Kevin Sullivan

Rules, Rules, Rules

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Again, I don’t wish to dedicate so much time to confronting the anti-Obama inanity of a few, but Big Tent Democrat seems to severely misunderstand what’s wrong with seating the MI and FL delegates as tallied to date.  His argument?  Obama outspent Clinton in Florida (although you need to play the link game to find it, and it’s unclear what span of time they’re talking about), so naturally, their efforts were on par.  Hence, it’s alright that Florida broke the Democratic Party’s rules, and yes, they should be allowed to have dramatic influence in the nomination process of a party they gave the proverbial finger to.

Sound about right?  Obama spent a lot, so uh, he deserves to get screwed by a state that bucked the party.  Here’s the crux of it: When bucking the party benefits Senator Clinton, it’s quite alright.  When it benefits Senator Obama, well, bad form.

Indeed. 

UPDATE: Flippancy is abound.  This has been a consistent pattern for the Clintons.  When the process gets in their way, the Clintons dismiss the process, or act as if the process is too arcane and confusing.  Maybe it is, but I’m pretty certain they’d have little to say on these rules if the process favored Hillary in Texas.     

More Superdelegates

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Bill Kristol seems to agree with me.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be advertising that.

More at memeorandum.   

Superdelegates

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

They are the new hanging chads. 

We are seeing this meme begin to brew on the Left, and I think it needs a little deflating.  The fact that superdelegates are not bound actually defuses their power.  The fact that we know who they are defuses their power.  Many of these people will be on the ballot this fall, and there’s no obvious benefit in favoring Clinton or Obama early in the process.  If the national primary has proven anything, it’s that high turnout follows wherever the Clinton/Obama show goes.  After eight years of Republican reign, Democratic voters seem eager and anxious to vote it all away.  Being down the ballot from either of the senators will likely be beneficial for them.  Those who have no electoral concerns will still be susceptible to lobbying (and are in fact being lobbied right now),and will be pushed to go the way of their states, the way of their districts, and so on. 

Those unelected party dignitaries–such as Jimmy Carter–will likely go with their gut or the trend.  If Obama is that trend, look for those superdelegates to join the bandwagon (look at the institutional senate support he already has).  If Clinton looks stronger, perhaps she’ll get their nod.  But we should do away with this theory that there is some insider conspiracy that somehow favors the Clintons.  We’ve already witnessed the Old Guard of the party’s propensity to pass on Hillary and Bill. 

If we want to talk conspiracies and elitism, I’m much more concerned about the Michigan and Florida delegates.         

Shyamalan Twist

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Two conflicting stories this morning on the way the Democratic nomination process is playing out.  First, there’s Marc Ambinder in the NY Times arguing on behalf of the pleasant “mess” that we’re witnessing.  In the piece, he praises Howard Dean’s efforts to tinker the Democratic nomination process into a national process.  I don’t know that I agree entirely with Ambinder, however.  The adjustments were certainly intended to open up the selection process to a more diverse population of Democrats, but all along, the dual purpose seemed to be intended to expedite the nomination. 

I also take issue with the notion that Florida and Michigan would be more influential had they played by party rules.  Had they done so, you would’ve seen a full court press in both states by Obama and Edwards.  Clinton would’ve still been heavily favored in the sunshine state, however Obama and Edwards–with the state’s concentrated African-American population and working class men–obviously would’ve scooped up delegates in Michigan.  By bucking the party’s rules (along with the Clinton campaign), they have become the quintessential X Factor in the nomination process.  They will, after all, be allowed to either sit or get a redo.

Cheating pays off, apparently.  And now, with Howard Dean talking about backroom deals, it would seem as if the great national primary may take a Shyamalan twist.  While more Democrats have had a say in who the top two candidates will be, the party elites may instead decide the sole nominee.  Sure, in the past you had a lot of perfunctory primaries.  But the nominee was the nominee chosen by voters, not the DNC, or the even scarier bogeymen we call suuuperdelegates.

To be honest, I’m fine with the elites of a club picking their nominee.  The national primary process has been great, but would it be so great if it were 2004 all over again?  Imagine if a rather popular President Bush were just waiting in the wings, while the Democrats took the nomination into July.  Participation is great, but so is winning.  This is only fun now because there’s no incumbent.     

More at memeorandum.         

“Suspending”

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

 Is Edwards really done?  Read the transcript:

Now, I’ve spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

—

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency.

But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker’s gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

Suspending?  Suspension is not withdrawal.  It’s not dropping out.  As Donna Brazile noted today on CNN, this could allow him to sit back, not endorse and see what happens on February 5.  If he can still chip away at some delegates, and the race between Hillary and Obama tightens, he may still get to play kingmaker at the convention. 

Trippi says that they’re “banging down the doors” for an Edwards endorsement.  I’m sure the are.

I think Edwards is giving himself this week, so let’s see if he endorses.

Shadow Primary

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

The Kennedy endorsement just might shift the super-friends. 

The Denver 10?

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

Is that what we’re in for?  That seems to be the implication in Joshua Spivak’s L.A. Times column from last week:

The 1972 nominee, George McGovern, did very well in the primaries but went on to a crushing defeat in the general election. The party leaders saw further erosion of their own power in the two succeeding elections, as little-heralded Jimmy Carter won the nomination and the presidency in 1976, and Edward Kennedy was able to mount an unsuccessful but damaging primary challenge to Carter in 1980. In response, party leaders made a significant revision to the selection process.

In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process — and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven’t come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes.

This year might be different. Because no front-runner has emerged, and the compressed time frame of the election may prevent any candidate from gaining enough momentum, no candidate may have enough delegates by convention time. In that case, the super delegates, the majority of whom currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton — but who could switch sides at any time — could well be the decision-makers at the convention. And this could be a real problem for the Democratic Party.

In general, the last place the public would want the nominee selected is on the convention floor. In the heyday of the conventions, when the presidential candidates were selected in backrooms and on the floor, there were always rumors of vote buying and corrupt bargains for the nomination. Today, such events could fatally weaken the candidate in the public’s eyes. The existence of super delegates would compound the problem.

The elected delegates, though virtually unknown, are at least selected by the voters and pledged to the candidate those voters chose. Most of the super delegates aren’t chosen by the general populace, and they are not bound by the votes in their respective states. If they end up making the difference in the nomination — especially if the winner came into the convention in second place — there is a strong possibility of disenchanting a good portion of the party’s base, potentially costing the party the election.

Democratic Party leaders should be forewarned: The 1982 attempt to control the nomination could very well come back to haunt them in 2008. 

Well, Hubert Humphrey was a darn fine Liberal, despite what the students in the streets had to say.  Democrats managed to nominate many good candidates prior to 1972, prior to McGovern-Fraser and prior to the Chicago protests.  As a friend of mine recently argued, the Democratic Party is essentially non-governmental, and acts like a club.  You want to be in the club, you follow the club’s rules.  This club doesn’t need to appease the hyper-democratic impulses of everyone who bellyaches.  That’s just silly.

This is all especially relevant now, since the super delegates have come into question with the prospects of an undecided race following February 5.  Obama leads the bulk delegate count, but depending on who you ask, Clinton leads in the super delegates count. 

So what’s the solution?  Super Duper Delegates.  These extra special delegates–appointed by FDR’s ghost–could essentially serve as a Justice League that prevents the lesser demi-delegates from running astray.  They will appear once every four years to help us make better choices.

Or, we could go back to the smoke filled rooms and party bosses.  Since smoking bans are all the rage, the party will need to hold the convention outside.  The backrooms will now be party tents with catered sandwiches. 

Alright, I’m done now.        

Talk is Cheap

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

It seems like we routinely get these cottage industry theories on how the Democrats should “do” national security, and how it should contrast with Republican talking points on war and “cowboy diplomacy.”

The problem, and the reason neo-progressives such as Yglesias suffer from this kind of revisionism, is that many on the Left have deluded themselves into believing that only arch-conservatives promote “inchoate nationalism.”  If there’s a better developed or more preferred form of nationalism, well now’s the time for Leftists to bring them up.  If they want to return to the Democratic foreign policy that built international institutions with purpose, then let’s hear it.  If they would like to return to the party of nationalism, preparedness and Wilsonianism, well let’s hear it. 

But if the Left’s new refrain is the same as the old, that being more talk of imperial footprints and such, well good luck running on that in 2008.  The nature of the executive as war whooper upper–for better or worse–is a construct of Liberalism.  Everyone converts to Quakerism after five years of war, but the position of the presidency lends itself to militarism and action.  John Kennedy didn’t ask for discretion and “creative” diplomacy.  He asked Americans to look to the stars with awe, and to Moscow with ire. 

This is something that would never get the Jonah Goldberg stamp of approval, but the reason Liberals aren’t fascists or Commies is because they killed those people, and they protected Americans from those people.  Both literally and conceptually.  So, run on global institutions and nuance at your own peril.  It’s a surefire way to put a decorated war veteran–and unabshed tough guy– in the White House.