and rallying behind the nominee.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Latest Polls
SurveyUSA has Obama up over Clinton by 55% to 32%. More details after the jump.
Clinton's black support is very weak--receiving only 15% compared to Obama's 78%. In contrast to earlier primaries, Obama appears prepared to win the Latino vote in Maryland where he currently leads with 65% to 33% for Clinton.
Clinton currently has a plurality among white voters with 44% to 39% for Obama. Her strongest region of the State is the Baltimore suburbs where she has 41% to 44% for Obama. The Senator from Illinois leads in Baltimore City with 68% to 21% and elsewhere in the State with 60% to 29%.
There is a huge gender gap. Obama leads among men by 65% to 24% while winning women by a margin of just 48% to 39%. One wonders if this is driven primarily by white voters as it has been in some previous primary states.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Brunch of Democrats
This is a report filed by Sharon Dooley, a community activist from Olney.
Sunday saw the annual brunch for Montgomery County’s Democratic faithful at the Marriott Convention Center. The event, usually held in March was moved this year to preview the February 12th Primary. This regional primary change decision, pushed by the previous Party Chair Terry Lierman, is now seen by many as a prescient move as the national primary focus is definitely on the Chesapeake area, or as some have named it – the Potomac Primary.
Sign waving partisans along the entry roads, and legions of banner bearers and sticker stickers, greeted attendees once they were inside. Volunteers were enthusiastically working for both Congressional seats as well as each Presidential campaign. Most of the Montgomery County elected officials, led by County Executive Ike Leggett, were among the visible announced guests and included Council, Congressional and State legislative representatives and Senator Ben Cardin. All were roundly applauded by the several hundred attendees.
The surrogates for the two Presidential candidates were among the most powerful guests in attendance as Governor Martin O’Malley spoke eloquently for Senator Hillary Clinton and surprise guest, Senator Ted Kennedy hoarsely thundered for Senator Barack Obama – and they did not disappoint the audience. Each gave a rousing partisan speech marking the attributes of his particular favorite candidate; the audience was cheerfully engaged and both candidates had significant support in the room. Some present in the room wore buttons marking 1/20/09 – the date they hoped would signal a party address change at the White House. One thing was obvious – all were united in a desire to create a change at the top. This year the Democrats in Montgomery County seem really ready to work for that change.
Sharon Dooley
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Out of Carolina
Off-the-cuff thoughts on the night of the South Carolina Democratic primary
Racial Poll Responses
After New Hampshire, there was much hand-wringing that white Americans were lying to pollsters and saying that they were voting for Obama even as they cast ballots for Clinton because they didn't want to admit that they didn't want to vote for a black candidate. In South Carolina, Pollster.com pegged Obama at 43% and the Real Clear Politics average had him at 38%. In case you didn't catch the news, Obama won 55% of the vote in tonight's Democratic primary.
By the way, before we break out the new storyline of anti-female bias (and how do you explain away New Hampshire?) or anti-white male bias, let's observe that Clinton and Edwards both performed within a couple of points of the pre-primary prediction by both Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics. The undecided voters--black and white--swung hard to Obama who "routed" his two opponents according to the AP.
More thoughts after the jump
Campaign Tactics Shifting?
As the Wall Street Journal reported a few days ago, the Clinton campaign relied on a more traditional strategy of endorsements from well-known church leaders and politicians, including paying $135,000 in consulting fees to state Sen. Darrell Jackson who is also the pastor of an 11,000 member church in Columbia. In contrast, Obama's campaign--which originally offered Sen. Jackson a consulting contract of $5000 per month--relied on an untested strategy of building his own political organization, a page taken directly out of his own history as a community organizer. (See the very end of this story in the Washington Post as well).
More Hillary, Less Bill
Hillary won New Hampshire as appeared more human and more sympathetic as the fighting underdog. People forgot she was the establishment candidate and saw her as someone who was smart and hardworking. She answered tough debate questions with in-depth knowledge and aplomb. So why did the campaign dump that strategy and unleash attack-dog Bill? Put the candidate back front and center where she belongs. Which leads to my:
Worst Play of the Evening
The first major "candidate" speech after the primary was by Bill Clinton who spoke rather endlessly--it reminded me of his State of the Union addresses--early in the evening. It reinforced the impression that the Clinton campaign has forgotten which Clinton is the candidate--a theme media pundits were glad to bring home to the audience in their commentary.
Racial Politics Doesn't Pay--Especially among Young Democrats
Amazingly, the "first black president" was booed by Democrats at Obama's rally tonight in the wake of a campaign criticized as focusing too much on race as Bloomberg reports: The former president also drew fire today by comparing Obama's South Carolina victory to that of another black politician who won the state's Democratic presidential primaries in 1984 and 1988. ``Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice,'' Clinton said, according to the New York Times.
Some may write this off as simply a pro-Obama crowd but this is a stunning reversal for President Clinton. Indeed, the Clinton campaign turned off both black and white voters. According to MSNBC, Obama pulled 78% of black voters and 24% of white voters. In contrast, Clinton received just 36% of the white vote and 19% of the black vote. Note that Obama received more white votes than Clinton did black votes.
The comment ``just compounds'' the negative attacks on Obama that turned off South Carolina voters, said Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University in Atlanta. ``The implicit comparison is that Jackson won but he didn't win the nomination,'' Black said. ``That is just another round of trying to devalue what Obama has achieved.''
In South Carolina, thousands of supporters waiting for Obama to speak began booing when a video popped up of the former president speaking in Independence, Missouri.
Clinton fared especially poorly among young whites. She won just 27% of non-black 18-29 year olds compared to 52% for Clinton. One little reported fact is that native-son John Edwards won a higher share of the white vote than Hillary Clinton (40% to 36%). Clinton still owes South Carolina African Americans--without her 19% of the black vote she would have been relegated to third place as in Iowa.
The 24-News Media Despises the Clintons
I couldn't help but be struck by how unrelentingly negative the coverage on both CNN and MSNBC was of the Clinton campaign. One exception was Donna Brazile on CNN who rightly noted the inherent strengths of the Clinton campaign as the challenges faced by the Obama campaign as Super Tuesday approaches even as she gave Obama his due for his strong victory in South Carolina.
The Edwards Factor
Edwards finished a strong third and above the 15% threshold for receiving delegates. One pundit (me) says he still just might play king or queen-maker at the Convention. As someone on CNN put it, he got a ticket out of South Carolina to Super Tuesday. It may not be a first-class ticket but he has one.
Whether he hurts Clinton or Obama more, I don't know. Does he split the anti-Clinton vote? Or does he appeal to more moderate whites who would otherwise vote for Clinton. Despite his populist rhetoric, Edwards did best in South Carolina among moderate and somewhat conservative whites. On the other hand, Edwards received almost no black votes in South Carolina.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A Former Nevada Resident Reflects on the Democratic Caucuses
I'll bet you guys didn't know that I once lived in Nevada. Yes, it's true and I have the cheesy Las Vegas souvenirs to prove it. And as a former resident, I have a few things to say about Hillary Clinton's victory there.
Nearly a decade before I became acquainted with the joys of crossing the Intersection of Death, I was assigned to work a building trades organizing campaign in Las Vegas. Once I had unpacked my Van Halen CDs in my apartment, I went to see the Kings of Sinville - Culinary Workers Local Union 226. What I found was quite simply one of the most remarkable labor organizations that North America had ever seen. They had a savvy, battle-hardened leadership. They had the best research operation of any local union anywhere. They had an excellent organizing program. They had a hard-hitting political program. And best of all, they had a strong relationship with their members. Culinary was known for launching strikes against law-breaking casinos that went on for decades. That's right - their members walked on picket lines old enough to be mentioned in the Bible. As a young labor union researcher, I was in awe of them.
Culinary's political power in Las Vegas compares to MCEA's power in Montgomery County. But unlike MCEA, Culinary faces a state right-to-work law, a vigorous state Republican Party and giant, politically-connected gambling megacorporations that employ its members and occasionally run afoul of its contracts. Few unions can succeed in such a climate. Culinary does so through a ruthless blend of brains and brawn, mating its sophisticated staff with its militant, picket-sign-carrying membership.
That's why I'm as surprised as anyone that Culinary did not deliver the Democratic caucuses to its endorsed candidate, Senator Barack Obama. The Washington Post would have us believe that Culinary's power in Nevada is overrated. But I don't think that's a fair assessment for two reasons:
1. Culinary only announced its endorsement of Obama eight days before the primary. This did not give the union much time to educate its membership about its choice. All good unions know that members need to be persuaded, not instructed, to support their endorsed candidates at election time, and Culinary is no exception. Culinary's late endorsement was a miscalculation by its normally astute leadership, but it is not a sign of weakness.
2. Senator Hillary Clinton clearly has more name recognition and popular support than the Clark County Commissioners that Culinary usually beats up on.
So I'm not completely sure what this result says about Culinary, Nevada politics or Senator Clinton's campaign. But I'm pretty sure what it says about Senator Obama. The fact that one of North America's greatest local unions could not bring home a win for him in its stronghold is not a good sign for the junior Senator from Illinois.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Charlie Cook in Chevy Chase
Councilman Mier Wolf introduces Larry O'Rourke and Charlie CookCharlie Cook has one of my dream jobs: he's a political prognosticator for a living. Although he normally gives his opinions for a living, he kindly shared his views of the political landscape at a community event at the Leland Center tonight. I always knew he had a lot of knowledge about politics on the ground. I hadn't known he was so entertaining--a political Garrison Keillor.
He has a real flair for explaining complex political events with easily understandable analogies and good stories, skills this classroom teacher could only envy. I won't report too much of what he said. It hardly seems fair to steal the political thoughts of someone who sells them as his livelihood. But I thought he shared some interesting views on why Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary and on the upcoming general election.
First, like me and many others, he believes that race does not explain why Obama lost to Clinton in New Hampshire. He argues that the last minute shift among college-educated women in New Hampshire is not plausibly explained by a racial voting. He also thinks that Clinton's moment of choking up in public helped her look more human to the electorate.
He also mentioned something which reflects less well on Sen. Clinton. Apparently, the Clinton campaign sent out a flyer to independent undecided women the weekend before the primary claiming that Obama had failed to stand up for choice in contrast to Clinton. Cook brought and read from a copy of the mailer. Someone also called in on WAMU who was in New Hampshire mentioning this today but I hadn't wanted to give it credence based on one phone call to the radio.
It certainly shows that the Clintons can fight hard and rough--some will undoubtedly also say dirty. I'm not sure how well this will play with Democrats since Obama is clearly pro-choice and the flyer does more than suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the campaign has moved on to the other states so it remains to be seen if this issue will get more press coverage or anyone will care.
On a different note, Charlie Cook explained that he thought it would be a close election even though the fundamentals support the Democrats. He indicated that he thought McCain would be the toughest Republican to beat for either Clinton or Obama, an assessment I share, though Cook noted that McCain is vulnerable on the question of his age.
Of course, the question remains whether the GOP will be savvy enough to nominate him in the first place. Romney just won the Michigan primary.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Independent New Hampshire
Republicans will no doubt think of tonight as the Night of the Living Dead. They thought Obama has stuck a stake in the heart of Hillary Clinton in Iowa. On their side of the aisle, McCain was given up for lost. As I write this post, Clinton won a two-point victory over Obama, and McCain leads Romney by five points. What happened?
First, I should admit that like many, including Sens. Clinton and Obama, I was utterly surprised by the result. The pre-election night polls had Obama comfortably ahead. Even the New Hampshire exit poll suggested that Obama eked out a one point lead.
Many have pointed to Hillary's moment of welling up, though not actually crying, as a turning point. I agree, though not for the reasons cited by many. I don't think Clinton collected a sympathy or mercy vote. Instead, I think that her exterior, undoubtedly hardened by years of harsh attacks from the Right, was finally pierced. The electorate welcomed a sight of a human Hillary.
Sen. Clinton's victory speech was far more impressive than that of Sen. McCain. McCain's speech was adequate but the energy of the speech contrasted greatly with that of his young supporters. To my not so young eyes, it appeared relatively geriatric. Still, Sen. McCain is clearly a decent man. Like Sen. Clinton, he found his voice in New Hampshire.
Hillary should also continue to answer more questions from voters and the press. She often gives excellent answer to questions--she refuted Charlie Gibson's assertion that the surge in Iraq has worked not just adeptly but with style. By shielding her from the electorate and the press a la Bush, her advisers took away a major Clinton asset. Don't do it again.
Sen. Obama's long history of community organizing served him better in Iowa than in New Hampshire. Iowa is a process of collecting and mobilizing committed supporters to turn out. New Hampshire isn't quite the same affair. I suspect that Obama's ability to mobilize the young had less of an impact in New Hampshire. Clinton's long-term work at building an organization nationwide paid off in New Hampshire tonight.
Next, the Clintons learn fast. Let's be frank: Sen. Clinton gave a sad speech in Iowa, even for an unexpectedly poor finish. Gov. Huckabee (Governor Huckster?) made much more hay out of an eleven percent finish in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, instead of being flanked by aging establishment figures, she surrounded her television view with energetic under-30s. The speech was far better and more human.
It was a very hard night for Obama. Unlike Clinton in Iowa, he had reason to expect to win in New Hampshire. Just as he has lifted up so many crowds, his supporters gradually lifted him up in New Hampshire and his speech gained its verve towards the end. He began graciously by congratulating Clinton. Still, he might have made more out of his close loss here.
The one off-key aspect of Sen. Clinton's speech was her lumping of Obama and Edwards--two candidates who attracted significant support--at the end of her mention with the rest of the also-rans, including candidates who have already dropped out of the race. She clearly doesn't like the young Senator from Illinois. She'd be advised to be more gracious in victory.
It's the most exciting presidential nomination contest I can recall. An emotional night for all concerned. And it's far from over yet. On to South Carolina.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
She's Come Undone
Maybe Hillary Clinton can still come back but her campaign looks in deep trouble. The latest polls suggest that Barack Obama has rocketed into the lead in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton, a Democratic icon, currently attracts around 30 percent of New Hampshire voters--about the same share that lead to her Iowa undoing.
Why is Hillary Clinton's campaign--the work of a lifetime supported by much of the Democratic establishment--unraveling? Why may she yet come back and overturn the new conventional wisdom on Obama's growing inevitability?
A Uniter, Not a Divider
George Bush promised to bring the nation together when he was elected in 2000. However, as the nation has learned, Bush's vision of unity turned out to be a hollow promise. Bush views compromise as a dirty word--the equivalent of surrender--and doesn't even like to get advice from people who agree with his goals but have different ideas on how to achieve them.
For some, Karl Rove's politics of division mean that polarization is the only option. Whether or not this is the correct political strategic analysis, I don't know but the country vehemently yearns for someone to unite the American people behind positive purpose. Bush's failure as a uniter and exploitation of 9/11 hasn't delegitimized this goal, it has increased the desire for it.
Hillary Clinton simply cannot be that person. Fairly or not, she is a deeply polarizing figure. Her campaign's premise that she knows how to fight Republican attacks through long experience reinforces perceptions that she divides the country. Americans don't want a continuation of the Bush-Clinton War of the Roses. They're ready to turn the page.
Inspiration, Faith, and Likeability
Clinton derides Obama's rhetoric as empty words but people welcome inspiration, especially in difficult times. Bill Clinton was a great candidate in 1992 precisely because he combined an ability to connect with people with campaign competence--a congenial combination in any campaign but especially to Democrats yearning to take back the White House.
Hillary Clinton lacks the same ability the speak to a crowd and connect with her audience. She is far better in small groups and in debates but much of a presidential campaign--and a presidency--is public speaking. Obama's bounce out of Iowa was particularly springy because of the contrast between his own amazing oratory and her failure to use a chance to connect with the American people. No one is going to vote for her because she is ready on "Day One".
Obama's ability to use rhetoric and connect with people may make him the stronger general election candidate even though Clinton is a more centrist candidate. More specifically, Obama shows respect for and connects with people of faith in a manner that reminds me of Clinton. Unfortunately, it's Bill, not Hillary. The last three Democrats to win the White House all shared this trait; the last three to lose did not.
Important in a primary campaign, Hillary Clinton evokes strong negative reactions not just from Republicans but from many Democrats. I've met quite a few core Democrats who express not just mild dislike but even loathing for the former First Lady. Why is really beside the point; the key here is that the feeling exists. One severe problem Clinton faces as she tries to regroup is that she doesn't appear to be anyone's second choice. Obama just grows stronger as more candidates drop out.
February 5th
If Obama wins in New Hampshire, it seems all but inconceivable that he will stumble in South Carolina--a state where African Americans will compose roughly one-half of the primary electorate. The current conventional wisdom assumes that a sweep of the first three primaries will make an Obama victory inevitable.
However, a plethora of states will then cast their ballots for delegates on February 5th. We've never had a single national contest quite like it. We've also never had a challenger--and that's what Hillary will be if she loses the first three primaries--as well funded.
Have the national polls begun to shift with Obama's Iowa contest? No public polls have yet been released so it isn't clear. Clinton faces the challenge of remaking her public image fast even though the view of her in the public mind is well formed after sixteen years of national exposure. However, she will have the reserves in terms of finances and political support to attempt it.
The Media
Which relates to my second reason not to count Hillary Clinton out just yet. The media loves to create a new star--and then to tear this same person to pieces. As he wins more primaries, Obama will come under more intense scrutiny. The national presidential press corps is a meat grinder unlike any other. Even the smallest gaffe is magnified instantaneously. No doubt Clinton will be prepared to take advantage.
The question is whether she will get her chance. So far, Obama has shown an impressive ability to deflect attacks back on the attacker. He has a self-discipline in a campaign that reminds me of Bill Clinton. Like Bill, Obama has the support of a formidable spouse.
Both Clinton and Obama will be tested by this primary campaign. Whoever wins will be stronger in the general election for it.
Friday, January 04, 2008
"People Who Love This Country Can Change It"
An amazing speech. Tell me this man doesn't look like a president. You can also watch Sens. Clinton and Edwards after the jump.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Now, It's a Campaign.
Many others will say it in various forms but it bears repeating. Barack Obama's victory in Iowa in 2008 has to be regarded as momentous as John Kennedy's win in West Virginia in 1960. According to the figures now, Obama won 38% of the delegates while Edwards came in second with 30% and Clinton in third with 29%. Why and where does the 2008 campaign go from here?
Obama's win shows the hunger of the country for change. People want a clear change in the direction of the county and in the style of our politics. Obama offers us both. He inspires voters with his rhetoric, his passion, and his message. Americans love their country and want their faith in it reaffirmed and restored. People just want to believe in the young senator from Illinois.
Many people tell me, including African-American friends, that Obama can't win because America isn't ready for a black president. Nonsense. Obama isn't a black (read: primarily for black people) candidate or a nonracial (read: want-to-be-white) candidate but a post-racial candidate. Confident in himself, Obama is proud of his identity but is running to be president of all of us--as it should be. He makes his race and his uncommon name an asset by appealing to America's love of the outsider and the underdog.
For the Obama campaign, a win here or New Hampshire was crucial. Clinton has lead steadily in the national polls. The way Obama overturns the dynamic of Clinton's inevitability is by showing momentum. He has started showing some tonight in the heartland of the nation.
Andrew Sullivan sarcastically labeled Hillary Clinton "She who is inevitable". No longer. It was a bad night for Clinton. After touting the energy of her female supporters, Clinton didn't just lose to Obama but lost the women's vote. Tellingly, Obama won both the youth vote and the independent vote. Put another way, he won the votes of the future and of the American center. Clinton won the conservative vote--not the way to win Democratic primaries even if it would make her a more formidable candidate in the general election.
Clinton needs to hone both her message and her delivery. She gave a desultory speech short on themes save that she can go the distance and will be ready to be president on day one. Although she lost, she had a chance to communicate with the American people and passed it up. One couldn't help contrast both the speeches and the crowd. Obama's supporters were "fired up" and "ready to go". According to CNN, Clinton's staff had to order people into an empty room to support her.
At the same time, I would never underestimate Hillary Clinton. Of all the Democratic candidates, I think she's the toughest. During her first Senate campaign, she was questioned endlessly and cruelly about the Lewinsky affair. She stuck it out and worked doggedly even as she trailed in the polls. This is not a woman who gives up. Her loss in Iowa will make her even more determined to win.
Her campaign will likely end up stronger by being forced to retool. And Clinton campaigns are historically not without skill. In 1992, her husband didn't just defeat an incumbent Republican but dispatched seemingly strong Democratic challengers with aplomb. The Clintons know how to fight hard and only fools would underestimate them.
Some say Hillary Clinton can't win. Prior to the Bush presidency, I had assumed that Hillary Clinton could not be elected president. However, Bush has created new possibilities for Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, even as the results of his presidency have thrown up many difficult challenges for America. Clinton uses her gender skillfully. And, as I said, I think she is the toughest candidate in the race and she's clearly able.
On John Edwards: He came in second but second just wasn't good enough in 2004 and won't be this time either. The lion's share of the media coverage will go to Obama as the leading challenger to Clinton's march to the nomination. Edwards has a good message in his fight against corporate greed and to include everyone in the American dream. His speech was strong but perhaps a tad harsh. People want a bit more hope with their criticism of the status quo.
The big loser of the night: Republicans. According to the Washington Post, over 212,000 participated in the Democratic caucuses--nearly 100,000 more than showed up at the Republican caucuses projecting from the current vote totals. The GOP cannot be encouraged that so many more people showed up on the Democratic side in a key swing state.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Rude Rudy, Struggling Hillary, and Soaring Barack
The Washington Post has a column today that helps explain why I still have difficulty seeing Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee for president despite his rise in the polls, even though pro-choice Republican friends of mine remain utterly convinced that he can win the nomination and will win the general election against "Hillary".
On the other hand, Barack Obama's star just continues to soar as Richard Cohen's column in the Post explains. As another friend of mine commented, Obama just outdoes her on all of the virtues she has. Clinton's political strength nationally rested on a foundation of black support but Obama is steadily winning over black voters.
Clinton used to be the one senator who had immediate star power. However, Obama can attract a crowd just as easily and keep them entranced once they arrive--a problem for Clinton, a lackluster speaker. Obama is winning over Hollywood fundraisers like David Geffen to Clinton's public consternation. Clinton must be going nuts because Obama is the one person who could challenge her this way.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Campaign Theme Songs
As the presidential primary campaigns are only days away, it seems like it's time to start thinking of campaign theme songs. Today, I start with Sen. Hillary Clinton because the choice for her just seems obvious.
Sen. Hillary Clinton memorably said during her husband's first run for the presidency in 1992 that she was not "some little woman, standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette." Well, as we all know, history took a strange turn or two and the former First Lady ended up pulling the biggest Tammy Wynette in American history. So it seems clear to me that Sen. Clinton should choose Stand by Your Man as her campaign theme song.
Sure, it reminds people of the unpleasant Lewinsky years. On the other hand, I daresay the country could use a reminder of simpler times in the 1990s when whether the president was having an affair was the major problem troubling America. Moreover, it might evoke some sympathy for a woman who increasingly looks more programmed than my Tivo.
Of course, Sen. Clinton, who continued her 2000 Senate campaign with fortitude in the face of relentless, ruthless, and just plain cruel questioning about her marriage even when she was down in the polls, perhaps has had enough of this topic. In that case, I suggest Independent Woman by Destiny's Child as an alternative selection. The Charlie's Angels theme song could give her that extra edge on security issues that all the candidates are desperately searching for this year.
