Amazing Mental Gymnastics!

[lsanderson]

Got a Problem? Ask the Super
By GERALDINE A. FERRARO

AS the race for the Democratic presidential nomination nears its end and attention turns to the role of so-called superdelegates in choosing the nominee, it is instructive to look at why my party created this class of delegates.

After the 1980 presidential election, the Democratic Party was in disarray. That year, Senator Ted Kennedy had challenged President Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination, and Mr. Kennedy took the fight to the convention floor by proposing 23 amendments to the party platform. When it was all over, members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party. The rest of the campaign was plagued by infighting.

In 1982, we tried to remedy some of the party’s internal problems by creating the Hunt Commission, which reformed the way the party selects its presidential nominees. Because I was then the vice chairwoman of the House Democratic Caucus, Tip O’Neill, the speaker of the House, appointed me as his representative to the commission. The commission considered several reforms, but one of the most significant was the creation of superdelegates, the reform in which I was most involved.

Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?

Most officeholders, however, were reluctant to run as delegates in a primary election — running against a constituent who really wants to be a delegate to the party’s national convention is not exactly good politics.

So we created superdelegates and gave that designation to every Democratic member of Congress. Today the 796 superdelegates also include Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee.

These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

It worked. In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce. It generated no fights at the convention. It was a document that no one would walk away from. We lost in 1984, big time. But that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting.

Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support. More Comments

Somehow, I missed this in Monday's paper. You gotta admire a person that's mastered double-speak and the ability to perform mental back-flips at the drop of a hat.

Let's see.. Superdelegates are meant to lead and not follow. And they should never, ever even think about switching to Obama because that's following and not leading. Caucuses and Open Primaries don't count, unless, of course, they're in Michigan or Florida, and then they should. Or, of course, if Clinton won, then they count regardless. Oh, and by the way, she's supporting Clinton, as I'm sure you'd never ever guess from reading her piece as a Democratic Elder Who Helped Fix Everything Right.

Comments

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

What was amazing to me about this article is that I found it really interesting, compelling even, through 3/4ths of it. I didn't really know the issues from 1980 and I agree with her about her criticisms of the primary system. It's wierd that Republicans in some states could vote in the Dems primary, but not in other states. That's not normal.

And then suddenly, at the end, she turns into a rah-rah Clinton thing which totally goes against her argument.

I disagree with her comments

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

About the Primary System/Caucus system. It's primary controlled by the state parties. Each state party gets to pick their primary system: caucus, primary, open or closed, and date of the event. The primary rule of all primaries is to show up and vote. If you're outside the guidelines of the National Party, they get to pick what to do with you: The Repugs sat half the delegates. The Dem's rules seat none.

Much of this came about waay before 1980 after the disaster of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. The changes she's talking about were an attempt to fix the fixes that let McGovern run against Nixon.

She's making an Elitist argument. It's pretty transparent to me. And lottsa whinging.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I feel strongly that my elected representatives should take my political views to the law-making process. I vote for them based on my perception of their ability to do that.

The other point of view is to vote for the representative whose personal views are most acceptable. I don't believe that the representative's personal opinions should carry much weight when compared to the majority opinion of their constituents.

Of course there are tons of implementation details with either position, but the super-delegate is a manifestation of the latter viewpoint and one I don't much care for.

K.