Howard Dean to the rescue?
By Steve Benen Thursday Feb 07, 2008 8:15pmFollowing up on reports hinting at the likelihood of a brokered Democratic convention in August, it’s worth keeping in mind that DNC Chairman Howard Dean apparently has some kind of plan to intervene.
The narrow margin in delegates, and the growing likelihood that it will remain close, prompted concern on Wednesday from the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, who said Tuesday night that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should avoid taking the nominating fight all the way to the party convention in August.
“I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April,” Mr. Dean said Wednesday on the NY1 cable news channel, “but if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention; that would not be good news for either party.”
That sounds great, but realistically, Howard Dean has very limited options here.
Login or Register to post comments.
Maybe a Single Ticket?
He's right - this wouldn't be good for the party. But, how do you ask either one of these people to drop out?
And, if so, what kind "arrangement" could possibly be offered to make the one who drops out happy?
I really wish one of these candidates would take a commanding lead, and let us get on with attacking the Republicans who have helped put our country's economy - and its reputation in the toilet.
Doesn't "sound great" to me. I fear the DNC has really blown it on this one. See my website for extended thoughts if interested.
Bangkok Bob @ 1:
That might be a good compromise, but would it be conducive to victory?
I want to think that American is open-minded enough to vote for a ticket that consists of an African-American and a woman, but let's be honest - America is FULL of STUPID IDIOTS. (Take a look at the CPAC conference)
I think that most Democrats (and most Americans) just want to be rid of the Republicans, and just want the Democrats do put up a ticket that can WIN.
ChrisM70 @ 2:
That is the main issue to me. Hillary has likely been eying a run at the presidency for years, so she isn't going to want to drop out. And if Obama is really sincere about changing the course of this country's politics, he won't want to leave either. And if they are both in relatively equal positions as far as delegates go, how can you ask one to make a sacrifice but not ask the other. I thinks it's good to have two viable candidates, but I fear the longer this drags on, the more divided the party will be.
I'm sorry, but what would be so terrible about a brokered convention? It's seems to me that this contest--a real contest--has loads of people engaged. Why couldn't extending that be good for the party. And while I like Dean, uh, isn't this kind of for voters to decide one way or another? Let's see what happens and not get anxious right now.
Do NOT let Dean speak for the Democratic Party in Public.
The last thing we need is bring give Bushlings a chance to resurrect the deam scream non-issue issue.
A brokered convention sounds like the outcome of the Democratic party nomination will be decided by Thurston Howell III.
If they squelch the race to satisfy party politics I think it will send some very negative signals to a lot of people.
ChrisM70 @ 4:
Even in that scenario, whose name is first on that ticket. I honestly believe that we would get a single ticket out of them anyway, especially after all the talk that they looked like a ticket at the last debate. But, when Wolf asked them about it, there was a consensus that there is a difference between an Clinton/Obama ticket and Obama/Clinton.
We see people not wanting to wait for Pennsylvania before declaring our candidate. Does anyone know what state Hillary is originally from? PA of course, so lets disreguard Florida, michigan, and now pennsylvania-WTF
I love Dean, but he's wrong on this. The party rules are set up as they are, and you can't tinker with them in the middle of a primary race to change the outcome. People in the later states have the right to vote and decide who gets the most delegates! If the DNC wanted to avoid this, they could have moved the convention earlier and make sure all the primarys were done by then. For at least a century the party has been selecting candidates, and now and then they learn a lesson and decide to change things. They can make the appropriate changes after this race is over. A close contest is not such a bad thing anyway. That's democracy!
Anyway I think Obama is going to crush Hillary soon and this will all be moot.
Unless there is a clear positive move for Hillary's momentum in the next couple of days, then she needs to step aside. Otherwise, I see a very high probability that the Dems will manage 'to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory'.
Change is good
Hillary/Rumsfeld 2008
Dean's strategy will be to declare himself the Democratic candidate then call on his fellow party members to rally to the cause.
Or something like that...
How any right-thinking person thinks that card carrying members of the Washington D.C. political establishment can be relied on to bring meaningful change to this country is beyond me. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are apparatchiks in the full Soviet-era sense of the term. Their primary objective is to preserve themselves and their ruling class privileges while either enlisting the masses in their mad schemes or keeping them preoccupied with bread and circuses. To my mind, Obama's only virtue is that he's the new kid on the block and can't be held directly responsible for the fine mess that's developed on HRC and JM's watch.
Never forget: 4,000+ U.S. soldiers are dead, many thousands more wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and injured, with millions more displaced because HRC was "mislead" and JM fancied himself the next God of War. And neither one of them shows the slightest remorse. In a perfect world they, too, would be on the plane to the Hague as indicted co-conspirators with the Bush 4th Reichers.
After Oprahbama stated that Hillary supporters would support him, but his would not support her, he lost me.
I need to see more out of him than his gospel speeches and his 'present' or no show votes to take him seriously as a candidate.
"Change that we can believe in " should not include cutting a deal to subvert democracy . If Obama agrees to this then the fix is in and the whole process is a joke .
Perhaps Dean, the former anti-war candidate, can suggest to Clinton and Obama, that the best way to support the troops is to extricate them from that slaughterhouse as quickly and as rapidly as possible. Dean might also counsel Obama that increasing the ranks of the military by 100,000 is not the best way to mollify the fears of countries around the world that the United States is intent upon continuing its military aggression against Third World countries. Will Dean tell the presidential candidates that cutting the military budget would help enormously to pay for health care, infrastructure, schools, teachers salaries, etc.? I suspect that the last thing that Dean would wish to happen is to have the Democrats challenge the power of the military-industrial complex that so rules this country.
So, let me get this straight... Dean wants to broker a result so that the we can avoid a convention that might produce a brokered result. That'll work.
Personally, I don't care which democrat is President as long as it's OBAMA!
A convention fight? YEEEEAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!
one angry girl @ 12:
Very well put. I never dreamed that my state, Oregon, was going to matter, but it looks as if it may. I think you are right about Obama' s momentum. I think the voting pattern so far shows that Obama can pick up states in the general election which the Democrats have not had in ages. (Obama has shown that he can win in white states, but I think blacks will stay at home if Clinton is the nominee after the way they have been treated by The Clintons.) My wish is that in this event the remaining superdelegates would cast their votes to reflect the will of the people in their states and that those who have voted prematurely would reconsider.
The establishment wants Hillary. Obama's going to feel the pressure.
Ruthless People @ 23:
I'm not sure about that... what do you consider "the establishment?"
Ted Kennedy? Supporting Obama.
Jesse Jackson?
Gary Hart?
John Kerry?
Pat Leahy?
Look at the list of endorsements for Obama...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/franklinkatunda/CGgSl
I think there are a lot of "establishment" people that want a fresh face too.
SUPER DELEGATES SHOULD NOT VOTE....
IF THEY REVERSE THE ELECTED DELEGATE RESULTS...
MAYHAM
Ruthless People @ 23:
DLC does not equate "establishment" BTW
That sounds GREAT?! What are you f'n kidding me? You like the sound of a backroom deal to cut out the will of voters? There should be no backroom deal. The cards fall where they may. And that includes having the time to lobby various super-delegates to get them to defect if we don't like who they are currently endorsing, because it may very well come down to them.
No backroom deal making!
ChrisM70 @ 2:
The country is in the toilet, hundreds of thousands innocent civilians are dead, thousands of US wasted for no apparent reason... but god forbid we were to hurt the feelings of a political hack who thinks the Whitehouse is her price for putting up with her husband's dicking around.
This is not about you Hillary, so get the fuck out. Honestly... what is this a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton game of checkers?
dean is setting up a nightmare scenario....
again proving that the dems are not above cutting off their own noses to spite their liberal faces
if they choose to disenfranchise millions of voters by cutting a backroom deal, they may very well lose all the young voters that for the first time feel excited and engaged in a national election
let it go to the convention....are we that afraid of the mccain machine? are we afraid that in regards to fund raising the well will run dry by june?
and i tell you one thing...if the delegate count is close or even tied and deals are cut which send the super delegates to one side or another...again, the party will lose millions of supporters
leave it to the rank and file
and a fight on the convention floor will be good for the dem party...for the first time in years, we may get wall to wall coverage...not just the evening speeches
chris @ 27:
Why is so fucking hard for this country to start accepting representative voting mechanisms at all levels of election? Is it so fucking hard to just count the votes and declare a winner?
There is always a middle person between anyone's vote and the decision influenced by the vote. Democracy indeed...
uncle joe mccarthy @ 29:
Neither Obama nor Hillary are liberal in the leftist sense of the word by a looooong shot. They may be more liberal in the sense of Wiston Churchill was a liberal sense of the word.
Rumor has it that the DNC is trying to get Michigan and Florida to hold caucus even though they already had their primaries. I hope the DNC is willing to pay out for the events and not expect the states to foot the bill AGAIN. Ridiculous. Talk about poor planning and leadership.
There seems to be some confusion about what Dean is thinking here. He's not going to change any rules, and he's not going to "intervene" in any Draconian or anti-democratic manner. He's saying that he will want to appeal to the candidates themselves if they each command 50% support. It's about negotiating a deal between the Clinton and Obama themselves rather than allowing it simply to come down to the superdelegates. It's the superdelegates, after all, that are undemocratic.
I largely agree with his sentiment, but also with the conclusions here that there isn't much he can do to get either Obama or Clinton to withdraw at this point.
Lilybelle @ 6:
A brokered convention is exactly the fear I have been having as I have watched McCain's resurgence. On its face, you're right, there really isn't anything "wrong" with having one, but if the Republicans have a candidate (one whom the media just loves, by the way) while the Democrats are still fighting (another thing the media loves), we'll begin the general election process from a huge disadvantage.
While the Republicans get to use their convention to showcase what they want to do, and to let Maverick McCain shine, the Democrats wouldn't know who their candidate is or what the platform is until the last night. On TV will be the brokering, bickering, and angry, demoralized participants on the floor.
Part of what Dean would like to avoid is the impression that the voters do not have any say in the matter. If, going into the convention, neither candidates has a clear majority of the delegates, we don't know what will happen. Assuming that Obama or Clinton will emerge as the nominee from a brokered convention (although technically, even that's not a sure thing), one camp is going to feel both stressed out and bummed out. Depending on the news about how the brokering goes on, who knows if the losing candidate's supporters are going to feel about voting for the nominee.
As a PR and practical matter, a brokered convention could lead us to four more years of Republican mis-rule.
As I have said, I don't like the way the election is playing out. I only hope the Republicans remain bitter and divided going into November as well. But they have a way of pulling together in crunch times that the Democrats don't. And Democrats are always looking one way towards a brighter future, when something is going on in the other direction that they overlook. They snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as it were.
Tyler Durden @ 30:
This is true. And it's always been that way. IMO, it's long overdue that the voters say, "Enough. Just count our votes." Those in elected office in this country have always been afraid of the rabble and have devised ways to "help us decide, for our own good."
This election may yet mark the end of one of these two major parties--and that may not be such a bad thing. Maybe something truer to what we want will rise up in its place.
Yeah, I know. I'm dreaming.
Dean can't really do much, except to use his position as a bully pulpit to try to get the superdelegates to vote according to whoever has won the most pledged delegates through the primaries/caucuses, which they in all likelihood will. Superdelegates are a notoriously fickle bunch. Most will gladly jump on the winning bandwagon in the end, no matter who they previously pledged for and Dean knows that better than anyone. He was way ahead in the superdelegate count until his loss in Iowa (and the infamous Dean scream) and his super-ds started jumping ship for Kerry.
Most all super-ds just want to be on the winning ticket in the end, although in Clinton's case, quite a few of hers are people in the party who may feel indebted to the Clintons in many ways over the years, they still are all political animals and they all know that reversing the decision of the voters will not be taken lightly and will not be good for the party. I don't think it's much to worry about.
What happens with FL and MI, that's what needs settled, They should have new caucuses or not be seated at all like they said in the first place. Even there, Dean can't tell the state parties what to do. All he can do is make suggestions. That's what I think he's inferring. If neither has a clear lead by March or April, they may be able to convince both FL and MI to have caucuses and if they do that then one or the other is very likely to get the 2025 they need without needing an advantaged amount of super-ds.
RobertD @ 34:
We need comprehensive electoral reform to break the duopoly party government.
For single-person offices, we should be allowed to vote using Ranked Choice Voting (which also could have gotten us out of the primary situation we're in now.)
For legislatures, it's entirely possible to have Consensual Representation. You check off the name of your favorite candidate, and that candidate will necessarily be your representative in the legislature. You are only represented by someone to whose representation you consent.
Does it involve flipping a coin?
Guess he'll make them an offer they can't refuse.
I say we put them in that machine they used in The Fly and make a Clintama. Absolutely unbeatable. Important note: Hang no pest strip in machine.
Peter G @ 39:
Heh, then we could have the first black woman president.
Of course, the way the Republicans play this game, they'd find a way to sneak one of their own into the teleporter, and the black woman would end up more like Condi Rice than Hillarack Clintama.
If Obama cleans up the next weeks primaries like is expected (Hillary isn't really favored again until TX and OH, both on Mar 4) he could pick up enough superdelegates in the process (including some already pledged to Hillary - super-d's will jump on whoever's campaign that they think is going to win) he very well could be the one who winds up with more super-ds.
Then if/when Hillary wins big in TX and most likely Ohio, she could win the most pledged delegates and Obama could very well be the one with the advantage of superdelegates that could - in theory - reverse the will of the voters at the convention. It really could go down that way instead of the other way around like most everyone seems to think. I don't know for a fact but it seems to me that a lot/most of the people upset about the superdelegates are Obama supporters (I'm one) and if so they would do well to think twice about it first. Will they still be so upset about superdelegate system no matter which candidate it favors in the end?
Superdelegates have all been elected in their state. Most are elected officials in govt, and others are elected officials in the Democratic Party, like the elected president of the young democrats for example. There is nothing undemocratic about their having a role in choosing - it's just a representative democracratic process (like our govt) and not a direct democratic one. In the end, the odds are the superdelegates are going to choose whoever the voters in their state decided, and most all of this will have been much ado about not-so-much.
What they decide to do about FL's (185) and MI's (156) delegates, now that's another story. Howard Dean could entice (offer to help with the costs?) the states to hold caucuses if after Mar 4 there is no clear winner. That's what I think he's getting at.
Karen @ 40:
We'ed have to be clever and hide the machine some place no republican would look. Like a men's room in a airport....Oh Oh
Any attempt to circumvent the results of the primaries and the caucuses and dimenish the voice of Democratic voters will backfire. The Supers better go along with the peoples votes or there will be millions that will leave the party instantly. Whichever candidate gets screwed by any type of DNC manipulation will see their supporters bail when their asked to support the opponent. Nothing turns people off like a "fix."
Florida and Michigan combined have 366 delegates - Fl = 210, Mi =156. I think Dean will try and kill two birds with one stone and have both sides agree to a do over, hoping that will put one or the other over the top. If nothing else it will stop at least one future convention fight. I doubt that Queen hillary will agree right now because she won whatever they were. But by setting the stage now he might get others to pressure them into it later.
Stop the clintons
Save the world.
Taking it to the convention worked on West Wing... Life imitating art, with Obama in the Smitts role, I think.
My problem is with this quote:
“I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April,” Mr. Dean said...
I live in NC and the primary here is on May 6th. I know that usually my vote does not matter since previous elections have been landslides before they reach NC, but this time around my vote could count and I would prefer it is not subverted in a back room by Howard Dean and company.
grs @ 32:
Regardless of "poor planning or leadership", the DNC made the rules. FL and MI broke them. I don't know why the DNC has foot the bill. If these states want their votes to mean something this may be their chance.
If the Democratic party leadership would spend one-tenth of the time they devote to confusing voters and making it harder for regular people to vote and instead actually attacked the unconstitutional administration they keep in power by failing to impeach, they might just win in November. But sadly, I don't expect too much. This is why I won't send them money or attend ward meetings or volunteer. I just wrote to the DNC with a similar message. Heard Howard Dean is out of the office for a month. They've got it all sewn up. Glad somebody is happy with the result. I, personally, am very pissed off. The total lack of attention to Mukasey is a good indication of how negligent they really are.
Conflict is interesting. The last few conventions were exercises in tedium. Which explains why they got so little coverage. When I was a kid, the conventions were exciting TV. A good floor fight will bring ratings. We already know that uncontested primaries result in lackluster general election turnouts. A classic old school convention can only serve to help the Democratic party.
Tyler Durden @ 28:
Well let's see. The majority of the popular vote is currently with Senator Clinton so why doesn't Obama "get the fuck out".
You do realize this is an election and not the crowning of a king.
If Obama cared about America he would allow someone with experience run the country instead of someone who relies on JFK speech writers to preach about change yet provide no proof of results.
Solving MI and Fl will be no easy task. I rather suspect that the DNC is wishing about now that they had stayed out of it in the first place. Stripping these states of their delegates was not only punative it was stupid, but then we have come to expect that from the DNC.
Perhaps some sort of do over in MI is a good idea in as much as not all names were on the ballot, however Florida is a different matter. All the candidates were represented and for the most part played by the same set of rules. The result should stand and the Dems. in Florida should tell Dean to
stay out of the picture, or pony up the money for an entirely new primary.
I doubt that any of this will be necessary because something will happen to dramatically shift the dynamics of this race to one candidate or the other. In the meantime both candidates should stay in the race until one or the other has secured the nomination outright. There is no reason that either should be forced to withdraw, why should they?
BO wants to win and he is doing a good job. HRC stated from the outset that she was in this to win and she is doing what she can to make that happen. What's the problem? Who ever wins is going to be running against $ 3 dollar gas,
a hundred years of war, and permanant tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. It doesan't take a lot of preperation or togetherness to run against this record or this future.
Conventions used to be meaningful exercises, perhaps it is time to have a convention that means something. I seem to recall that both Gore and Kerry left their conventions with the party unified behind them. As unified at any rate as the Democratic party ever is. The results speak for themselves.
grs @ 32:
The states are the ones who made their own bed. They were told in advance what would happen if they did it and they went ahead anyway. They didn't care because at the time they thought going earlier would make them more important. As it turns out, the last state may very well be the most important. Now DNC will likely have to give them a mulligan & chip in if after the OH and TX primaries on Mar 4 there is no clear winner emerging that can reach 2025 delegates with the few remaining states left. Most likely the states will want to at that point anyway.
What throws that for a loop is team Hillary doesn't like caucuses because they favor whoever has the better field op (ie whoever has the most moolah) She just may need to write herself another check then or bow to Obama's better operation. It's her damn fault her field ops are shit compared to Obama's not to mention her core demographic is 60 and above (That's her fault too. That's who she's purposefully played to because they typically vote better) and thus much less likely to go to stand for hours at night at a caucus. That's just democracy for you, baby. If she really thinks they are going to seat FL and MI as it stands she's smokin the really good shit.
people might have already mentioned this concerned but this one is shared by many.
The main concern is the fear that the Super Delegates may not vote as a mirror to what the people have chosen and just laugh at the weeks and months of primaries and caucuses where average people's vote doesn't count because the Super Delegates are supreme.
As far as Michigan and Florida are concerned, the should just make a reset and have the DMC pay for resetting the contest in those two states... to make sure that Michigan and Florida ends up counting
Karen @ 33:
Fail. *Those* are the rules established from the get go. The Democrat primary system isn't democratic. Changing the rules now is complete b.s. Of course the super-delegates should decide it, *as planned*. I have no problem with a grassroots effort to get them to change their mind. I have no problem with compelling them all to make public, ASAP, who it is they plan to vote for.
But you contradict yourself, when you say Dean isn't going to change the rules, and then say he wants a negotiated deal rather than it come down to the super delegates. That's changing the rules. Too bad. Like me, you should have been complaining about this BEFORE the primaries even started.
The concept of superdelegates is not a bad idea, the problem is that they have effectively 40% voting power which I think is too high. Something more like 25% is probably more appropriate.
Leave it to us Dems to always make things more difficult than they need to be. The "proportional" system that allocates the delegates is pretty damn screwed up at best. And the "superdelegate" mishmash is an undemocratic mess, too.
So here's my solution: Get both parties to agree to 2 things: 1) Ignore the FL & MI results. I don't think that there's any way that both sides will agree on any other solution. 2) The nominee will be the person who gets the most total remaining votes from "we the people". Period. How's that for a radical concept - majority rule.
Remember the 2000 election? Gore got a half a million more votes than Bush yet Bush got the presidency because he got more electoral votes. Well those electoral votes are essentially equivalent to the delegates + superdelegates, right? So why not just give the nomination to the candidate that the most people voted for? Duh?
Maybe this needs to be tweaked somewhat but isn't it basically the fairest possible solution?
Let the right wing choose the Democratic nominee. Hillary supporters would love that, because she'd get 100% of their vote. Why Ann Coulter might even campaign for her in the GE.
I am deeply concerned about the 'superdelegates' I know the Clintons are in the process of 'wheeling and dealing' as we speak. When Obama has brought in so many YOUNG voters and inspired so many of them - it will be a disaster to have it all 'go down the drain' due to 'backroom negotations. If Hillary is nominated through that process (again dirty politics) then the voice of the young voters will be quietened. I hope that every vote will go the Republican party in order to keep Hillary out. In the meantime - what will it do for the next generation. Obama has inspired so many people with 'CHANGE'. He used it first and is now copied by Hillary. Obama is responsible for the large crowds (20,000 and going upward - not Hillary. For the sake of the American voters - do not allow 'backroom superdelegating'. You will never have a chance again for the Democratic party with someone with integrity, honesty and truthfulness as Obama. For God's sake - wake up. As far as Florida and California votes - many of them were absentee votes which were already voted on even in December of 2007. That is why Hillary won - people never had the chance to hear and meet Obama. Is this the way that democracy works.
Just Sayin' @ 55:
I won't even go any further with your comment because it's based on false pretenses on both counts.
1) A winner take all system is the most f'ed up of all, just ask the GOP. That's how they just got stuck with McCain. That's how we got a proportional system in the first place. The last election the Dems had winner take alls earned us McGovern who lost 49 states to Nixon. The winner take all can too easily lead to a candidate who cannot compete in the general.
2) Superdelegates are all democratically elected in their states. There is nothing "undemocratic" about it. They are either elected govt officials or elected grass-roots Party officials like the Pres of the Young Democrats. Their say may be weighted, but it is still very democratic, albeit representative instead of direct.
I agree the superdelegate system could use an overhaul, but in all likelihood they will fall in line with the voters in their state in the end. I think I pretty much explained why above.
Why does everything always have to be perfect with you liberals? Can't we take a page out the Republican playbook (just this once), and say "this is the way it's gonna be," and pick a damn candidate already? I really hope SOMEONE has some serious mo' heading into the next 6 weeks, and it all gets decided "perfectly". If not, then we need to realize this election is BIGGER than any one candidate--be it Hillary OR Obama. One of these two will need to grow some stones and do what John Edwards did--step aside, and put his (or her) ego on hold, for the sake of our country.
We can't afford a long, protracted battle. We need to be concentrating on defeating the Republican nominee.
OK, what you do is count up all the votes cast in all the primaries. Whomever gets the most votes is the candidate.
Obviously Dean is hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Obama will probably accept.
Clinton won't like it, but she will certainly agree to that.
The reversed ticket is even more unlikely, but Obama's campaign has broken some records already, so maybe he can pull it off.
The party, with superdelegates, will put Clinton into the top spot nine times out of ten, and that's coming, absent some major accomplishment by Obama that carries him well ahead.
That's fine with me. I voted for Obama, but I don't see him as dramatically different than Clinton. It is just as likely that Obama will be co-opted by the party dynamic early on and make the differences smaller.
Everyone is starting to look to 2012 as the next 'real' election. I predict McCain't ain't, and Clinton/Obama is, and will.
marie @ 60:
We don't even have a specific Constitutional right to choose the President by popular vote, as was pointed out by Scalia in 2000.
We need a C. amendment that will nullify the EC, and specify explicitly that Presidents are elected by popular vote ONLY. And until we have that, dreaming about it doesn't make it so.
Blame whomever you want -- if you haven't been working toward that goal, you are part of the reason why it has not been reached.
chris @ 54:
it's a Democratic primary. Your use of the slur 'Democrat' is suspicious.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. Can't afford to have 2 open Senate seats. Not when we have a real shot at gaining a super majority in the Senate.
And I really don't think their egos will make room for that.
It may indeed be too late. The Dems may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Who is the genius who came up with the "proportional" delegate system for each state? (For all I know, it may have been around a while. But then I've got to wonder how anyone ever got nominated.)
But under this system, it would seem that someone would have to run the table 70-30 in every state to wrap it up before hte convention. I know that Kerry probably did that, after the media fed us all the kool aid that he was "The Man."
Clinton was the clear choice, and she would have hammered any Repub, in my extremely humble opinion. Now everyone has let the media make them think that B.O. is "the Man."
You've got to ask yourself...why is Wolf Blitzer.....the Today Show......GMA......Chris Matthews...the New York Post...all so anxious to have him win or be on the ticket. Because they have something in store for him come Sept. (I'm betting on the Chicago mob ties.)
It would serve Dems right for their lack of loyalty.
But either way you're leaning, I do think it's a blown deal. And it's beyond sad. It's tragic.
That whole premise of pre-convention party unity is bullshit. the best thing is for the Democrats to fight it out so that they toughen up themselves and their party. why is there some fucking need to pacify the party. This is not like taking a damn nap and the need for civility is long past. this party needs to show some fight and I wnt to know that whoever the fuck gets the nod is strong enough to bend the platform to the will of the people.
Pelosi and Reid are prime examples of this need for false party unity. They marginalized all the progressives and went about the busines of helping the repugs.
To the candidates: I'm sick of it. Fight it out and show me you give a damn about something called the common good.
justabill @ 58:
the superdelegate system is already poised to destroy the democratic process. many are pre-pledged and look at what is a superdelegate - DLC, DSCC and DCCC. the process is already screwed.
As if it matters.
loubie @ 65:
are you actually supporting the democratic party?
As if it matters. Dean could have had an excellent record as DNC Chair, but he ended up with Clinton or Obama in 2008, and guaranteed losses in Congress along with a loss of the White House in a year when Republicans had nothing going for them.
CoIntelPro @ 69:
The Dumbocratic Party proved in 2004 and 2008 to be nothing more than media-driven cattle.
GoHillary @ 50:
Well, Obama has now more delegate votes than Hillary. I guess the definition of "majority" means "fewer" in your neck of the woods.
Also please, elaborate how Hillary has more experience than Obama since they are both senators. And thus both hold the same level of office...
Just to qualify things, I think that both Obama and Hillary and underwhelming. However, if Hillary gave two shits about this country, she would sit this election out and stop assuming that the white house is hers because of what she endured with Bill. The white house is not a trophy or diamond ring.
CoIntelPro @ 69:
I'm supporting Clinton, who I believe represents what the Dem party should be.
(I was a registered Dem, but they lost me ... last straw was when they didn't fillibuster Alito. I always thought I'd be back but now I'm not sure. So, I am independent, holding my breath until a better party system comes along.)
She voted for the war in 02. She could have been braver. But remember, the WTC had just finished smoldering and we were all at least a bit afraid of what the hell was really happening. The prez presented his (false) case, and she took his word (ouch).
But I still believe in the Clinton brand of politics. SHE was the universal health care pioneer. Bill made us economically strong, had the bitterest of enemies talking to each other, and GAVE US ALL HOPE THAT WE CAN PROSPER AND SUCCEEED. YES, HE DID THAT. And when Bill HAD to go to war, he WON without LOSING ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER.
If Hillary is half the Prez he was, we will all be fine.
Dems, please take note of this. The Repubs Speak No Evil of their savior, Reagan. Look at what you are doing to the mentors that are probably the only reason there is a Democratic party today.
But would Hillary be happy as VP? I would be surprised if Obama agreed to attend funerals and ribbon-cuttings for Billary. Bill and Hill's VP -- the Maytag repairman of the White House whatever poor bastard signed on for it.
Obviously, Hillary has been the anointed insider for a couple years. But everyone has seen that Obama has the momentum now. So how do they get Obama to take a dive without it smelling to high heaven and driving Dems from the polls?
Nope. Either it plays out to the people's satisfaction or it's 1984 all over again. And that would mean "Hail President McCain."
Hillary/Edwards or Hillary/Clark would be great. Obama is like a used car from a shady dealership: he may have a shiny coat of paint which looks good but there's nothing inside.
smchris @ 74:
I agree, but it's too late to turn back as no one is going to step aside. (Is Hillary, the winner of NY and Cali and other major states supposed to say "I Quit?")
As has been stated before, this Proportional crap spells D-O-O-M.
Somehow, I get the feeling that the GOP and its media knew this all along. (Who is it that says he knows THE math?)
BUT, maybe its a chance to fix this one-party system disguised as a two party system.
Ajt @ 75:
Obama is screwed by this video and the story behind it. (Yes, I will hit this again, folks.)
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/alexi.giannoulias.christine.2.332409.html
Vexed @ 20:
haha nice one.
I say we put all the candidates in a cage and let them battle it out.
chris @ 54:
I fail to see how negotiating a deal with the candidates themselves violates or changes any rules. The party is always talking to candidates, asking them to drop out of a race for the sake of party unity or whatnot. It's routine. As long as the choice to remain in the race is up to the candidate him- or herself, there's nothing against the rules about negotiations.
Besides, what do you think a brokered convention is? What do you think delegates do? They're people at the Democratic Party Convention who go there to broker and negotiate deals to pick a candidate. If one candidate has a majority of them prior to the Convention's commencement, there's nothing to broker and nothing to negotiate. If it looks like a less-viable candidate could prevent one of the candidates from reaching that majority prior to the convention, there's nothing wrong with asking him to step aside, and to instruct his delegates about whom to support at the Convention. In this instance, it wouldn't be asking a less viable candidate (like Gravel) to step aside, but one of the two front runners.
As for your admonishment that I should have been complaining from the get go about this, I am likely this site's foremost proponent (in the comments section at least) of electoral reform at all levels. I'm not sure how you've come to posture yourself toward me like that.
As for whether the superdelegates are a good idea, I actually agree with you that they're not entirely evil in theory, but that they have too much control this time around. My saying that they were the undemocratic component to the convention was in response to those who were arguing that Dean's intervention was somehow undermining the democratic component. I was just pointing out that it would do no such thing.
Which would be more legitimate? For either Obama or Clinton to volunteer to support the other's nomination, and to instruct his/her delegates to do so, or for superdelegates simply to choose their favorite regardless of how the people have voted? Neither violates any rules, so it's just a matter of what's better for the party.
Excuse me. Political parties are not part of the Constitution and have no obligation to be "democratic" or even play by any rules, even its own. Their only true obligation in the Presidential nominating arena is to their own constituency. Thus, the Democratic party need only come up expeditiously with a viable and acceptable candidate who optimizes the stature, support, and unity of their big-tent membership. Through most of U.S. history and still today in third parties, non-democratic methods are used to select nominees. The worst things a party can do (from its own perspective) are to tear itself apart with divisiveness or nominate a presidential candidate that doesn't represent party ideology and values. Look what just happened: Republicans nominated a candidate who cannot win and does nothing to unite their party. Howard Dean needs to and will cajole the party's superdelegates into doing the right thing: settling on a candidate this spring. In other words, we'll have our brokered convention but de facto, not on TV, and four months early. Democracy and rules are not relevant to this process, and nobody should expect them to be.
Tommy @ 64:
I don't think we have a chance at a supermajority, but also, the open seats would not be 'lost' -- Clinton's successor would be a Dem, and Obama's too.
Their egos will yield the same as Howard Dean's ego yielded in 2004. There is a strong desire to get along to go along.
loubie @ 65:
Oh my! Is that sobbing I hear?
The pity troll is afoot.
CoIntelPro @ 67:
Oh, yeah, what a shock! You may be screwed, it depends.
The DSCC and the DCCC and the party officials, and even the DLC and their House Majority Leader, are the party leadership. If that screws you, you can send a complaint to WGIF, Kansas.
Wait, that's WGAF, Kansas. I forget the zip.
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD READ THIS PIECE!!:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Here Come the Brownshirts, Again
Does the Republican Party Have Aces Up Its Sleeves (for the 2008 elections)?
In a McCain Regime, Cheney will be back in office with another stint as Secretary of War. Norman "Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" Podhoretz will be Undersecretary for Nuclear War with General John "Nuke them" Shalikashvili as his deputy. Rudy Giuliani will be the Minister of Interior in charge of Halliburton's detention centers into which will be herded all critics of war and the police state. Billy kristol will be chief White House spokesliar.
The whole gang will be back--Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmster, Feith, Libby, Bolton. America will have a second chance to bomb the world into submission.
With the majority of voters sick of war, sick of lies, sick of fraud from the Federal Reserve and Wall Street, and sick of stagnant and falling incomes, McCain is poised to capture 20 per cent of the vote--the Christian Zionists, the rapture evangelicals, and the diehard macho flag-waving thugs who believe America is done for unless "Islamofacists" are exterminated.
They can steal the election with the Diebold electronic voting machines and proprietary software that no one is allowed to check. There are now enough elections on record with significant divergences between exit polls and vote tallies that a stolen election can be explained away. The Democrats have been house trained to acquiesce to stolen elections. The voters, whose votes are stolen, dismiss the evidence as "conspiracy theories."
VIEW THIS ARTICLE!!!! PSSST! BECOME INFORMED AND T H I N K !!!!:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
please wake up america --
EconProf @ 80:
That's not altogether true. Although parties themselves are not textually part of the Constitution (the framers maintained a forlorn hope that they could be avoided altogether), they nevertheless have democratic obligations under the Constitution if they do decide open their processes to the voters. For instance, they are not allowed to violate the Equal Protection clause by, say, not allowing African Americans to vote.
Moreover, if they establish rules by which people may participate in elections, they are contractually obligated to abide by them.
Sure, but what people are complaining about is the bait-and-switch tactic they (rightly or wrongly) perceive. There are all sorts of actions people may take legally that are nonetheless underhanded or outright wrong.
Very true. Though the Democratic and Republican Parties are so large and unwieldy, it's sometimes difficult to know what the actual respective ideology and values are.
Don't be so sure.
I could not have put that better myself. That's exactly correct.
I am one of those Floridians that are being tossed up for debate and I do not think it is fair! We all played by the rules by showing up to vote and I think it should count seeing that it will help carry the Democrats in the General Election!
Obama cannot bend the rules when it benefits him and insist we stick to the rules when it does not benefit him! How is that democracy? I do not think it is fair that Obama wants another vote to take place when those of us who are engaged showed up to vote on the correct date. How can Obama supporters say they were not aware of the primaries in Florida when over half a million people showed up to vote for Obama?
In Florida, all of the candidates agreed to NOT advertise. Hillary Clinton did NOT, Obama did! His excuse was he launched a national ad that he claims was not supposed to run in Florida, however; he still benefited from that advertisement! Coincidentally, the Florida ad ran at least a week before the National Ads were run when he got caught advertising in Florida!
Here is my transcript of the Obama ad seen on Florida cable outlets for the week leading up to Florida:
"BARACK OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
OBAMA (2004 Democratic National Convention): We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes.
Announcer: After college and law school, Barack Obama could have cashed in. Instead he fought for change. Working to rebuild an area torn apart by plant closings.
HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR LAURENCE TRIBE: It was inspiring, absolutely inspiring to see someone as brilliant as Barack Obama… take all of the talent and devote it to… making people’s lives better.
Announcer: In Illinois he brought Republicans and Democrats together. Cutting taxes for workers and winning healthcare for children.
ILLINOIS STATE SENATOR KIRK DILLARD: Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and he was successful in a bipartisan way.
Announcer: And in the U.S. Senate, he’s led on issues from arms control to landmark ethics reform.
U.S. SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL: It was hard to get that ethics bill passed. This is a man who knows how to get things done. He understands that we’ve to move forward with a different kind of politics.
OBAMA: There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America."
Another point that I feel the DNC should consider also is:
Hillary Clinton got the popular vote from Florida which was:
Clinton-857,208
Obama-569,041
The total of combined votes account for at least 1,426,249 votes between Clinton and Obama. Also 473,006 more votes than the 953,243 combined votes of the Republican front runners (McCain and Huckabee). That is a lot of votes to discount over the little difference in the delegates that are earned for Obama in states with caucuses that only had less than 50,000 votes and also were not key Democratic states.
Remember that Florida was the deciding state that gave us Bush?
That is something to think about for the Obama supporters that want to discount Florida. Either way Obama is out of luck because if he fights them being seated at the convention, (IF HE WINS) Floridians are going to remember when Obama said their "votes didn't count" in the General Election and potentially not vote, giving the Republicans the door wide open to keep office. If he does want them counted, Hillary wins, so either way, Obama is out of luck!
If you Obama supporters really knew about politics, you would NOT want to count Florida out. It is not a game people! Think about what you are doing...don't be let the Democrats lose the General Election against the Republicans just because you are sour that Obama lost in Florida!
Just because there has been record turn out by Democrats, that does not automatically mean they ALL are voting FOR Obama or AGAINST Hillary!
The people who support Obama are Anti-Hillary!
The Hillary supporters are for the Democratic Party!
Ajt @ 75:
To even keep putting Edwards' name as an option for the #2 is RETARDED.
He has said over and over again that HE DESPISED being the #2 in 2004 and he will not do it again.
On top of that, Clinton nor Obama WANT HIM as a #2.
Get over your DUMBOcratic ways.
The Republican Party went through something comparable in 1976 when Reagan challenged President Ford in the primaries. It was a bitter convention. Reagan eventually lost when the establishment delegates backed Ford. The Reaganites were thoroughly p*ssed at how they were manhandled by the establishment at the convention, sat out the general election, handing it to Carter in a what ended up being a very close contest.
During the intervening four years, the right wing consolidated power within the party, and came back in the next election stronger than ever. The Republican Party was transformed into the party we recognize today, able to maintain a stranglehold on power for quite some time. The establishment Republicans either learned to drink the kool-aid or get booted from the party. Just think about it – they have been able to hold the executive branch for 20 out of 28 years, and during that time, were able to gain and for a short time hold a majority in both houses of Congress. The "let's clean house" strategy worked for them.
The Democratic Party might go through a similar transformation during these next four years. The establishment Democrats have been able to accomplish much of anything. Hell, they aren’t even able to hold the Bush administration accountable for anything. He’s still poking fingers in their eyes and laughing.
Obama supporters are Dumbocrats!
Hillary supporters are Real Democrats who really care about democracy, freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of the people of America and the world! All classes, all races, all ages, both genders! We believe in equality for all, not just ourselves and how we feel at this moment craving instant gratification!
I am watching Washington Journal on C-Span right now and I swear people are hired to call in and say the exact same thing over and over about Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is like a script that goes like this:
"I am a Republican! And I will not vote for a Republican or Hillary Clinton!...I will vote for OBAMA only!"
They all seem to have the same accent also which raises more suspicion! It is odd how they are Republican but will vote for Obama only! Do us REAL Democrats REALLY want someone that is so wanted by the Republicans? The same Republicans that voted for George W. Bush?
I know I sure as hell DO NOT!
by establishment - it's more than just the politicians - it's all the rich high-level influential people who are not in the public eye, but that go to lunch, summer with, and give gifts to the politicians children. There is a huge network of these people who will be pulling for the clintons, and of course, there are some that are pulling for obama too, to be fair.
Which one of these groups wins , remains to be scene, the problem for us of course - is that these battles exclude us!
Whatever @ 91:
Which of course explains why Hillary supported the war, the Patriot Act and can't decide whether waterboarding is torture or not.
And why she was working for a union-busting law firm and making tons of money while Obama was doing community organizing work in Chicago -- including a 1992 voter registration effort that helped deliver Illinois for the Billarys.
But then, we know those two aren't particularly loyal to their friends. At least not the ones who can't donate big bucks to their library and Billy's foundation.
Kerry Reid @ 94:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.........
I have heard it ALL!
Another spin doctor on the boards! Obama cult I mean camp is lurking the boards again!
Move along and go hug some more trees!
Is this Kerry Reid or Karl Rove?
Vexed @ 20:
Absolutely.
ltfcrazy @ 96:
I care! I do not want Obama anywhere near leading my life! NO THANK YOU!
Next!
Whatever @ 92:
So you want a polarizing figure who can't get anything done? You sound like a conspiracy theorist to me. Do you believe the moon landing was staged? Go listen to Obama. Give your brain a present!
G @ 97:
What are you scared of?
ltfcrazy @ 99:
Obama and Bush...cut from the same cloth!
Stop trying to get one over me with stupid comparisons to history! You are just repeating Obama saying this about the moon in response to Bill Clinton's over spun "fairy tale" remark. (There again: playing on the emotions of the masses!) Which by the way he was referring to his stance on the war from day one until now! Because Obama is a liar! He attacks Hillary for voting for the war but his endorser John Kerry also authorized it! Why is it alright for Kerry in Obama's eyes and not Hillary? How is that having integrity as Obama claims to have?
Your cult talk does not impress me in the least...now leave me alone and stop insulting me because you do not like the results of my conclusions. Do not tell me to give my brain a present just because I do not follow your desires and your attempt to lead!
Bye!
Now, Howard Dean will be controlling our votes. I already believe that he drove John Edwards out of the race. I fear that our country is screwed no matter what. All that is left are corporatists or pure machine politicians. The land of the free is GONE. Most of the people voting for Obama don't even know who the founders of our country are anyway. History just isn't relevent. It's all about dead people.
Will Dean be bringing us breakfast sausages?
Let the people decide, not Howard Dean. If this goes to the convention,so be it
Login or Register to post comments.