Michigan and Florida: The Democrats' Waterloo or Chance at Redemption

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, warned on ABC's "This Week" (3/9) that a divisive nomination fight could cost the Democrats the White House. Gee, ya' think? Not much of a news flash, there, doc -- thanks for catching up.

Dean's concerned, of course, about the Michigan/Florida problem -- and all the fuzzy math being done by the opposing camps trying to twist the calculus in their favor. "I have to run these rules so that the losing side feels they've been treated fairly," he announced on the Sunday talking head show. Hmmm. If you can do that, buddy, Al Gore oughta give you his Nobel Peace Prize. There is likely not a graceful way out of this that is going to make everyone happy -- not with the increasing level of nastiness coming from both campaigns as well as some of their more devoted (rabid?) disciples. These folks have chugged the Kool-aid, which has blinded them from keeping their eyes on the prize. The real problem will be if the only outcome that will please folks is a decision that benefits their candidate and screws the other.

The DNC and Dr. Dean need to resign themselves that there is no pleasing everyone this time, and that some bloodletting is likely inevitable. The question is, how much hemorrhaging can this stubborn mule take before it has to be put down, and the White House is forfeited to Sen. "I'm-glad-to-have-the-endorsement-of-Catholic-hating-Rev.-Hagee" McCain. If the Democrats can let cooler heads prevail, and if both candidates can show a little leadership and see the forest for the trees, a decent resolution to this delegate mess could take the party in a meaningful step towards party reunification. We got ourselves into this mess -- the presidency may well hinge on how we get ourselves out of it.

Each campaign has crunched the delegate numbers and come up with the solution that works best for them. Clinton wants both state primaries, which she happened to win, to count toward her delegate count. Indeed, she desperately needs these delegates if she has any hope of catching Obama. At the very least, she wants brand-spanking new primaries in one or both of the states.

On the other hand, Obama's camp says a change in the rules mid-stream is unfair. He wants the delegates apportioned -- either split evenly (making the inclusion of both states a wash to his current delegate lead) or by another standard, but hasn't necessarily ruled out a new vote. Not surprisingly, given his dominance in caucuses, his camp has floated the idea of holding replacement caucuses -- though that was pretty transparent and doesn't seem to have gotten much traction. Why have caucuses in states that have always had primaries?

Dean has apparently expressed support for a new primary -- maybe even one conducted by mail -- at least for Florida. Why would he make a distinction between the two states? There's a very good reason: it was the Republican state legislature, and a Republican governor and McCain supporter in Charlie Crist, who came up with the bright idea to move up the primary in the first place. Over the opposition of Florida Democrats, I might add. But Dean has also said the DNC won't finance a second vote, and you can bet your next paycheck the Republicans in Tallahassee won't pay for it either -- hell, they've got a front row seat to the best political theater going.

I came across this provocative post on washingtonpost.com in response to this mess:

Howard Dean is not looking at the big picture; namely, to win in November. Not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan will likely cost Democrats the election. Seating the delegates won in the early primarys [sic] will alienate millions of Obama supporters with disaster even more certain. Seating delegations arbitrarily selected, perhaps equally divided, will satisfy no one. There is no better use of Party Funds than to hold new primarys [sic] in June. If Howard Dean is concerned about the ability of the party to afford them, he should announce a special fund raising drive for that purpose: I doubt it would take a week to collect ample funds. Posted by: Lee Sterne March 9, 2008 01:34 PM

The Florida Democratic Party -- chaired by one of my favorite former members of Congress, Karen Thurman -- is on a similar wavelength. Like Dean, they are pondering a mailbox election, with ballots sent to all of Florida's almost 5 million registered Democrats. The cost would be $4-6 million, and the state party wants someone else to foot the bill. But the party has also said they would accept a "soft money" contribution from, oh, I dunno, a wealthy Democratic donor, labor union, or some other fat cat willing to pick up the tab. And, last but not least, the Florida Dems also want firm agreements that Clinton and Obama would both campaign in the state. Where's George Soros when you need him??

Another entry at washingtonpost.com was also apropos, considering these delegate rules -- crazy as they are -- were set up a year and a half ago, and Michigan Democrats at least voted in favor of the scheme. It was only later that the two states decided not to abide by the plan, and this post reflects a lot of folks frustration about the results:

Personally, I'm annoyed at all these politicians from MI and FL complaining about having to do a revote. They knew what the penalties were when they chose to violate the rules. It is these FL and MI politicians that the voters should be mad at for getting everyone into this mess. Posted by: JT March 9, 2008 01:43 PM

But hey, after the 2000 debacle, Florida especially is not about to take this lying down. Two state senators -- one of them a Clinton backer-- are thinking about ratcheting up the stakes and the acrimony, with a bill proposing that Florida drop the party's eventual presidential nominee from the ballot unless it seats Florida's delegates. Holy crap. Can you imagine? While legal scholars doubt the constitutionality of the proposal, the Florida state Senate Democratic leader has already been approached by Republicans promoting the bill. Of course he has! Imagine the time, energy, money and good will that the DNC would have to burn to fight that law, were the Republicans to pass it? What a bloody nightmare.

About the best idea I've heard so far boils down to a group of party elders -- pretty much a Democratic cabal -- being gathered to figure out the mess once and for all. One member of Congress, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO), has echoed growing concerns about a Democratic meltdown over the election. He has urged Dean to appoint a panel of party elders to recommend a strategy to resolve the dispute. Folks like former President Jimmy Carter and former Vice Presidents Walter Mondale and Al Gore come to mind, likely to be joined by other undeclared but venerable superdelegates. Might there even be a role for John Edwards? I like the idea, but would add that it needs to be kinda like binding arbitration, with both Clinton and Obama agreeing to abide by the outcome beforehand -- no sour grapes afterwards. And it needs to happen soon, and the campaigns need to dial it back a notch until the issue is resolved. If Democrats handle this right, they could make progress towards a more unified party in November -- something we desperately need right now. Otherwise, they might as well hand the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the McCains right now.

This Women’s History Month, Women's Voices Women Vote is honoring those women that have utilized the internet to amplify their voices. Nominate your favorite woman blogger by March 21, then check back to vote for your favorite among our top 10 women bloggers. http://www.wvwv.org/

The Super Undeclared: Waiting for a Role at Convention?

Former Veep nominee John Edwards. Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), and Tom Harkin (D-IA). Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM). Fomer Veep and former presidential nominee Al Gore. What do these men have in common? Yes, of course, they all ran for president in their party's primary at some point -- in fact, Edwards, Biden and Gore have run for the roses a couple of times. At the moment, however, the most important thing these guys have in common is the fact that they have not endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Interestingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have also held their tongues in the superdelegate endorsement race.

Edwards is the only one of these folks who is not also an undeclared superdelegate -- that mystical commodity in Democrat-land that has become increasingly sought-after as traditional delegates, awarded the old fashioned way (aka, by a populer vote), become harder and harder to come by. There is still clear talk that Edwards might endorse -- he apparently had a love-in with Hillary and is being hotly pursued by Obama, of course. Either campaign would happily offer up their first born to have Edwards on their team, but he may also decide to stay his own man and attempt to play a larger role. Richardson has also said he will make up his mind in the next few days -- but heck, he wants to be Secretary of State, so I think he's just hoping to chose the right horse. (BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent Bill from being Secretary of State AND Vice President. Provocative idea, huh? Especially for Hillary, where the VP gig is already seen as actually worth less than 32nd Veep John Garner's much vaunted bucket of warm spit.)

However, even if you do subtract Edwards and Richardson, and add DNC Chair Howard Dean, you have quite the leadership council of the party. Hell, it's almost a cabal. Are these folks setting themselves up as supposedly neutral arbiters as the primary goes down to the wire, should it come to that? Gore in particular could be an honest, respected broker should intervention be necessary -- hell, half the country would like HIM to run (maybe he could pull a Cheney and pick himself as the nominee?). People like Pelosi, Biden and others have been talking to Gore in recent days, causing speculation that a fallback plan is already in the works. Question is, would this council step in only in the case of a brokered convention, or would they make a move before it got to that -- for the sake of party unity? And would this cabal, um, I mean, council of wise folks, have the power to really make either Hillary or Obama bend to their will?

Given that the popular vote in some states differs from the pledges of superdelegates, the worry of course is that the increasingly divisive primary race could fracture the party so badly that the general election goes down the drain right along with the civility. Pelosi has already said she believes the popular vote should decide the nomination, not the 795 super-special, superdelegates. I agree with Madam Speaker. This superdelegate system seems in many ways like the Democrats' own convoluted version of the electoral college, implemented after the party hierarchy's dissatisfaction with the popular choice of George McGovern back in the day, to ensure the people never made such a silly decision again.

Meanwhile, Hillary is busily spinning yarns in an effort to get Florida and Michigan included in the delegate count -- states that have been spanked by the DNC for daring to challenge the supremacy of Iowa and New Hampshire by moving up their primary dates -- and states that Hillary "won." I say won loosely since a full-scale campaign was not waged in either state, so while I admire the woman's chutzpah, it's really hard to say the gentlelady from New York won either contest fair and square.

It's clear the Democratic primary is going down to the wire. It also seems clear neither candidate is backing down, and that their respective supporters are becoming increasingly entrenched to the possible detriment of the party. While I am not a supporter of the superdelegate system, I do think it's a sound idea for cooler heads to prevail -- for some wise party leaders to try to negotiate a cease-fire. I don't want them picking the nominee -- that is for the people to do. But I wouldn't mind a reality check when the people's choice has become clear, and the honored also-ran needs a gentle push to the podium to make their concession speech. And hey, if the leader of that cabal is Nobel peace prize winner Al Gore, it could be a lot worse.

If You Want a Friend, Get a Dog

Once again, President Truman's old adage that there are no friends in politics has been put on embarrassing display. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are the latest entrants in the "who's lower than a dog" sweepstakes. Just this past week, Kerry gave his much-sought after, eagerly awaited endorsement to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Yawn. Who gives a crap. The only thing remotely interesting here is the personal spitefulness with which the whole thing was accomplished, which says more about Kerry than it does about any imagined dis that may have been delivered to his more gifted 2004 running mate, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC).

Of course, it's well known that the Kerry/Edwards relationship has been strained since early in the 2004 presidential race, when the more charismatic phenom beat Kerry in South Carolina and then proceeded to eclipse him on the campaign trail despite his #2 status on the ticket -- not a tough job, given Kerry's stoneface demeanor. But it's true that Edwards and his camp never really embraced the traditional role of the VP candidate as heat seeking missile, and there's talk that Edwards never shared his campaign lists with Kerry -- perhaps the Edwards camp simply viewed the veep nomination as a steeping stone. What a shocker! Truly unforgivable! Everyone knows that Edwards began his 2008 campaign before the 2004 results were cold, but the Kerry camp seems to think that action broke a pledge that Edwards wouldn't run until Kerry had decided on another go around (yeah, right, like we'd support that loser again!). But the word is that Kerry saw Edwards' 2008 aspirations as a betrayal, and apparently now believes what goes around comes around. The sad fact is that Kerry is trying vainly to make himself relevant in a political world that dropped him like a hot potato, and his anti-endorsement is sour grapes about Edwards' continued prominence as well -- taken together, it is not a well balanced meal.

And of course, in December, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) turned his back on Democrats (again) when he endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Never mind that Joe caucuses with the Democrats or that it's their majority which provides him with the committee chairmanship (aka, bully pulpit) the he loves so much. It seems sadly appropriate that good ol' Joe gave the Dems the cold shoulder from the frozen tundra of New Hampshire. Oh, and don't forget that good ol' Joe lent his weighty support to McCain instead of home state Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), as is traditional -- yeah, remember, Joe, when Dodd was the only senator who endorsed your wannabe, also-ran candidacy back in 2004, when you had your own delusions of grandeur about the Oval Office having your name on it? Now, I know Dodd endorsed Ned LaMont after he beat you in the democratic primary -- as did the rest of the Democratic party. You lost the party's nomination fair and square and for good reason, Joe. Dodd was just playing by the rules. But paybacks are hell, huh? I guess you learned about that from former Vice President and newly minted Nobel laureate Al Gore, who endorsed Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) over you, his former running mate. Bet that stung.

What's next, a McCain-Lieberman ticket? Hmmm.... well, they share bylines, write legislation together, why not crisscross the country together in a vain attempt to show their mutual obsession with a failed war policy really ain't so bad after all? While Lieberman says he has no ambitions to be VP (sure, Joe, 'cause your politics over the past few years haven't demonstrated an ounce of personal ambition), Sen. McCain credits good ol' Joe's endorsement with helping him out in New Hampshire. So, he owes you, right Joe? Don't bet on it... there are no friends in politics, as you've amply demonstrated. Don't count on being rewarded for this latest defection. Joe, we're not shocked by your endorsement/defection. In fact, you're becoming depressingly consistent. It's no wonder none of the democratic candidates asked for your support.