All the attention being paid to the potential role of super-delegates in the nominating process has gotten me thinking about my own experiences as a "super-delegate."
I was elected as Vermont's Democratic National Committeeman in 1988, and served in that position until I moved out of state in 1997. That meant I was a super-delegate to the 1992 and 1996 conventions.
I'm sure I'm not the only (current or former) super-delegate here on dKos, but I haven't seen any discussion from them, so thought I'd reflect on what it was like to be in that position - and about the role of super-delegates in this year's contest. I'd love to hear other folk's perspectives on it - especially (but certainly not only) folks who are or have been super-delegates. So indulge my little trip down memory lane as I think back on my super-delegate days.
How did I end up as a super-delegate in the first place?
I was a grassroots Democratic activist in Vermont. I first got involved in Vermont politics shortly after moving to the state - working on the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1984. I ended up being chosen to represent Vermont on the 1984 Democratic National Convention Platform Committee when the Jackson campaign won enough support to earn a seat.
The Platform Committee was much fun, Geraldine Ferraro was chairing the Platform Committee, and rumors of her Vice-Presidential possibilities were widespread. When Mondale named her, it was a definite thrill to be part of history. I was one of about 18 Jackson members of the committee (2 of us white) While I was on the losing side of many many votes trying to amend the platform to be more progressive, I was also able to work with folks from the Mondale, Hart and Jackson campaign to push the platform forward on some difficult issues. My favorite memory was moving and speaking on behalf of the Jackson campaign position on the middle east, arguing as a Jew that the only way to guarantee Israel's security would be a land-for-peace, two state solution. While I'd like to get credit for being prescient, it was not a welcome message in the Democratic Party at that time, and I ended up getting into a heated argument with Madeline Alrbright (who was Mondale's foreign policy advisor) on the subject - with her adamantly maintaining that such a position was naive and never going to be seriously considered.
While the San Francisco convention had many highlights, the Mondale campaign against Reagan was a disaster in many ways. I stayed involved in the state party, working in 1984 on Madeleine Kunin's historic election as Vermont's first female Governor, getting elected to the state committee, managing local campaigns, and working hard as a grassroots activist.
In 1988, I was again part of the Jesse Jackson campaign in Vermont. Building on the strong progressive vote base in the state, we organized extremely hard and narrowly defeated Michael Dukakis in the state caucus. (Yes, Jesse Jackson won in lily-white Vermont 20 years ago).
As the state convention - where delegates to the national convention were to be elected - I was approached by a number of people about running for the position of National Committeeman (to be elected at the convention as well).
I decided to do it and jumped into the race challenging the incumbent National Committeeman - John Carnahan, a very good and decent man, a mainstream Democrat who had been Kunin's running mate for Lt.Gov. in 1984. I liked John, but decided that the need to add a progressive grassroots voice to the DNC was too good to pass up. We ran positive campaigns and at the state convention I was able to combine support from the Jackson delegates (about 45% of the convention) along with many of the Dukakis and other delegates who I had worked with over the previous 4 years. In the end, I won by a margin of approximately 60%-40%.
So that's how I found myself - a grassroots party activist (my day job was running the first AIDS organization in Vermont), 30 years old, openly gay man, and unabashed progressive - sitting on the DNC.
My term technically didn't begin until the DNC meeting that began the day after the national convention. I was also serving again on the Platform Committee, so I attended Atlanta convention in that capacity, but didn't have a delegate vote.
Being a super-delegate in 1992
I continued to work hard in on elections and party affairs, trying to operate as one of the minority of progressives on the National Committee, and didn't think much about the fact that I would automatically be a delegate to the 1992 national convention.
As 1992 approached, I was actually surprised that the campaigns made very little effort to recruit me and other super-delegates early on. No phone calls from the campaign, no brunches with the candidate, no offers of ambassadorships to sunny Pacific nations. Sure, I'd see the candidates at the DNC meetings, and DNC members would discuss who we were considering, and there was there were mailings from the campaigns. In truth, it was a little disappointing - I was hoping to have the opportunity to be courted and to use my position (and my delegate vote) to lobby for specific commitments on things like AIDS policy, universal health care, and a less aggressive foreign policy. Alas, no campaigns did much courting.
Before the primaries, I decided to sign on to support Tom Harkin's campaign - he seemed the most progressive candidate in the field, and I was not impressed by what I viewed as the far too conservative positions of Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey and Paul Tsongas. The campaign was happy to be able to list me as a supporter as they sought to prove they were a viable national campaign. Unfortunately Harkin's campaign went nowhere after winning his home state caucus, and he soon withdrew. I was once more an uncommitted super-delegate.
In some ways, I think was exercising one of the potentially valuable roles of superdelegates - by endorsing early on, I was (I thought) helping to establish credibility and viability for the most progressive of the candidates. Certainly the ability to gain the support of elected officials and party leaders is one early measurement of campaign strength -- especially when they give credence to a dark-horse candidate.
As the campaign boiled down to three candidates - Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown - I remained uncommitted. I gave advice to any campaign that asked about the state and our delegate selection process (I had chaired the committee writing the state caucus rules). The folks from the local Brown campaign (many of whom I knew quite well) pressed me for an endorsement, but I said that I would wait until after the caucus and would support Brown if he won the state.
In the end, Jerry Brown narrowly won the Vermont caucus, and I made good on my commitment to sign on with him (even though it was clear that Clinton had the nomination sewn up). I was re-elected to National Committeeman position with more than 90% of the vote against token opposition.
While Brown won the Vermont caucuses, the super-delegates from the state meant that there was a slight majority of Clinton supporters in the delegation. Because of that division, and because I was trusted by both sides, I was elected to become the Vermont delegation Chair (the first openly gay person to chair a state delegation). I had the thrill of being the guy who stood up at the microphone during the roll call at the convention and announcing the state vote. (I also made, at the request of Don Fowler and Ron Brown [DNC Chair at the time], a motion to declare the Clinton nomination by acclamation - but unfortunately they hadn't communicated that to the Podium, so the motion was ruled out of order -- oh well)
Beyond 1992
After that convention, I worked hard to elect Clinton-Gore, and found out that being a DNC member is a lot more fun when your party controls the White House - Inaugural festivities, invitations to the White House, being invited to meetings with the President or VP or senior officials. I was named to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS - something that probably wouldn't have happened if I wasn't on the DNC (as well as having folks from Leahy's, Kennedy's and other offices pushing to get me named - as well as being well qualified for the position based on my years of AIDS activism).
(Of course being on the DNC isn't exactly a glamour gig, no matter who is in power. Paying your own way to 3 meetings a year, sitting through extremely boring meetings, having remarkably little power compared to a group of party insiders who run the show, and rare opportunities to actually influence party rules, no opportunity to actually influence policy or political strategy.)
In 1996, the nomination was uncontested for Clinton's re-election, so being a super-delegate didn't mean much. Attending the Chicago convention was little more than being a prop in a well-orchestrated TV pageant decided to support the re-election effort. Having a delegate vote meant very little.
I was re-elected to the DNC unopposed in 1996, but gave up my position in 1997 when I moved out of the state for professional reasons.
Thoughts on the role of super-delegates
I have to admit to being somewhat ambivalent around the question of super-delegates. A big part of me feels that the very ideal of anyone automatically being a delegate is fundamentally undemocratic.
Yet another part of me feels that there may be valid reasons for having super-delegates and potentially important roles for them to play.
I see the importance of making sure that the elected officials and party leaders are connected to and invested in the party's nominee. Giving them automatic delegate status at the convention is one way to tie them to the party's nominee and integrated into the party's campaign. (And it also prevents the situation when a Senator or Governor is running against a grassroots activist for a delegate spot - opening up more opportunities for grassroots folks to become delegates and sparing nasty fights). The reality is that in order to win in November, we need these folks working hard for a Democratic victory - giving them as say in the nomination MAY increase the likelihood of them doing so.
I also see a role for super-delegates in helping to ratify the voters' choice in contested nomination contests by migrating in large numbers to the leading candidate - sending a reality message to the loser that it is time to pack it in.
I could also imagine incredibly rare (almost unimaginable) circumstances where the super-delegates would have to serve as check on the results of the primary. In such a case, it might be that extremely damaging information about candidate would emerge after they had already secured the nomination - an indictment, a sex video, whatever - that would guarantee they lose the election - the super-delegates might need to play a role in making it clear that this candidate would no longer be a viable nominee.
And finally, I do see some value in super-delegates using their political judgement in the nomination campaign to build support for their preferred candidates. But that should, hard as it separate the roles, be in their capacity as Senator, Governor, DNC member, Congressperson, etc -- in the end, they should not allow their endorsement to trump the clear choice of voters in the nomination process.
I'm sure there will be a serious re-examination of our entire nomination process after this election. If it produces a nominee who wins the presidency, maybe we'll decide that the system served as well and doesn't need much overhaul - beyond the obvious calendar battles. But if we end up losing the election (no, please, no!) then the party will need to look at a major changes in the nominating rules.
At the very least, I'd like to see a few changes made: the number of super-delegates needs to be reduced. For years the DNC has been expanding the number of national committee members, and granting each of them automatic delegate status. I'd also love to see DNC members elected by the most democratic means possible - I think that being accountable to a state convention of 1,500 grassroots party activists makes a DNC member much less likely to engage in smoke-filled negotiations.
I doubt we'll ever get rid of super-delegates, but clearly this year's nomination race will guarantee a re-examination of their role in the process.