It was with interest that I read BarbinMD's front page post, Super Delegates: "Stewards of the national party?".
Mere interest, however, turned to incredulity when I read Kos' update to the post, which included the entire text of Steven Grossman's letter to the Democratic Superdelegates. In that letter, which can be found at the link to the post provided above, I found a compelling argument - but it is MY argument that Grossman is making. I'm sure that wasn't his intent.
More over the fold.
I'm going to break this letter up quite a bit - so if you want the full, uninterrupted letter itself, please follow the link to the original post.
Grossman writes (all emphasis is mine):
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven Grossman
Date: Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to Democratic Party Super Delegates
To: XXX
An Open Letter to Democratic Party Super Delegates
From Steven Grossman, Former National Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Like many Democratic activists and officials honored to have been selected as so-called super delegates to this year's Democratic national convention, I've spent most of my life engaged in the fight for the values that the Democratic party embodies. These values were perhaps best articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his second inaugural address: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Let's stop there for a moment. Hold the thought of Democratic values in your mind for a bit and let me turn back to Grossman's letter:
Like some of my colleagues [ed note - only some of his colleagues? What?], my commitment to the Democratic party and my passion for its most cherished principles can fairly be said to be part of my DNA. In my own case, my grandfather, father, uncle and I were all given the opportunity to serve as delegates to Democratic national conventions over the last 60 years. Indeed, my grandfather and father comprised the only "father-son" team among the delegates to the 1948 convention in Philadelphia that chose Harry Truman as the party's standard bearer. Given that family history, it will be understood how proud I was to serve first as Chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party and then as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Well, Mr. Grossman - I'll just point out - one does not have to be a delegate to be committed to the Democratic party. I and others spent countless hours in the 2004 and 2006 elections knocking on doors, getting out the vote, spreading the word, and fomenting change. I don't consider your designation as a delegate or superdelegate to be any more meaningful than my personal commitment or participation, nor do I particularly think you or anyone else is more qualified to speak for me than I am.
It continues:
Some commentators, observing the current deadlock between Senators Clinton and Obama as they vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, have suggested that as super delegates, our function is to be mindless tabulators of primaries and caucuses won, or popular votes amassed.
Well, I'd argue that we don't remotely expect them to be "mindless" - but yes - put simply, the role of the superdelegates should be to endorse the will of the people as expressed in - here's a novel concept - votes earned and delegates earned. Eureka! I solved the conundrum! Or maybe not so much:
Despite the super delegates' lifetimes spent working on state, national and international issues, and thinking seriously about the grave challenges, and the dangerous adversaries, facing our country,...
Does this guy want a medal or something? Because last time I checked, I could point to any number of people right here at Daily Kos and at campaign offices across the country who are not party "elders" nor elected officials yet who also have spent lifetimes working on state, national, and international issues. Oh - and they also think pretty seriously about the grave challenges we face as Americans. But I digress.
...these commentators demand that we suspend our independent judgments and jettison our profound responsibilities--to the party and, frankly, to the country itself. Even though the very party rules that provide for super delegates contemplated that we would exercise those independent judgments and fulfill those responsibilities, there are those who believe that we should confine ourselves to adding up numbers.
No. We don't demand you "jettison [your] profound responsibilities." We demand that you dispense them IN LINE WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES. A review of the Democratic Party values in question is probably in order, just for clarity. Here is a very high-level snapshot of what the Democratic party considers its guiding principles, via Democrats.org:
Guiding Principles
Our Plan - We have a bold new direction for a secure America. We seek: 1) Honest Leadership & Open Government, 2) Real Security, 3) Energy Independence, 4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence, 5) A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone, and 6) Retirement Security. Learn more.
The 50-State Strategy - The Democratic Party is committed to winning elections at every level in every region of the country, and we're getting started right now with a massive effort to fund organizers on the ground in every state. The ultimate goal? An active, effective group of Democrats organized in every single precinct in the country.
Party Platform - The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party's National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.
Charter and Bylaws - Essentially, the Charter and Bylaws is the constitution of the Democratic Party. It outlines the structure of the Party organization, and the relationship among the National Convention, the National Committee, and other Party organizations or operations. The Charter and Bylaws was last amended by the Democratic National Committee at its December 5, 2005 meeting.
Let's dive deeper, shall we? Particularly of interest is the declaration of "Honest Leadership & Open Government". The Democratic party expands on that thought. Let's explore (excerpted):
Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government. To do so, we will create and enforce rules that demand the highest ethics from every public servant, sever unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, and establish clear standards that prevent the trading of official business for gifts.
This is an accountability moment for both the Democratic party and its officials, specifically the superdelegates. We aren't asking them to become "mindless" - we're demanding that they are accountable TO THE VOTER over the party.
If you dive a little deeper into Democrats.org, you'll find this gem:
Election Reform
A fundamental tenet of our democracy is the right to vote and have that vote counted. We must be vigilant in protecting this right and ensuring that our voting system is fair for every American.
I don't know that that requires much expansion, frankly. Mr. Grossman professes to be the conduit for Democratic party values. Therefore he must endorse the Party's stance on voting and making every vote count. Let me return to the letter, because it gets better:
But super delegates were not selected by the national party to be either potted plants or rubber stamps. We were selected because under party rules that have been in place for a generation, our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party--and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it--and to be strong enough to withstand the criticisms of those who might object to the political impact of the independent conclusions we reached.
Ok - I'm sorry - but that last part I emphasized sounds disgustingly like an argument the religious right would make in overturning Roe v. Wade or teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools or in legislating school prayer. That whole passage made my skin crawl.
Our duty to our party and our country is a fiduciary one, a sacred trust. We are obliged to regard ourselves in a real sense as trustees, charged with making conscientious judgments on behalf of the party but, more importantly, the country we care, and worry, about.
Any dispassionate analysis of the current nomination fight shows that Senators Clinton and Obama are breathtakingly close in terms of delegates won and popular vote recorded. It is likely that after the remaining primaries and caucuses have been held, the already narrow gap in delegates will shrink yet further, and the equally slim gap in popular vote will also close, with Senator Clinton having a meaningful chance to overtake Senator Obama's popular vote total altogether, particularly when the collective will of Florida's and Michigan's primary voters is finally taken into account. At a minimum, the nomination process must be permitted to run its full course, so that not only are the candidates' qualifications, character and positions fully vetted, but everyone who is entitled to vote is actually permitted to do so.
WOW. A LOT to sort through there. First, I'm stunned by how totally subjective the entire statement is. "Narrow gap in delegates" is subjective. Some would say that the gap is substantial enough to prevent another candidate from closing it, thereby making the gap significant. "Equally slim gap in popular vote" is also subjective. Then he goes on to assume that FL and MI will be "taken into account" - Mr. Grossman, please see earlier in your letter where you solemnly declare it your responsibility to uphold Democratic party values and THEN see the link to the Charter and Bylaws of said party so that you understand the RULES with respect to FL and MI.
It gets even more mouth dropping from there:
This means that, in the first instance, those super delegates who have not made up their minds or who have decided to remain neutral until all the votes have been cast should resist the pressure to abort the process. We are, after all, electing not a student council president but the President of the United States of America, the leader of the free world and, in real terms, the most powerful person on the planet. There is no amount of prudence and care which can possibly be excessive, under the circumstances.
Self-impressed much? You're not electing the President. You're talking about the level of appropriate interaction in choosing a nominee. Only voters elect a President. Duh.
But what happens after the final primaries are over in early June, when by most analyses neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination? If the role of super delegates is merely to assess primary and caucus results, how do they wade through the thicket created by the important questions that those results have generated?
Should caucuses, in which citizens who wish to express their choice are obliged to either show up at an appointed hour and sit in a room for up to several hours or not show up at all, be regarded as reflecting the popular will as much as primaries, where voters whose lives do not permit them to spend three hours in a locked room at the end of a workday can simply go into their local elementary school, vote and leave--like voters across the country do on the first Tuesday in November?
Ah. SO - Mr. Grossman is confused. Because he professes fealty to Democratic Party values, of which rules, charter and bylaws are a subset, yet he now turns around and criticizes and subtly tries to de-legitimize one of the processes, the caucus, that is fully defined by the Democratic party (via Wikipedia):
Delegate selection rules
Under the Democratic Party's Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention,[12] delegates are awarded by proportional representation, with a minimum 15 percent threshold required in order to receive delegates. Each state party is required to publish its own state level delegate selection plan and take public comment. The plans indicate how each state will select delegates at the congressional and statewide level, how the delegation will implement the party's affirmative action policy, and how the delegation will ensure an equal balance between women and men. Those plans were adopted at state conventions and forwarded to the national party in mid-2007.
In caucuses, the viability threshold (15.2 percent or higher depending on the caucus) must be met at each level in the process, from the precinct level upwards. This puts enormous pressure on remaining candidates to gain the support of those voters who had previously supported candidates fallen below the 15 percent threshold.[13][14] The focus on viability is designed to weed out small, divisive factions from gaining delegates to disrupt the national convention. However, this can result in candidates gaining viability in some precincts but not others, and a complicated "caucus math" required to allocate whole delegates to the county and state conventions for each precinct.[15] (The exception is Washington, whose delegate selection plan does not include thresholds at the precinct level.) In the primaries, the viability threshold is set based on statewide and congressional district votes. At-large and PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates are allocated based on statewide votes, while district-level delegates are allocated by district votes.[16]
This guy is unbelievable. Back to his letter, which is thankfully wrapping up:
Should the results in states that have rarely if ever voted Democratic in a presidential election over the last half century be accorded the same weight as the results in large states that form the heart of the Democratic base, and which the Democratic presidential nominee must carry in order to win the White House?
Nice smack at one of the key Democratic party values, the 50-State Strategy. I'm surprised he didn't suggest that some voters' votes should count more than others because they come from "big" states that vote traditionally blue. At least that would have been more intellectually honest than what he DID say. Continuing:
Should primaries in which voters who are not in fact members of the Democratic party voted in significant numbers be given the same standing for the purpose of choosing the Democratic party nominee as those in which only Democrats voted?
These are difficult questions, if not impossible ones, and super delegates who see their duty as mere numbers crunchers will have a difficult time sorting out the answers.
But being a super delegate is not the same as being a numbers cruncher. It is about consulting one's conscience about what is best for the United States, and about the party that we hope will assume the leadership of the United States.
Hm... Or, it could be about CONSULTING THE VOTERS you fucking asshat.
I have made my own personal judgment, and that is that Senator Clinton is the better qualified, more experienced and by far the more battle-tested Democrat to lead this country in a world that is increasingly dangerous, and where the stakes simply could not be higher. Others have made a different choice, and may yet make a different choice. But for the moment, super delegates who are not committed to either candidate should resist the blandishments of those who would trivialize their roles in the nominating process, and their responsibilities to the party, and to the country, about which we care so deeply.
Best personal regards,
Steve
The mind reels. Here's a guy who is urging superdelegates who remain uncommitted to ensure that they do so indefinitely yet he closes by professing his committedness. I suppose in a bright spot, we could infer that HE will change his mind and flip HIS support. But I rather doubt it.
I hate this letter on so many levels, it's difficult to parse. It is so blatantly partisan, and so totally focused on what seems to be the "new New" Clinton strategy for winning:
- De-legitimatize red states.
- De-legitimize states with caucuses.
- De-legitimize states with open primaries.
And - MOST importantly:
- Forget that voters are attached to the process.
I read teacherken's wrenching Saturday diary without a hint of recrimination towards teacherken himself. I thought he did a good job of explaining why he had reached the point he had reached, and I thought it was courageous of him to say so.
On Saturday, I hadn't reached that point yet - the point where I morally can't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Right now, at 2pm EST on Tuesday March 11, I'm closer to that point. I'm not there yet, but I'm closer.
And should I reach that point, it will be due solely and exclusively to the activities of a campaign that is placing winning above ANYTHING - any core value, any tenet, any principle.