Posted by
Chelsea Thompson on Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:27:02 PM
Growing up, my mom was a stickler for bedtime, but daddy was easily swayed. We had an understanding—if I scratched his back, he would let me stay up for a few more minutes of Nick-at-Night. At the ripe age of five, I learned my first lesson in politics: the art of back scratching. I imagine that Hillary Clinton learned the same lesson on one of her father-daughter duck hunts as well, considering she and her hubby seem to have mastered the itch. Unfortunately for both of us, though, it seems that back scratching is no longer in vogue. There’s a new fad in town, and politicians are trading in their back rubs for a giant dose of change we can believe in.
Over the past few months, political pundits have said time and time again that party superdelegates may very well have to decide upon the Democratic nominee at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in August. One would think that Hillary Clinton would have these party elites in the bag; after all, the Clinton machine is well-known for having doled out mass amounts of political favors over the past twenty years. But instead, Hillary has been losing endorsements faster than Bill can say “Monica” as the once loyal members of the Clinton entourage back the junior senator from Illinois.
Forty years ago, Democratic leaders chose a very unpopular Hubert Humphrey to be their candidate in the presidential election. After the 1968 Democratic National Convention catastrophe, they learned their lesson and, two years later, established the McGovern-Fraser Commission to look into Democratic primary reform. What resulted was a much more inclusive delegate selection process which encouraged grassroots activism from women, minorities, and the like. When the new system turned out the one state wonder, George McGovern, and Washington Rookie, Jimmy Carter, however, party leaders began to rethink their “power to the people” philosophy.1
In 1982, Former governor of North Carolina, Jim Hunt, chaired the Democratic Party Commission on Presidential Nominations, the committee responsible for creating the so-called “superdelegates.” With this commission, party leaders reclaimed their territory. Under Hunt’s reforms, unpledged delegates chosen from a pool of governors, state chairs, congressmen, and mayors are allowed to vote for a nominee without necessarily following the will of the people. In theory, these delegates are independent of the popular vote, instead weighing such factors as experience, leadership style, and the ability to win a general election. Since the Hunt Commission’s inception, superdelegates have made up approximately fifteen to twenty percent of the convention’s delegates, but party elites have assured their followers that the system is no-less democratic. Hunt himself recently explained the importance of superdelegates in a Washington Post guest column. “In creating superdelegates, the Democratic Party recognized the expertise that its top holders of public office have gained by running for office themselves. They are experts at winning. They know the issues…in short,” he says, “they can help the Democratic Party pick a winner.” 2
But can they? By all logic, the choice should be clear for the superdelegates. Hillary has the experience, the swing states, the middle class, and a less-than faithful husband whom Americans love. At the end of the primary season, she’ll most likely have the most popular votes (yes, I’m including Michigan and Florida in my tally), and she has assured us that she is more than ready to take on Senator McCain in the fall. Obama, on the other hand, has a pretty face, less than one term in the Senate, a courtship with a crazed pastor, and a message of “change.” He’s fresh and hip, and he has an uncanny ability to connect with the people, but his three and a half years of experience in the United States Congress doesn’t begin to compare to McCain’s twenty-six. The superdelegates should be clamoring to Hillary, but they just can’t help falling for Barack. 3
Take Senator John Kerry, for instance. In January, the former presidential candidate turned against the Clintons and his own 2004 running mate when he announced his endorsement of Obama, saying that the Illinois senator has the ability to unite the country. “We are electing judgment and character,” he argued, “not years on this earth.” Rewind to October 2004 when John Kerry and George W. Bush were neck and neck, and Kerry was having a hard time connecting to voters. Senator Clinton spent countless hours campaigning and raising funds for the Kerry campaign, and though recovering from an emergency quadruple bypass surgery, her husband came to Kerry’s rescue and joined him on the campaign trail. “If this isn't good for my heart,” he joked, “I don't know what is." When asked how Clinton would add to his campaign, Kerry responded, “This was a very successful president in terms of policies of our country.” He praised the former president for balancing the budget and raising minimum wage during his time in office. Kerry seemed to appreciate the back scratch, but given Kerry’s recent change in heart, the Clintons have to be asking, “What gives?” 4
According to CBS News, it’s a bad case of sticks and stones. We all remember back in 2006 when John Kerry was ridiculed after telling a group of students at Pasadena City College that those who don’t study hard “get stuck” in Iraq. Both Republicans and Democrats were up in arms about the inflammatory remarks. When asked why Kerry had distanced himself from the Clinton brand in the 2008 presidential election, aides told CBS news that he did not appreciate the fact that Clinton joined the Republicans in criticizing him for this slip-up. What’s puzzling about this claim, however, is that three days after Kerry’s blunder, Clinton actually worked to shift the focus away from his remarks. She told the New York Times, “Everyone wants to move on….this election is about the issues that we’re confronting right now.” Later, she admitted that what Senator Kerry said was “inappropriate,” but also encouraged voters not to allow the comments to distract them from the bigger issues at stake. Given the circumstances, Clinton did all that she could to divert attention from the senator’s comments, and in the same situation, I’m not sure that Kerry would have acted any differently. The Clintons were an enormous help to Kerry back in 2004, and if he decided to cut the Clinton cord because of Hillary’s reaction to his moment of idiocy, then maybe the Clintons are better off without him. The stakes are too high for silly recess games.5
Kerry wasn’t the only superdelegate to cross the Clintons, however. Just a few days later, fellow Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy announced his support for Obama as well. Despite Clinton’s plea for neutrality, the “liberal lion” went ahead with the endorsement, citing Obama’s inspirational leadership and opposition to the Iraq War as reasoning for his decision. What’s puzzling about this endorsement, is how Kennedy has seemingly forgotten about the favors he has received in the not-too-distant past from the Clinton duo. During the 1994 Massachusetts senatorial race, Kennedy had a difficult time putting up a defense against Mitt Romney. When Kennedy cried out for help, the Clintons were there. “There is not a single, solitary member of the U.S. Senate more interested in new ideas than he is,” President Clinton said of Kennedy, “In the most partisan atmosphere in modern history, he is absolutely the ablest member of the Congress at getting Republicans to vote with him and work with him to make this country a better place.” Hillary also came to Kennedy’s aid calling him “one of the greatest senators who has ever served in the U.S. Senate.” He thanked Clinton not only by endorsing Obama, but by scratching her off the short list of Democratic running mates. 6
One of the biggest blows to the Clinton campaign, however, has been Governor Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama. After a long courtship with the governor, the Clinton camp was quite shocked to hear that Richardson, the former Secretary of Energy and later ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton, had jumped ship. After spending Super Bowl Sunday with Governor Richardson in New Mexico, Clinton assured the campaign that he had secured Richardson’s endorsement. Weeks later, he was completely taken back by the Governor’s announcement, feeling as though Richardson had gone back on his word. Not only did he endorse Clinton’s opponent, but he directly criticized the Clinton campaign, saying that it had “gotten too negative.” In justifying his endorsement, Richardson referenced Obama when said, “There’s something special about this guy.” He continued, “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.” After hearing his reasoning behind the endorsement, we have to wonder why he wouldn’t “try to figure it out” before he went ahead and endorsed the Senator from Illinois. James Carville, political pundit and long-time Clinton friend called Richardson’s sentiments “an act of betrayal,” drawing a parallel between the betrayal of Clinton and the betrayal of Christ by comparing Richardson to Judas who “sold out for 30 pieces of silver.” 7
As I write this, the words “Breaking News” are flashing on my TV set. Normally, I ignore these words as they don’t mean much in today’s media circus, but apparently Senator John Edwards has decided to alter my word count by jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Ever since he dropped out of the race, Clinton and Obama have been petitioning Edwards for his endorsement, emphasizing the issues of poverty and middle-class workers in their stump speeches. Former Edwards advisers said that during the past few months he has been dealing with a “heart-versus-head split—with his heart favoring Sen. Barack Obama’s strong message of change, and his head attracted to Clinton’s tested nature and commitment to tough fights.” (ABC News) On Wednesday, his heart won out. “There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America—not two,” said Edwards, “and that man is Barack Obama.” (NYT) The timing of this endorsement came at quite an interesting time, right after Hillary Clinton claimed a landslide 41% victory in West Virginia, a state with a large working class electorate. “We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat,” Edwards said on Wednesday. “We are a stronger country because of her years of public service.” Stronger party, stronger country, but not the stronger candidate? Does anyone else see a problem here? At least one Edwards decided to follow her head. The senator’s wife, Elizabeth, did not appear with her husband at the rally in Michigan because she is said to favor Senator Clinton and her health care plan. Way to help a sister out, Elizabeth. Stick it to the man! 8
Another female Clinton supporter, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, has been met with great criticism over the past few months for endorsing her fellow congresswoman. Despite pressures from members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from private interests such as the 400,000 member ColorofChange.org, she has stood her ground. “Part of my job,” she explained, “is to recommend candidates to my constituents.” Clinton, she says, is the best candidate for the job. One of Tubbs Jones’ biggest critics has been Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-D) who said that Black House members "should reflect and ratify, not nullify, the will of the people,” stressing that “they should be accountable." Now, the last time I checked, Clinton won Ohio by quite a large margin. If that’s the case, then we must ask ourselves, why would Jackson encourage her to strike down the will of her own people? Rev. Markel Hutchins, an Atlanta activist and another critic of Tubbs Jones accused her of stifling our communities with “loyalism and political indebtedness.” But again, if Clinton won Ohio by almost ten percent, then it would seem as though Hutchins is suggesting that Tubbs Jones keep racial ties before serving the wants and needs of her constituency. Something about this just isn’t adding up. 9
While Tubbs Jones has remained loyal to the Clintons, other former Clinton fans have left them out in the cold. One man in particular, Representative John Lewis (Georgia-D), has caused the Clintons quite a bit of grief. Lewis, one of Clinton’s strongest African American supporters, had initially endorsed Clinton back in October, but switched camps back in February when he gave into pressures from the African American community. Obama represented “the beginning of a new movement in American political history,” Lewis said, and he stressed that he wanted to be “on the side of the people.” His district showed overwhelming support for Barack Obama, and he refused to go against the will of his constituents. Fellow Georgia congressman and former Clinton supporter, Representative David Scott, also changed course when his constituents voted for Obama in the Georgia primary. 10
While the notion of upholding the people’s will is poetic, it’s not what Hunt and company had in mind for the superdelegates. The idea behind the Hunt Commission wasn’t to reaffirm what the people had spoken; instead, it was to put a check on the voters’ decision-making capabilities. As undemocratic as it may sound (and well may be), the superdelegates were put in place to stifle the voice of the people. Party leaders blamed the electorate for nominating McGovern and Carter, and they established superdelegates to serve as watch dogs for the Democratic Party.
The problem, it seems, is that the superdelegates aren’t clear as to what their role is in this election. While some delegates see themselves as independent actors in the nomination process, others view themselves as representatives of their constituencies. Tubbs Jones and Lewis are prime examples of these two different schools of thought. By no fault of their own, they have different understandings of the superdelegate guidelines. The different interpretations of the Hunt commission, however, are causing discord within the Democratic Party, and if the DNC wants to maintain its legitimacy, it may need to revisit its superdelegate guidelines or do away with the system altogether. If the DNC wants its superdelegates to cast their votes based on candidate qualities and potential, then they need to make that clear. If they want the superdelegates to merely reflect the views of their constituencies, however, then there really is no point in having a superdelegate system in place. For a party that was so adamantly against the Electoral College following the 2000 presidential election to continue in the superdelegate tradition doesn’t make much sense. Democrats need to call on their party leaders to bring democracy back to the party of the people, that is, if their party leaders will allow them to speak.
The other problem facing the superdelegates is that of loyalty. Never in a million years did I think that I would ever come to Hillary Clinton’s defense during an election, but I genuinely feel sorry for her this time around. When I say loyalty, I’m not referring to back-room politics or the Daley machine; instead, I’m referring to a kind of loyalty in which friends remain true to their word and demonstrate their commitment to shared ideals. Governor Richardson and the boys should be ashamed of themselves for leaving the Clintons in the dust. I’m not sure if they’re afraid of the race card or if they’re trying to position themselves for cabinet appointments, but whatever their reasons, what they’re doing just isn’t right. If it weren’t for the Clintons, the Republicans would have enjoyed almost thirty years of GOP bliss. If it weren’t for the Clintons, many of these superdelegates wouldn’t be where they are today. If it weren’t for the Clintons, half of them probably wouldn’t even be superdelegates to begin with! The not-so-super superdelegates need a lesson in loyalty, and they need one quick.
There’s an old saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Well, if Hillary Clinton’s our woman, then I expect that the Lake of Fire has to be piping hot right about now. She has been scorned by her very own, and she can’t be too pleased with the recent Clinton coup. As a fellow student of the back scratching tradition, I feel it is my duty to caution those who have chosen to cross the Clintons. They are treading dangerous waters, and I’m not sure if they know who (or what) they’re up against. There’s another old saying that I learned from the school of back scratching, and it goes a little something like this, “If at first you don’t succeed, sharpen your nails.” Superdelegates, I suggest you watch your backs.
___________
2. Nather, David. “Leaping Voters in a Single Bound.”
Congressional Quarterly Weekly. Washington D.C.: CQ Press, 2008, 482. Magazine on-line. http://public.cq.com/docs/cqw/weeklyreport110-000002675899.html25 February 2008. Hunt, Jim. "
Why the Superdelegate Idea Works." Washington Post. 27 February 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022602649_pf.html (accessed 14 May 2008).
4. CBS/AP. “John Kerry Endorses Barack Obama.” CBS News. On-line. Available from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/10/politics/printable3695636.shtml (accessed 14 May 2008); Branigin, William and Mike Allen. “Clinton Campaigns with Kerry in Philadelphia.” Washington Post. 25 October 2004. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60722-2004Oct25?language=printer (accessed 14 May 2008).
5. Tapper, Jake, Mike Callahan, and Avery Miller. “Did Kerry Hand Republicans a November Gift?” ABC News. 31 October 2006. On-line. Available from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2619383&page=1; Healy, Patrick. “Senator Clinton tries to Redirect Focus from Kerry.” New York Times. 2 November 2006. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/washington/02cnd-hillary.html; Fox News. “Hillary Clinton Joins Criticism of Kerry as Dems Call for Apology.” Fox News. On-line. Available from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226584,00.html .
6. Associated Press. “Senator Kennedy Endorses Barack Obama.” MSNBC. On-line. Available from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22873162/ (accessed 15 May 2008);Venocchi, Joan. “A loss for Kennedy.” The Boston Globe. 6 February 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/06/a_loss_for_kennedy/ (accessed 15 May 2008).
7. Nagourney, Adam and Jeff Zeleny. “First a Tense Talk with Clinton, Then Richardson Back Obama.” New York Times. 22 March 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22richardson.html?pagewanted=print (accessed 13 May 2008).
8. Klein, Rick and Raelyn Johnson. “Edwards Weighs Clinton Endorsement.” ABC News. 13 February 2008. On-line. Available from http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4281404 (accessed 14 May 2008); Rutenberg, Jim. “Ex-Rival Edwards Throws His Support to Obama.” New York Times. 15 May 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/politics/15obama.html (accessed 16 May 2008).
9. Murray, Shailagh. “For Black Superdelegates, Pressures to Back Obama.” Washington Post. 3 March 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030202434_2.html?sid=ST2008030300128 (accessed 18 May 2008); MSNBC. “2008 Primary Results: National Overview.” MSNBC. On-line. Available from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#OH (accessed 18 May 2008).
10. Zeleny, Jeff. “John Lewis Changes Endorsement to Obama.” New York Times. 28 February 2008. Newspaper on-line. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E4DA113FF93BA15751C0A96E9C8B63 (accessed 18 May 2008); Zeleny, Jeff and Patrick Healy. “Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama.” New York Times. 15 February 2008. Newspaper on-line. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/Z/Zeleny,%20Jeff (accessed 18 May 2008).