February 15, 2008

2/15: Delegate Wars

The debate over superdelegates is growing increasingly heated. On one side are MoveOn (which has endorsed Barack Obama), Democracy For America (the grassroots political organization founded by Howard Dean), and the Superdelegate Transparency Project (which is being promoted by bloggers such as Chris Bowers). These groups seek to pressure the superdelegates into supporting the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. On the other side are bloggers such as Todd Beeton and Jerome Armstrong, who think these online campaigns are merely a thinly veiled attempt to secure the nomination for Obama.

Several bloggers -- including Josh Marshall and Markos Moulitsas -- think superdelegates will ultimately support the pledged delegate winner, making this whole debate irrelevant. But if neither Hillary Clinton nor Obama emerges as the clear pledged delegate leader, what then?

DEM FIELD: On The Road To Oblivion?

TPM's Greg Sargent reports that MoveOn is entering the battle over superdelegates: "In a sign that the spin wars over the super-delegates are starting to heat up in a big way, MoveOn has just jumped into the fight, sending out a mass email asking supporters to sign a petition urging super-delegates to back whoever wins the popular vote...A MoveOn spokesperson says that the criterion the supers should use to determine the will of the people is whoever is ahead in pledged delegates at the end of the day."

MyDD's Todd Beeton thinks MoveOn's motives are less than pure: "Let's be serious, no one really thinks these two groups would be launching these campaigns if Hillary Clinton were currently ahead in pledged delegates, do they? These are clearly proxy Obama campaigns at work, which is fine, certainly DFA and MoveOn are entitled to do so, it's just the self-righteous tone they use that I find somewhat offensive and, frankly, manipulative...If DFA and MoveOn were really concerned with superdelegates' representing the 'will of the people' they'd actually be urging elected officials to pledge to vote for the candidate who wins his or her state or district."

Open Left's Chris Bowers explains his views on the matter: "I don't really blame the Clinton campaign for implying that the popular vote does not matter as long as it is close, and that they consider all delegates equal no matter how those delegates were elected to the convention...I imagine that any campaign in their situation would say or do exactly the same thing...Still, I still feel it is imperative that democratic values, no matter how imperfectly those values are represented by the staggered primary and caucus process, be upheld in this campaign. This is not only for the sake of the values themselves, but also for the sake of keeping the party from suffering a generational body blow to its image and activist corps."

Bowers continues: "If, in the days and weeks after March 4th, the margin of democratic imperfection in the system is still greater than the margin between Obama and Clinton, then that is the bitter and unfortunate reality we all face. At that point, there simply will not be victory in this campaign for either side without making successful arguments to enough super delegates that they should vote one way because it is the right thing to do, and that they better vote one way or else...If you are willing to engage that fight, for starters, you can add your name to the petitions currently being circulated by Democracy for America and MoveOn.org. This might not be a crisis situation yet, but it is good to start working to make sure that it never becomes one. Give the super delegates the push they need."

David Sirota is less charitable toward the Clinton camp: "Looks like Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is getting its superdelegates (aka party insiders) to start softening up the public for a potential trampling of democracy that may mark the Democratic National Convention. This morning we have two superdelegates from different parts of the country landing headlines in their local papers saying they are fully prepared to ignore voters and trample democracy -- as long as that lets them help Clinton potentially steal the Democratic nomination...To sign a petition demanding superdelegates respect democracy, go here. And make sure to check out the Superdelegate Transparency Project here."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "What's most interesting to me about this whole affair...is that the Clintonistas would even suggest the use of super delegates to subvert the will of the Democratic Party electorate. It betrays a lack of confidence in their candidate's electoral viability, even with a calendar that will become far more favorable to her in March, while seemingly confirming every right-wing charge that the Clintons place winning above all else, including principle."

DEM FIELD II: This Is Not 'Nam. This Is Bowling. There Are Rules.

Sirota believes that the FL and MI delegations should not be seated: "Clinton partisans will counter that we should count the Florida and Michigan delegates because they were supposedly 'disenfranchised.' What a joke. The candidates agreed not to campaign there, and agreed that the delegates would not be seated. Now, of course, the Clinton partisans want those delegates to count, even though they were banana republic-style elections -- no campaigning, and in the case of Michigan, not even anyone other than Clinton on the ballot. Puh-leeze."

Ezra Klein is also annoyed by the Clinton camp's FL and MI spin: "To make one more point on the Clinton campaign's promise to try and re-seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, it's getting a bit annoying to watch them discover brand new principles as soon as they become politically useful...I never, not once, heard anyone in the Clinton campaign denigrate the representative nature of caucuses when it look like they might win Iowa...Similarly, when the DNC decided to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegations, I never, not once, heard the Clinton campaign stand up stop the whole thing from happening. They stayed silent, and even assented to the DNC's decision...Sure, it's politics, Clinton is angling for advantage, if a bit cynically. But that judgment is not where the conversation stops: If it's cynical, risky politics that brings a lighted match and a can of gas near the Democratic coalition, it should be named as such, and its consequences understood."

Open Left's Mike Lux thinks a "backroom deal" is needed to resolve this issue: "On the one hand, not to seat delegations from Michigan and Florida would be wrong morally, because it would disenfranchise voters who have no fault in the matter...On the other hand, we had rules set up that the candidates agreed to and were in support of and signed off on that said that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count in terms of delegates. When you have rules that are agreed to and signed off on, and then it's to one candidate's advantage that those rules be broken, you shouldn't just throw the rules out...So we have to come up with a solution to this problem...What needs to happen is that Howard Dean needs to bring some people into this process who are neutral parties, have them sit down with the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties, have representatives from the campaign so that their point of view is known, but he needs to put together a deal to solve this problem."

Digby wants FL and MI to hold new primaries: "In a campaign that looks like it's going to cost a billion dollars, I think the money can be found to hold new primaries in both states. Since neither of the candidates campaigned in the first round neither should complain. It's not cheap, but it's doable. Chris Bowers...suggests that the Florida delegates should be seated as is and offers some solid reasons as to why that makes sense. But since legitimacy is a problem with this whole thing and I've heard talk of 'marching in the streets all the way to Denver' I think we can assume that seating those delegates in a way that would tip the results is a non-starter. So, I'm for a new election...It would be the most legitimate tie breaker possible and would probably offer the winner a real mandate. It would certainly be better than having a bunch of fat cats make the decision."

CLINTON: Your State Is Insignificant

The Clinton campaign is taking criticism from liberal bloggers for a statement made by Chief Strategist Mark Penn, who told reporters:

"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Atrios: "The dismissal of the voters of dozens of states and relegating them to insignificant status is the kind of thing which can come back and bite you in the ass. I'm sure in late August, the people of Colorado will appreciate their insignificant status even more."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "An awful lot of us live in the states that Penn has just flagged as insignificant. It kind of rankles."

Moulitsas: "Really, has there ever been a more idiotic line of spin in the history of politics, the suggestion that because Obama didn't win a Democratic primary in California or New York, that those two solid Democratic states are suddenly out of reach for him in November? With that logic, it's obvious Clinton has no chance in Illinois, since she got crushed there! But worse than that, how is Clinton expected to win some of those important states that 'don't matter', like Colorado, Missouri, Washington, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Maine, Delaware, Iowa, and Connecticut? Well, not insulting them as meaningless, for one."

TPM's Josh Marshall: "The last couple days have shown very clearly I think that Clinton could do nothing better for her campaign than to throttle this clown and let her get down to the business of making a case to voters for her candidacy...Now you have Penn successively saying caucus wins don't really count, small state wins don't really count, medium state wins don't really count, states with large African-American populations don't really count, all building up to yesterday's gem: 'Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.'"

CLINTON II: Your Caucus Is Also Insignificant

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Bill Clinton for downplaying the importance of caucuses when he said:

"The caucuses aren't good for [Hillary]. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

Moulitsas: "What is it with the Clintons and their efforts to insult any state or person who didn't support Hillary? I sort of expect that sort of thing from any campaign's most rabid supporters, but this stuff is coming from the candidate herself, from her husband, the former president of the United States, and the campaign's top leadership. How much more insulting can they get?...Even in many primary states, low income voters still supported Obama over Clinton, like Virginia (62-36), Louisiana (58-36), and Missouri (51-46) to name just three. I wish they'd stop it and simply admit the real reason for their caucus problem -- they didn't organize and run a national campaign so they're having trouble winning states without strong Democratic machines to do the heavy lifting for them."

Daily Kos diarist scotslass: "I'm sorry, but what did you say? Those 'upper income' service union workers in Nevada don't need a president? Those thousands of caucus-goers who turned out to vote for YOU didn't need a president?"

OBAMA: On, Wisconsin!

Bowers thinks Wisconsin is a "must-win" for Obama: "It is pretty safe to say that Obama is still well behind in Ohio, and that he probably has no way to make up the ground there unless he wins Wisconsin. With Obama only holding a narrow lead in Wisconsin, it is entirely conceivable that Clinton pulls out a victory there. If Clinton were to win Wisconsin, momentum could reverse on a dime, or at least stop altogether. At that point, it is hard to see how Obama catches up in Ohio...If Clinton wins Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Wisconsin, then Obama's pledged delegate lead probably drops to double-digits heading into the six-week interval, with Pennsylvania, super delegates, and fights over Michigan and Florida looming...Without a victory in Wisconsin, there might not be any way for Obama to seal the campaign before Pennsylvania, and possibly even June or ever."

MyDD's Jonathan Singer notes that the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama and HRC separated by a mere 4 points in WI: "This is the second straight poll showing Barack Obama's lead in Wisconsin within the margin of error. The Pollster.com average out of the state has the margin between Obama and Clinton at less than 5 points. It sure seems, as Rasmussen says in its lede, that this is a tight race."

On a related note, Lux warns the Obama campaign not to get cocky: "My old friend David Plouffe was in the paper today saying Obama has this thing wrapped up in terms of pledged delegates; that there is hardly any chance at all at losing the pledged delegate count. My advice to my old friends in the Obama campaign is please, please do not get overconfident, do not project overconfidence, do not act like you won this thing...The dynamics are in your favor. You have the ability to build a lead in delegates that the Superdelegates are not going to change, and would not have the guts to change if they wanted to, but you can still blow it...The way you blow it is by getting dreamy and taking your eye off the ball the way you did after Iowa. You thought you had it won after Iowa too. You didn't, and you haven't now."

OBAMA II: A Tipping Point?

Several liberal bloggers are discussing Rep. John Lewis's apparent decision to cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, even though he endorsed HRC last fall:

Josh Marshall: "The willingness of a high-profile politician not simply to endorse one candidate but to switch from one to another (at least in terms of who he believes he'll vote for as a super delegate) is a powerful sign that a tipping point is at hand. But the most immediate and significant import is Lewis's signal that whatever the basis of his original endorsement he is unwilling to join Clinton in carving a path to the nomination through the heart of the Democratic party."

TPM's Eric Kleefeld: "It looks like the Hillary campaign probably can't count on the super-delegates to save them, should they lose out in the elected delegate race. So if it becomes clear that Obama ends up with an insurmountable lead -- or Hillary, for that matter -- there could be a strong message from super-delegates that the loser has to concede defeat and close up shop."

Matthew Yglesias: "This kind of thing is probably a leading indicator of what I expect will be a looming collapse in her superdelegate lead if she doesn't start making a quick recovery in the ranks of pledged delegates (something I think she may well do; I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week)."

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat doesn't like Lewis's rationale for voting for Obama: "If Lewis and others limited the comments to respecting the wishes of their constituents, that would have been fine. But now we hear of Obama's historic candidacy as the reason for the switch. Translation -- it is because Obama is an African-American. This is an invitation for divisiveness."

MCCAIN: More Conservative Than You Think?

Several conservative bloggers now view McCain's fiscal record more favorably after reading Kevin Stach's Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which Stach praises McCain's "25-year record of supporting pro-growth tax cuts":

NRO's Peter Robinson: "Performing a close examination of McCain's record ever since McCain first took the oath as a member of the House of Representatives all the way back in 1983, Stach finds that McCain has proven a reliable, even ardent, tax-cutter. McCain's 2001 vote against the Bush tax cuts, in other words, amounts to an anomaly, not part of a pattern -- and even that looks at least slightly better than it might otherwise seem when understood in context."

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "McCain actually did vote for the 2001 tax cut -- in its original version, which included a mandatory cap on discretionary spending. That got removed and the bill got porked up, in a demonstration of what the next five years would hold for budgeting in the GOP controlled Congress. McCain felt betrayed and voted against it in protest. For fiscal conservatives, this track record looks better than one might expect. In fact, it looks considerably more Reaganesque than the track record of McCain's fellow Republicans over the same period of time, including some darlings of the conservative movement."

On a related note, RedState's Directors endorse McCain: "We will speak up when we disagree with John McCain on issues. But at the end of the day, RedState supports John McCain for President of the United States. For the next nine months we intend to vigorously fight for his election and to defeat the Democrats. Some of you will, for matters of personal conscience, feel you cannot meaningfully support John McCain. Some of you may even refuse to vote for him, as others have. While we understand this decision for many of you, we strongly disagree with this rationale. As hard as it may be to accept at this moment, we would remind you that voting is not an act that is about you -- or how it makes you feel. It is about doing what is best for the future of America."

Right Wing News' John Hawkins thinks McCain still has work to do: "Most conservatives will come around and vote for McCain, but millions won't. Conservative turnout will, in the end, partially come down to whether McCain is willing to make some gestures to show conservatives that his heart is in the right place. So far, McCain has done almost nothing in that area beyond showing up at CPAC."

MCCAIN II: Pulling A Bob Dole?

Conservative bloggers are discussing rumors that McCain will resign his Senate seat in order to focus on running for President:

RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks this is a bad idea: "Governor [Janet] Napolitano is obliged to choose a Republican in the event that McCain abandons his seat, but she can choose any Republican she wants. Which means that she will choose the one most likely to lose the next election. It would be a lousy idea to have McCain abandon his seat during his Presidential race. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Here's hoping that this is just a bad rumor."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein agrees: "As exciting as the possibility of having a Sen. John Shadegg is, I think it would be a huge mistake for McCain to abandon his seat. Though it may free up time to run for president, it would reinforce the age issue by communicating the impression that he's a man in the twilight of his career. Expecially if he's up against Barack Obama, the last thing he needs is a series of headlines with the words, 'MCCAIN RETIRES' in them...McCain would be much better off keeping the seat so he could communicate that he is still young and vigorous, in spite of his age."

Townhall's Matt Lewis: "In a perfect world, McCain would be elected president, and Republicans would retain his seat. Either way, the prospects of replacing McCain with a Senator John Shadegg or a Senator Jeff Flake, would probably be welcome news to many conservatives."

ROMNEY: Gracious In Defeat

Conservative bloggers were pleased that Mitt Romney endorsed his former rival McCain:

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Romney casts himself in a good light with this move, proving that his personal feelings will not stand in the way of making the decision that's in both his and the nation's interest."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "If you believe Senators Obama and Clinton, they fundamentally fail to understand the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq or the contours of the menace in Iran. Neither appears to grasp the jihadist threat. Senator McCain does. Because Mitt Romney cares deeply about the safety and security of the country, he was certain to endorse Senator McCain. That he did so quickly is a testament to the starkness of the choice facing America, McCain's complete commitment to victory, and Romney's understanding of the stakes."

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "On one level, Romney is making good on his pledge to unite the GOP and prevent the Democrats from taking the White House in perilous times. However, he is also amplifying the contrast between himself (high-minded GOP loyalist) with the man who may be his competition in 2012 or 2016, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee seems bent on pursuing his quixotic campaign, perhaps to build a political base or perhaps to enhance his speaking fees."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: '04 vs. '08

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti makes a comparison:

"Looks like the 2008 issue matrix is shaping up to be...rather similar to the 2004 issue matrix. If this speech and this statement are any indication, John McCain plans a general election campaign highlighting the contrasts between him and the Democratic nominee on national security and the economy.

It seems to me, however, that there are two differences between this election and the last. One is John McCain, and the other is Barack Obama. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, the presidential candidates in both parties will be likable (and well-liked) political figures with proven abilities to broaden their party's base of support. That wasn't exactly the case in 2004, if you recall.

Another potential difference between the two elections is that public opinion polls seem to indicate that, on a variety of issues (every issue except abortion and guns, from what I can tell), the political center has shifted left. If that had been the case in 2004, George W. Bush would not have won reelection. But it is 2008, and John McCain understands, and knows how to win, the political center, wherever it falls on the ideological spectrum. Which means no particular outcome is certain. And no issue is off the table."

LEST WE FORGET: A Few Good Pitchers

NRO's Jonah Goldberg passes along a spoof of Roger Clemens' congressional testimony:

Clemens: You want answers?
Congressman: I think I'm entitled to them.
Clemens: You want answers?
Congressman: I want the truth!
Clemens: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has baseballs. And those balls have to be hit by men with bats. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Congressman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for steroids and you curse HGH. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that HGH, while illegal, probably sells tickets. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, sells tickets...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that mound. You need me on that mound. We use words like fastall, slider, splitfinger...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent playing a sport. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and falls asleep to the Sportscenter clips I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a bat and dig in. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Congressman: Did you order the HGH?
Clemens: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Congressman: Did you order the HGH?
Clemens: You're goddamn right I did!!

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 15, 2008 01:28 PM