Hillary's Shock Troops To The Rescue?

I have to admit that I’m starting to reconsider the respect I once had for the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. I was willing to overlook the presence of individuals such as Mark Penn and the campaign’s reliance on other well-heeled politicos to sell the Hillary “brand” to its audience of Democratic consumers, and I was even willing to overlook some of the clumsy attempts by former president Bill Clinton to separate his wife’s campaign from that of Barack Obama (which continues to impress me with its organization and efficiency, by the way, to say nothing of the candidate himself – and yes, to a certain extent, he is getting a free ride from our corporate media which I expect to end abruptly at any moment).

And I am continuing to reconsider HRC after this New York Times op-ed today by former Congressperson and vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in which she claims that the so-called Democratic Party “superdelegates” should be allowed to choose the nominee (I don’t think anyone is arguing against that, exactly, as long as the superdelegates act in accordance with the popular vote of the party – and by the way, you can also read this op-ed from Hillary Clinton’s web site if you so choose, which to me amounts to a tacit endorsement).

Here is an excerpt…

These superdelegates (formed in 1982 as a result of the Hunt Commission)…are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

It worked. In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce. It generated no fights at the convention. It was a document that no one would walk away from. We lost in 1984, big time. But that loss had nothing to do with Democratic Party infighting.

All well and good so far, but then we get to the following…

…the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

Well then, I think that, based on this from Media Matters about the 2008 primaries, Ferraro should prepare herself to be shocked…

In New Jersey, Democratic primary turnout of 1,104,000 was 69 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. In Massachusetts, the turnout of 1,170,000 was 48 percent higher than the previous record turnout, with 98 percent of precincts reporting. In New York, the turnout of 1,744,000 was 11 percent higher than the previous record turnout with 99 percent of precincts reporting. States in other parts of the country also had record turnouts among Democrats. According to the Political Ticker, Missouri exceeded its prior record by 47 percent (and voters in the Democratic primary outnumbered voters in the Republican primary by 200,000. According to the Political Ticker, the prior record for Democratic votes in an Arizona primary was 239,000, a number it had already surpassed by 31 percent with 67 percent of precincts reporting).

And as Media Matters also tells us, a Feb. 6th article in the Hartford Courant noted the following…

Turnout among Democrats exceeded the previous record of 43.3 percent in 2006, when anti-war challenger Ned Lamont denied Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman the Democratic nomination in a primary. Turnout in the March 2, 2004, presidential primary, when John Kerry cruised through a depleted field, was 20 percent.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said she expected turnout to be around 50 percent.

Note: the actual turnout ended up at about 53.4 percent.

And get a load of this from Ferraro’s column today…

Because (Florida and Michigan) went strongly for Mrs. Clinton, standing up for the voices of grassroots Democrats in (those states) would prove the integrity of the superdelegate-bashers. The people of those states surely don’t deserve to be disenfranchised simply because the leaders of their state parties brought them to the polls on a day that had not been endorsed by the leaders of our national party — a slight the voters might not easily forget in November.

No one that I know of is suggesting that the delegates of those states not be seated because their state legislatures stupidly voted to move up their primary dates against the objections of the DNC. The question is merely how the delegates should be apportioned between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

So what kind of a solution does Ferraro then recommend to the question of the superdelegates? Does she state that they should be allocated proportionately to the winner and loser of the Democratic primary in a way that represents the overall vote?

Why, no…

As it happens, the superdelegates themselves can solve this problem. At this summer’s Democratic national convention in Denver, the superdelegates could assert their leadership on the credentials and rules committees.

And thus work on behalf of Hillary Clinton to make sure she gets all of the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan where she ran uncontested, let’s not forget (though I should add this post by Chris Bowers of Open Left as a caveat of sorts; basically, there’s nothing stopping the superdelegates from doing almost anything they want).

I’ve run hot and cold, as it were, on the Times and much of our corporate media in this election partly because of their treatment of John Edwards’ candidacy, but also because of their continual reinforcement of the “Obama Good, Hillary Bad” narrative at every opportunity. However, I thought Frank Rich made some good points in his column yesterday on the many missteps of the Clinton campaign in the face of that of Barack Obama, which has operated with precision and economy and helped propel his candidacy almost to the point where the nomination is secured (almost).

That is the reason why the Clintonites find themselves in this silly fix over the superdelegates (and don’t forget Ferraro’s paranoid supposition that the “supes” are switching from HRC to Obama because they believe they’ll face primary contests the next time they run for office if they don’t – reminiscent of the “chauvinism” charge of Ferraro here; it’s truly startling to contemplate the unreal world in which HRC’s campaign seems to operate).

Update 3/10/08: All class, Gerry - sheesh.

Update 5/19/08: That's OK, Gerri; we don't need your vote anyway - WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Update 5/21/08: Wow; I can hardly wait to hear what Bob Herbert has to say about this, assuming he chooses to even dignify the comment by responding.