CAPITOL LETTER
Eleanor Clift
What If There is No Back Room?
The search for a way out of the Democrats' dilemma.
No matter who wins the remaining primaries, there's no way for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to capture enough delegates to reach the magic number of 2,025 needed to secure the Democratic nomination. The decision will then fall to the superdelegates, elected officials and party people often demonized in the media as hacks or backroom operators. A majority of them will swing behind one or the other candidate—likely Hillary Clinton—boosting her over the top even if she lags behind Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count.
And they will do this dastardly deed behind closed doors, in the electronic equivalent of the smoke-filled room, plotting over cell phones and making their decision based on implied favors and self-interest. This is the nightmare scenario. The good news for Democrats is that the excitement of two historic candidates generated hundreds of thousands of new voters; the bad news is half of them won't show up in November. But wait, things could get worse, or maybe better, depending on your perspective.
What happens if the superdelegates are just like the rest of the voters—i.e., they can't definitively decide between these two candidates? "What happens if they split the superdelegates?" asks an adviser to the Clinton campaign. The roughly 350 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed are all free agents. There's nothing that says they have to act in concert, and they'll work to avoid anything that fuels conspiracy theories. "My real worry is there is no back room," says this adviser. Clinton says she'll go all the way to the convention in August. If there's a stalemate, the superdelegates could decide to pass on the first ballot to test the candidates' strength at that juncture. We could then be way back to the future, the first time in the modern reform age that a candidate is not chosen on the first ballot.
If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.
Gore has kept his silence throughout the Democratic nominating season. But his name will surely surface as his party ponders the possibility that they will not have a nominee by the time the convention rolls around—especially since John McCain enjoys a huge head start in launching his general-election campaign. We have the Ted Kennedy forces to thank for the freedom of choice that all delegates enjoy, not just the supers. In 1980, Kennedy argued for an open convention, while President Carter was determined to keep convention delegates bound. With a 600-delegate margin over Kennedy, Carter prevailed. As a result, any delegate voting against the candidate he or she was elected to represent could be replaced by an alternate and thrown off the convention floor. The rule was strict and enforceable. Kennedy couldn't dislodge any of the Carter delegates. Two years later, after Carter lost the election, the phrase "in all good conscience" was inserted into the rule, belatedly giving delegates the latitude Kennedy had sought.
What does that phrase mean? In the eyes of the Clintonites, it holds the promise of some room to maneuver en route to the nomination. By the time August rolls around, if public opinion polls show John McCain beating Obama by 15 points, then what does a delegate or a superdelegate "in all good conscience" do? This week's general-election matchups with John McCain have Obama up by 12 points and Clinton up by 6, but that could change with Clinton pounding away at Obama's inexperience on national security. She's shameless, telling a military audience this week that she and McCain bring a lifetime of experience to the job of commander in chief, while all Obama brings is a speech. An unbloodied Obama fares better against McCain, but where will he be after Clinton is through with him?
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: gschwager @ 03/28/2008 3:42:33 PM
Comment: I would like to submit the attached comment as a Letter to the Editor for Newsweek. Can you tell me how to do this? gschwager@aol.com
The media and the Democratic party are missing an obvious solution to the Clinton Obama stalemate; Al Gore for Vice President.
Clearly, the greatest challenges facing our country cannot be addressed without greater cooperation between the interested parties. These parties include not only the Democrats and Republicans, but also corporate interests and the public's welfare. Bill and Hillary Clinton would bring very impressive credentials back to the White House, but the sad truth is that Hillary's presidency would result in continued devisiveness and gridlock. Much of the Republican base would happily support their Representatives' efforts to undermine the Cllintons and a recent survey shows Hillary Clinton's popularity is at the lowest level since the campaign began. In spite of Obama's ten years in elected office and unselfish devotion to important causes, he has been labeled as lacking experience. With Gore as his Vice President, an Obama-Gore ticket would be virtually immune to criticisms about lack of experience. Furthermore, Al Gore has readily admited, on numerous occasions, that he is "not very good" at being a politician.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to motivate and lead. Only by creating a broad coalition of support, can a president force legislators to find common ground in tackling our debt, social security, healthcare, environmental national security, education and economc challenges. The youth obviously recognize we are passing a myriad of problems on to their generation and they rightly want to do something productive about these challenges now. We should not undermine the democratic process by recruiting Al Gore for President, we should recruit him for Vice President, where he can more effectively pursue his environmental cause. Over the past four administrations, the Vice Presidency has been more import than any other time in our history. Without question, Al Gore would be in a position to negotiate his responsibilities is he ran with Obama as Vice President. Is Al Gore really too important to serve as the second most powerful person in the world, especially when given the latitude to write his own job description?
Posted By: Timetospeak @ 03/27/2008 6:05:09 PM
Comment: Why is there never any discussion of why the Super Delegates were created in the first place? One of the reasons was to help avoid some embarrasing Democratic losses when more senior party members voices weren't heard. So Super Delegates were introduced to give them this somewhat independent voice. That being the case the Super Delegates should avoid the pressure to commit themselves before the primary process plays itself out. Then they will look at who is ahead (and by how much) in popular vote and delegate count. Assuming there is no clear cut leader the Super Delegates must factor in who they think can win. They consider the Republican candidate (not known when the primary process started) and other events that may have changed things during the course of the long primary process. Then they do their job!
Having said all that, a good case could be made for the Super Delegates to withold their votes during the first ballot. Likely, no one would win forcing a second ballot. If I'm not mistaken all delegates (Super and Regular) would then be free of any obligation to vote for either candidate and could vote their conscience. (Including a vote for a third candidate.)
And, one last note, why is Al Gore the only compromise candidate mentioned so far? What about John Edwards? If I remember correctly, he never dropped out but only "suspended" his campaign.
BC
Posted By: Thomas Everett Davis @ 03/24/2008 2:12:53 AM
Comment: I had serious doubts about Hillary's candidacy from the beginning because of the baggage I thought she carried. She has weighed herself down with even more it, in her brazen attempts to gain the nomination at all costs. Her attempts to denigrate Senator Obama's candidacy are loathsome. Should she be the nominee, I will not vote for her but instead write in Senator Obama. She should bow out gracefully now, if she could even have the dignity to do so.