Could 'superdelegates'
lead to super brawl?
By Chip Drago
Mobile Bay Times
Let the ailing Guy Hunt be a lesson to the national Democratic Party, say a number of Alabamians who recall a time when a party dispute seemed to exalt insiders above ordinary voters.
Back in 1986 when the squabbling finally died down and Democratic elders had restored order to the political universe in Alabama by installing party favorite Bill Baxley as its gubernatorial nominee, none were more surprised than the poobahs to discover that they had not had the last word.
The herd busted the corral and was all over the countryside. The cattle could not be rounded up in time to be driven to market in 1986.
Democratic leaders found themselves shivering in Montgomery, left out in out in the cold, wondering what went wrong as they gazed upon the surreal spectacle of Guy Hunt's inauguration as the Republican governor of Alabama. Pigs flew. The fat lady cleared her throat. State legislators returned change from advances on travel expenses.
Surely, the end was near.
Against all odds, Hunt was moving on up. Before long the Cullman farmer/Amway salesman numbered more "Friends of Guy Hunt" than he ever dreamed possible sitting on his porch back in Cullman.
Guy Hunt left a sour taste in the mouth of the Alabama Democratic Party that is not yet altogether gone.
Will the Democratic Party's "superdelegates" of 2008 -- namely, the 800 or so party leaders who get to vote however they want, regardless of any primary or caucus result -- be the modern national version of Alabama's "crossover" voters of 1986? Next January on Pennsylvania Avenue, will John McCain sport that crooked smile a stranger-than-fiction life sometimes confers?
The Democratic spat over GOP crossover votes for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Charlie Graddick, a former Republican, at his foe Baxley's expense was resolved in Baxley's favor, but ultimately in favor of Hunt who became the first GOP governor of Alabama in 100 years.
Alabama's independent-minded voters shot a lethal Joe Frazier-like left hook to the jaw of the state Democratic Party which never saw it coming.
The national party should go to school on Alabama's experience, say some state Democrats, presumably those backing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. The party's superdelegates have the potential to trump the popular vote and install Clinton over Obama as things now stand. If Obama continues at his present pace, he may render it all moot. However, if Clinton's firewall in Texas and Ohio on March 4 holds up, well, cue the ominous background music.
Do the super delegates represent a flaw in the system or a seat of wisdom? Are pundits invoking Chicago '68 guilty of awful hyperbole? Still, this year's convention in Denver could be rocky.
Mobile Bay Times reached out to the area's political intelligentsia for their best advice and counsel:
"I'm afraid I have no original ideas about superdelegates. I'm having lunch with one of these creatures on Thursday -- Bob Strauss -- and after that maybe I can tell you more.
Generally speaking, the delegate selection process is a joke. In past years the vote for delegates has been only a tiny fraction of the electorate. It worked only because the elected delegates were essentially automatons -- more or less like presidential electors who dutifully vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged. (But not always -- remember the Alabama elector who bolted the Democratic Party and voted for Walter B. Jones instead, earning an asterisk in history forever.)
At the outset of the Democratic delegate-selection 'reforms,' the idea was that the primaries would always produce a winner before the convention -- as indeed has been the case for 30 years or so. But in an abundance of caution, the 'reformers' went on to say that if the Democrats ever wound up at convention time with, let's say, three candidates, with equal numbers of delegates but not enough to nominate, then the superdelegates would step in and bring order out of chaos. This scenario, needless to say, assumed that all three of the candidates would be white males.
Now that we face the unimaginable -- a deadlock between a woman and a black -- not even Superman, let alone superdelegates, can pull that one out of the fire.
Last Sunday Douglas Wilder, who was Virginia's first elected black governor and is now Richmond's mayor, appeared on Face the Nation and came close to saying that if Obama went to the convention with the largest number of
elected delegates only to have the nomination snatched from him by the conniving superdelegates, there would be riots in the streets. That's a pretty explicit threat of violence.
I still believe that one or the other will win. My best guess is Clinton will regain her momentum by carrying Wisconsin tomorrow and then Ohio and Texas two weeks later. This should get her pretty close to a lock on the nomination. Or, if Obama carries Texas, he'll go to the convention with the
nomination locked up.
That's my two-cents worth -- and it's worth exactly that."
-- Ray Jenkins,
retired newspaperman
"My fear is the scenario of Barack winning the regular delegate votes and the supers giving it to Clinton. It would destroy the party and severely damage any chance of a Democratic victory in November. Also (it would) cripple House and Senate races. I can see a lot of folks sitting it out if that should happen."
-- Donald Briskman,
Mobile attorney
"I don't know the answer to this problem, but I have written many KEY Democrats to advise them not to make the mistake we made in Alabama in 1986.
Ms. Frances Coleman wrote an article which describes the problem perfectly. Look it up in the INSIGHT section of the MPR dated Feb. 9, 2008.
I will send you a hard copy of a letter which explains my position better and also talks about a Democratic landslide."
-- Ed Kahalley,
longtime Mobile Democrat
"Under National Party rules they (superdelegates) may choose the candidate they wish to support. To force or require that they vote a certain way would be to change the rules in the middle of the campaign. Somehow, I get the feeling that the final decision will not rest exclusively on how they choose to vote."
-- Paul R. Hubbert,
executive director, Alabama Education Association
"I think the Democratic Party was trying to fix a problem after a raucous convention, and may have gone from the frying pan to the fire.
The best explanation to me came from an interview with Nancy Pelosi on NPR. Most of the super delegates are elected officials and the slim remainder are typically political appointees. It is the super delegates' job to follow the wishes of those that elected them. So if the mayor of Sheboygan
is a Democratic super delegate and his city voted by
popularity for Clinton, he should vote for Clinton at
the Convention. Likewise if the State of Virginia
voted for Obama, and the Governor is a super delegate,
then he should vote for Obama at the convention. The
super delegates should pay dearly at their own re-election if they vote against their constituents' wills.
I do not think that Michigan or Florida should be seated at the convention. They clearly broke the rules and it would be very unfair to give them a seat at the table. They will get their say in November.
The Democratic Party should be very careful moving forward. A convention where super delegates went against the popular vote or the "regular" delegates would be extremely divisive and disruptive. There would be mass defections to a third party or to McCain who is more palatable to some Democrats than 35 percent of the Republican Party.
Howard Dean and Pelosi (Convention chair) certainly have their hands full."
-- Brad Warren,
chairman, Mobile County Democratic Party
"I have been more disappointed with some of our Democratic nominees voted by the people than most who were the result of smoke filled rooms.
Super delegates bring knowledge, experience and concern for the party to bear on a nomination. They definitely should be influenced by the will of the people, but if they have serious doubts about a candidate's qualifications, they should vote their conscience."
-- Billy Kimbrough,
Democratic attorney
"I don't really have any thoughts on the super delegates. I am still struggling with what I think about the fact that I voted for Obama and still have NO idea what he is going to do as president except 'change.'"
-- Gigi Armbrecht,
local executive
"I am not sure I understand enough about it, but it could be -- I don't think they will let it get that far -- their undoing. Must have been a good thought at the time, but circumstances change everything."
-- Braxton Kittrell,
retired Democratic judge
"I know the position that they should vote in line with the way the delegate vote went in Alabama is getting quite a bit of press.
But I see superdelegate status as kind of a sideways acknowledgment of the fact that we live under a representative democracy (as opposed to a true democracy). These are folks whose political savvy we trust enough to handle decisions at state government level. Why wouldn't I trust their judgment
when it comes to making decisions for my party?
Because of the representative system, I elect folks to act in my best interests, and send them off to do it. I may write letters, to them and to my local newspaper, but I don't expect to micromanage them.
Sometimes the initial approach may be counter-intuitive ('why did he do THAT?') but eventually lead to great benefit. Micromanagement short-circuits those opportunities.
Certainly those who have watched the antics of the Mobile County School Board over the last couple of years know the hazards of micromanagement!
Briefly: I think superdelegates are where they are so the party can benefit from their wisdom and experience. I expect them to be vitally involved in brokering whatever deal comes out of the national convention. I believe it would be foolish in the extreme to try and 'micromanage' how they should vote or in any way tie their hands before asking them to help select what is best for the party."
-- Mary Johnson,
active Mobile Democrat
"As a member of the Alabama State Democratic Executive Committee and Mobile County Executive Committee and former member of the National Democratic Committee and Standing Committee on Credentials, I do not agree with the "superdelegates" such as the President of the ADC, certain elected state representatives and senators, etc. My belief is they should all be elected by the statewide ballot."
-- Don Langham,
retired labor leader
"Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama reflect all that is right about the Democrat Party and why the Republican Party is doomed in November. America has always been a country based on ideas and debate. The current debate between the leading democrats is healthy, high-minded and about issues vital to the future of the country. Regardless of the nominee, the party and independents will unite around the idea that America can be great again.
John McCain. What's there to say? A decent man, a war hero, a good public servant. But given the obvious splintering of irreconcilable segments of extreme elements of the Republican Party they can't even unify behind him. Worst is his having to abandon his principles to try and placate the hate wing of the their party. After all, he opposed the ruinous Bush tax cuts, the mismanagement of the War, the irresponsible manner that his party sabotaged real progress on immigration but is now reduced to pandering to his own party for base support.
In the end, the party that squandered the largest budget surplus and replaced it with the largest twin deficits (budget and trade) in the history of the United States, commenced, mis-managed and fought the wrong war in the the wrong place and have worked everyday to take away the very civil liberties that citizens of this country fought the Revolutionary War to establish must step aside.
Rarely does a figure like Sen. Obama come along. Brilliant but plain spoken and a lot like another Illinois politician, Lincoln. Like Lincoln he rises at a time of deep division in this country over its future. Like Lincoln needed Grant, perhaps General David Petraeus joins the ticket. Unstoppable and a message that the world will understand. Leadership.
If it's Sen. Clinton, then her considerable wisdom, practical knowledge and established work ethic combine to make her a serious leader.
Forget the foolishness of all the rhetoric about superdelegates. This is filler for the radio/TV pundits. The Democrat Party should remember the lessons learned by Alabama Democrats in the Baxley/Graddick to-do. When the people speak -- and this year all records are being broken -- they will speak loudly and in a voice that the party cannot ignore."
-- Rick Kuykendall,
Democratic attorney
"My general opinion towards the whole 'superdelegate' role is relatively negative. I think the position was created as a sort of 'merit badge' for important party officials, and that it draws an unnecessary line of distinction between convention participants.
Based on its description within the party rules, the superdelegate role also seems somewhat contrary to the McGovern-Fraser ideas that were supposed to mollify the influence of political elites and the proverbial smoke-filled rooms.
I'm relatively certain there's going to be a massive overhaul of the primary system before the 2012 elections due to the chaotic front-loading of '08, and I think both parties might be well-served to reform not only their scheduling, but also all the mechanisms and components that go into selecting a nominee.
As for the more specific situation involving Clinton and Obama, I'm cautiously optimistic that the issue will be settled in a common sense manner that won't involve political elites brokering for power on the convention floor. I know convention rules stipulate that superdelegates are free to cast a vote for whomever they'd like, but I have a feeling they'll likely play it safe and fall in line behind the candidate with the most 'regular' delegates at the end of the primary season.
Don't forget that most of these superdelegates are elected officials, so the last thing thing they'd want to do is risk the ire of primary voters and threaten party stability as a whole."
-- Kelson Bohnet,
local Democrat
"Until recent times, the Democratic Party 'elders' nominated a candidate at the convention based on myriad political considerations -- but most important was elect-ability of the candidate and the ticket.
I think it was after 1968 that the parties began to rely heavily, but not exclusively, on state by state primary voting. Thus, Jimmy Carter was nominated for the 1976 election, although he was not a nationally ensconced Democratic figure. He later had a lot of trouble with the Party (Ted Kennedy ran against him in 1980).
Thereafter, the superdelegates (party heavyweights) re-gained some of the power ceded after 1968.
The convention will render a PARTY nomination not necessarily based on the primary and caucus votes the candidates get in the mostly 'open' primaries. Consideration should be given, in my opinion, to the votes cast in them by members of the other party and independents, who are not
really party members, and to new voters not really interested in the party platform, but overtaken with the personality of the candidate.
Barack Obama, a wonderful, dynamic candidate, has gotten many normally Republican and Independent votes. These are not Democratic Party adherents, but, more likely than not, disaffected voters who want a 'change' in the White House after years of feckless governance by the present administration. In a word, these are not Democrats voting for
Democrats. For whom might they vote in the general election,
particularly if other candidates they have supported (their congressman, governor and/or legislator) implore them to vote otherwise, should be considered.
Some have even said that the large turn-out by Republicans
for Obama is to prevent a Clinton nomination that they inwardly fear.
Yet, I am sure that many have voted for Obama, even though they preferred Clinton, because of their belief that he, not she, can win.
Lastly, all real Democrats will vote for Obama if he is nominated and I and other Clinton supporters will be fully engaged for him.
But now, Obama says let the people speak (that is: encourage the superdelegates to vote as the primary voters --Independents and Republicans, too -- have voted); after all, it is more democratic to do so. Maybe so. But by that logic, Florida and Michigan should also be counted, as it
was also the people who spoke, and not the monolithic Democratic Party.
John Kennedy said that every mother wants her son to be president, but no mother wants him to be a politician. Well, the party heavyweights -- super delegates -- know politics, and they all want a nominee that can win. And the candidate must win certain states: California, New York, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Which candidate has the best chance of doing this, given the Republican votes in the South? And, which candidate thus selected will in turn help those
same super delegates get re-elected?
What happens if Clinton gets more votes, but fewer elected delegates, or vice versa? Obama is 44-years-old; would he be more important to the Party at 52?
What if McCain picks Condi Rice as his running mate?
Obama's record has yet to be attacked by the Republicans; can he survive the assault? Remember Harold Ford? These are things that the superdelegates will ponder."
-- Skip Brutkiewicz,
Mobile attorney/Clinton supporter
"If the Democrats don't award the nomination to the person with the most 'earned' delegates and allows the 'superdelegates' to decide, there will be a monumental split in the Democratic Party. If that happens, I can foresee a
considerable number of conservative, and even moderate Democrats voting for McCain, as well as many independents. I think that it would hand the election over to McCain."
-- Mark Berson,
former state tourism director
"Counting every vote is particularly important to me as a former assistant attorney general for the Alabama State Elections Division.
The Democratic Party should abolish superdelegates. The reason is simple … The candidate with the most votes should win the election.
From civil rights activists to our brave men and women in the armed forces, many Alabamians have died to preserve our ability to choose our leaders. Both parties should honor their sacrifices by ensuring that nominees for president are chosen at the ballot box and not in some backroom."
-- Adam Bourne,
Attorney
"The remaining primaries are no longer highly significant and matter more in terms of momentum. If Senator Clinton does not gain real traction with resounding wins in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, many superdelegates who now support Clinton are going to find it nearly impossible to stick by her to stop Obama's nomination. In light of Obama's overwhelming popular support at the ballot box, the passionate outcry of Democratic voters will exceed the outcry observed in 2000 as the result of Bush vs. Gore. You can probably expect that Gore will lead the cheers against the Clinton Superdelegate Rebellion as he was 'the victim' in 2000 but at the hands of the Republicans; not by 'his own.' A Clinton Superdelegate Rebellion is the Republicans' best hope in attempting to retain the presidency."
-- Christ N. Coumanis,
Mobile attorney
"The arguments are so contradictory and self-serving that I have decided to not commit my dwindling brain cells on the conundrum. Personally, I am not offended by the idea that there are some 'old gray hairs' in the party that might have a better, long range view of things than me and should be able to
exert slightly more influence than the normal primary voter.
Having said that (and perhaps now contradicting myself) I do hope that if they exert their hoary influence, it is to avoid the negative effect that HillBilly (both of whom I revere) would have as the D ticket from Senate races down to dog-catcher."
-- Henry Brewster,
attorney
"The super delegates are mostly people who have given a
great part of their life understanding and working within the necessary political model and from a Democratic stand point, sacrificing family, business success, and many freedoms we take for granted, for the working class.
I personally have a great deal of respect for my elders, and more for those elders who have served and are serving their country and community. I believe that the elder superdelegates bring stability and knowledge to our party.
I am popular from Birmingham to Mobile, IF I ran state wide, which I never will until I am at least twice as successful as I am today ... If I ran against Jim Folsom for governor, it would be socially irresponsible for me to jeopardize the future of Alabama's working class and a slap to my party to enter a race that I could win due to my popularity and my speaking ability, knowing full well that Folsom is a better man for the job, if the race was close, the Democratic superdelegates, or the old heads of the Democratic party wisdom could keep the party and state on track by voting for Folsom.
Of course all the superdelegates aren't old heads, and they may not come into play in a state race, but you get my meaning."
-- James Gordon,
state legislator, Saraland
