Democrats' Rules Set Stage for Messy Nomination

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Democrats' Rules Set Stage for Messy Nomination
Effort to Avoid Back-Room Deals Could Cause Chaos
By JUNE KRONHOLZ
April 22, 2008; Page A6

(snip)

How did the Democrats get into this mess?

The short answer is that they have two candidates of roughly equal popularity and organizational strength. The longer answer starts with Hubert Humphrey, picks up steam with George McGovern, has a lot to do with fund raising and hits the rocks on the aspirations of Michigan and Florida for a bigger voice in the nomination. The party shut down its legendary smoke-filled rooms where ties could be broken and decisions brokered after the chaotic 1968 Chicago convention. Vietnam War and civil-rights activists rioted that summer after finding themselves shut out of the nomination by party bosses who had already settled on Vice President Humphrey.

Until then, party tradition held that the few state primaries were nonbinding beauty contests, delegates were chosen at closed-door meetings and delegations voted as a bloc, which kept them under the control of big-city mayors or governors. In response to the Chicago uproar, a commission co-chaired by South Dakota Sen. McGovern rewrote the party rules to require states to hold a primary or caucus and allow delegates to vote individually for the candidate of their choice. "The people just kind of took over the process," ending the power of party honchos, said Sen. McGovern, now 85 years old and a Clinton supporter. His own chaotic convention in 1972 helped force the party's other major change -- the superdelegates. Young McGovern delegates beat out such party powerhouses as Massachusetts Rep. Tip O'Neal for seats as delegates at the convention, Sen. McGovern said. His historic drubbing that fall convinced the party it needed the leavening hand of its party elders to resolve ties and prevent the party from nominating another unelectable candidate.

The superdelegates last settled a nomination in 1984 when they gave former Vice President Walter Mondale the decisive last delegate votes. But the superdelegates didn't create a public outcry: Mr. Mondale already had 500 more delegates than Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, superdelegates accounted for one in seven delegates rather than today's one in five and almost no one knew about their voting power, anyway.

Delegate-rich Florida and Michigan opted to jump this year's calendar queue and risk losing their convention seats as punishment because they were convinced that the nomination would be settled quickly, the winning candidate would restore their seats and Iowa's and New Hampshire's reign would be ended. "It was worth running the risk of losing delegates," said former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a 2004 candidate for president. What largely unsettled that strategy was Internet fund raising and the millions of small donors it brought into the campaign. In the past, the losers of the early contests would find their donations quickly drying up among big funders, effectively ending their ability to compete. "Now, you can raise money regardless of your losses. You can go on and on," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who represented 1988 Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in rules disputes.

(snip)

The Obama campaign says it added 218,000 new donors in March alone to bring its donor base to 1.3 million. Some 26 million voters already have cast Democratic ballots, 43% more than in all of the 2004 primaries. "You have a million people invested financially" in the campaign, said Joe Trippi, who managed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's 2008 race. "How are they going to handle it if the say 'no, it's not going to be him.' Can you win the general election?"


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120881878986032809.html (subscription)

[digidigido]

1. If this continues, it can't be Clinton or Obama

All Hillary can do is force a brokered convention. She can't win, she can destroy, and if that happens there are over 1,300,000 people who have put their
money where their mouths are who will not support Hillary, if at all, then with any conviction. The only choice then would be to draft Al Gore. Hillary
just makes me sick, and I'm a democrat. I've voted democratic since 1968. If she gets the nom I don't know if I hold my nose and vote for her, or consider
leaving the country. I find it hard to fathom why there are people that don't embrace Obama, I just don't get it. But I do get that Hillary is divisive politics,
politics as usual, and she's doing her best to bring it down to the gutter and bring down the party

[GetTheRightVote]

2. I will never vote for her, that is not an option for after what she has done

I do not even consider her a Democrat anymore because I believe that the party and its' membership deserves much better then her, Obama.

[The Call Up]

3. I agree with the other posts

I consider myself a left-leaning Independent and I've never been so optimistic about any other candidate as I am about Obama. But Hillary has made this so ugly and she and Bill have been so dishonest. They lie relentlessly and with no shame - it's almost psychopathic.

It all has really just made me not even want to watch the news anymore. I'm really convinced that the party will end up defying the votes of the people and stealing the nomination for her. It really makes you feel helpless - which is sort of how we all felt with George W. Bush.

I just can't support her. She is literally destroying HOPE and in such a dishonest way.

And if the DNC doesn't throw this "Superdelegate" element into the garbage after this Primary, then it will really make the Party seem sinister.