You Can Go Ahead And End The Superdelegate Process Any Time

Though in the final analysis, the chaotic and difficult Democratic primary race in 2008 did not impact the general election - and contra Big Tent Democrat, Obama took Florida and Michigan - the campaign, and the role of unelected "superdelegates" in deciding it, embarrassed the Democratic Party and offered little confidence that the will of the electorate in deciding the nominee was being honored. So proposals to do away with that part of the process and reform the primary system please me to no end. Superdelegates are not the only thing wrong with the system - front-loading primaries, the role of unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire, the unnecessarily limiting caucus system which disallows everyone from participating - but they are the most high-profile failing, and should be stricken as an artifact of a top-down structure designed to subvert the will of the people if their passions grew too out of line with the prevailing wisdom. As Elaine Karmack said at the DNC meeting studying the primary process, the superdelegates ended up ratifying the leader in popular votes in 2008 anyway, and so they probably don't need to exist. "Their deliberative role... has in fact been supplanted by a very very public process."

I was worried that, considering the unlikely event of an actual primary in 2012 against President Obama, that the DNC would shy away from fiddling with the primary process. But they appear to have learned the lessons of 2008. Good.

Overhauling The Primary System

Considering that the Democratic primaries in 2012 won't be much more than a formality, I wondered whether or not there would be a strong urge inside the DNC to just move on and make no meaningful changes to the primary system, despite the epic car wreck of 2008. The other strain of thought is that, because 2012 will have no winners and losers, it's easier than ever to change the system because stakeholders will have less of an impetus to game it. Looks like the reformers won out:

Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina will lead the Democratic Change Commission, which is scheduled to report its findings no later than Jan. 1, 2010. The commission, which is largely comprised of Democrats who supported Mr. Obama (and a few who backed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in last year's contentious primary season), will review and streamline the 2008 calendar.

"This commission will focus on reform that improves the presidential nominating process," Mr. Kaine said in a statement, "to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate."

Comprised of 37 members, the commission has this mission:

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system.

Let's break down these issues separately. Kaine is setting a marker that no caucus or primary can be held before February 1 of the calendar year, which I think makes sense. Sadly, he's still holding to this front-loaded structure, where a first wave goes between February 1 and March 1. I'd rather see a rotating regional primary rather than a system which encourages practically every state beyond the first tier to go on March 1. Not to mention the fact that the DNC couldn't get Michigan and Florida to hold to these dictates last year.

On delegates, the wording is a little vague, but the resolution provides for "a significant reduction of the number of unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegates in order to enlarge the role and influence of primary and caucus voters in the presidential nominating process." That's a solid principle, and ultimately I'd like to see the superdelegates phased out, or at least not phased in until a second ballot so that the voters rule first. Delegate allocation formulas will get a makeover as well, and good, because one Congressional district shouldn't be favored over another based on whether or not they have even-numbered or odd-numbered delegates.

Finally, on caucuses, there is talk about maximizing "the opportunity for full participation by Democratic voters," and I agree. Maine has an absentee-ballot system for caucuses, and that should be the model. I know many people believe that caucuses are inherently marginalizing and should be abandoned, but they hold value as party-building events, and that decision should be up to the inidividual state parties.

Anyway, I'm glad we're talking about this very early, to allow for the range of debate prior to the next contested primary election.

Returning The Party To The People

I hate to get off the McCain house train (and really, I hate to), this is a great move by Team Obama.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign will call next week for the creation of a commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012, with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle for the Democratic nomination between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The commission also will be urged to redraw the nominating calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at ensuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

Up for grabs: no more Super Tuesdays, moving back the calendar to at least February, adding absentee voting to caucuses, and reducing superdelegate power.

Primary reform isn't a sexy topic, but given the clusterfuck that we endured this spring it's absolutely essential to rebuild the stature of the party. Obama is doing the right thing, and by the way the Clinton campaign is involved in this as well.

This shows Obama is listening to the rank and file. I'm as encouraged by that as almost anything he's done so far.

Open Forum For California DNC Candidates

You wouldn't know this unless you follow these things closely, but this coming Sunday, June 15, is very significant in the future of Democratic politics. On that day at the California Democratic Party executive board meeting in Burlingame, 19 men and women from throughout the state will be voted in as DNC members. Those elected will take their positions after the Democratic National Convention in August, and will serve through the DNC in 2012. Here's the list (it's a PDF) of names who will appear on the ballot - 9 men, 9 women and the 19th-highest vote-getter regardless of gender will win the election.

Now, why is this important? These 19 DNC members will be part of the organization that will need to decide how to reform our completely broken primary process that almost turned a historic nomination season into utter chaos. There is no other issue - not the war, not poverty, not the economy, not health care, nothing - where DNC members will make any kind of a difference compared to primary reform. I know a lot of party members read this site, so let this be a jumping off point for discussion. No California e-board member should vote to elect any of these candidates without knowing their plans for primary reform. And on the flip, here are a few ideas.

Here's a brief sketch of some of the necessary reforms, IMO, that I wrote at The Washington Monthly last week:

Now the next challenge, in my view, is reforming this disastrous primary system entirely, reviewing it from top to bottom and ditching the most undemocratic elements. I would move to a rotating regional set of primaries (decided by lottery on January 1 of the primary year so nobody can park in any one place prior to that), superdelegates with no vote until after the first ballot, which is reserved for delegates picked directly by the voters (so they get to go to the party but not have an undue influence on the process), and all delegates selected proportionately based on their state's popular vote. I would remind those who think caucuses should be thrown out that they are tremendous party-building tools, and many of the states with caucuses this year are swing states (Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, even Texas perhaps), and those state parties captured priceless voter contact information on hundreds of thousands of voters who could be turned into volunteers.

Let's go a bit more in depth.

Primary schedule - the reason that we ended up with such a chaotic system for delegate selection is that Michigan and Florida jumped the line set by the DNC, and instead of past years where sanctions would be granted on those states only to be lifted after the winner was chosen and the delegate counts no longer mattered, this was a close race. So that sanction hung over the entire primary season. Yet the DNC must be able to manage their own nominating process. So it seems to me that they shouldn't allow one delegate to be chosen before their set date for the beginning of the primaries, and that states should be grouped by region and chosen by lot. This breaks the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold (and if they don't like it, really, let them secede), eliminates the penchant for 30 visits to the early states on the calendar, and continues to allow for retail politics through the various regions. It's somewhat similar to the American Plan.

Real proportional representation - the current system is kind of a joke, in that congressional districts which allocate even-numbered amounts of delegates have quite a bit less influence on the overall result as districts which allocate odd-numbered amounts. Simply put, it's easier to gain an advantage in an odd-numbered district, needing only 50% plus one, as it is in an even-numbered district, needing as much as 63% of the vote. There is absolutely no reason why the delegate allocation can't be proportional based on statewide popular vote, with the congressional allocations included later. Furthermore, the states need to be proportionally represented relative to one another - the system of add-on delegates and rewarding states that kept their primaries later in the process and giving Puerto Rico more delegates than 27 states simply has to end.

Dealing with the superdelegates - all of these DNC members elected will then become so-called "superdelegates," so I recognize that asking them to renounce their own power and influence is kind of dicey. But nothing had a more damaging impact on the party than the perception that the process was controlled by party insiders who could subvert the will of the people. That it "worked out" in the end is of no consequence. Superdelegates really shouldn't have such an outsized impact on the nominating process. I suggest that their votes for President and Vice President at the DNC don't count on the first ballot, ensuring that they get a ticket to the event but the voters have the first crack at choosing the nominee. A standard of 50 or even 55% could be set as the necessary threshold to get the nominee over the top, if superdelegates want to hold out the option of having their wise counsel be determinative.

There are probably dozens of other ideas, but I want to open this up to discussion. How would you reform the primary process, and what can potential DNC candidates do to assure you that they will adequately represent the interests of California voters to see the process reformed?

The Flood

Everyone's trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon before he clinches. Maxine Waters is the latest.

In a further sign that that party is uniting around Barack Obama in order to prevent Hillary Clinton from taking the fight past tonight, Hillary has just lost a high-profile liberal member of Congress who supported her: Maxine Waters of California, who has just re-endorsed for Barack Obama.

"As an outspoken advocate on issues critical to women and children, I have great admiration for Senator Clinton and know first-hand her commitment to our country," Waters said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.

"However, our nation is at crossroads. Now is the time for us to unite so that real change is possible in November."

It was obvious from the moment everybody started whining about how "superdelegates will overturn the will of the people!!1!" that there was no way that would happen. Politicians are pretty nervous, self-interested creatures who flock to power, and it was clear that when a candidate was seen as inevitable all the supers would jump to him or her. It was never going to be any other way. So the whole "Superdelegate Transparency Project" and all of that was nice, but completely unnecessary. If anything the supers decided for Obama.

I do have to say that having the first African-American nominee of a major party is a uniquely strange and terribly gratifying. It feels like a new day. I wish we had a primary process that was worthy of crowning such a nominee instead of letting superdelegates do it, and hopefully that will change.

Just A Flesh Wound

I'm a sucker for Monty Python references.



By the way, while I think she is being sincere here, Hillary Clinton will not be taking this fight to the convention. That's because the superdelegates are rushing to Obama at such a rate that Michigan and Florida can be seated, even with her most favorable numbers, and he'd still win. He has a majority of pledged delegates and that will soon include Michigan and Florida, too. I don't like the primary system for Democrats for a variety of reasons, but under the system we have, the people and the superdelegates have made their choice. There's a reason Obama is simultaneously being very admiring of and ignoring the challenge of Clinton, and running the general election - and by the way I like this tactic:

Ten years ago, Obama said, McCain proposed barring registered lobbyists from working for candidates' campaigns.

"John McCain then would be pretty disappointed in John McCain now, because he hired some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington to run his campaign," Obama told a crowd of 15,000 at a Tampa arena.

McCain recently instituted a new no-lobbyist policy on his campaign, forcing out some top aides.

"And when he was called on it, his top lobbyist actually had the nerve to say the American people won't care about this," Obama said.

He does have a knack of picking up on things in the alternative, progressive media and using them. Obama can play this game of how he doesn't buy into framing or partisan gamesmanship, and he certainly analogizes that to blogging, but he's so far been running this general election like a blogger - speaking truthfully and forcefully while armed with new information to use against his opponent. I'll let him play the unity and hope line - but he's proving himself through his actions.

My Money, Your Vote

This is some Tammany Hall shit, if true. And I don't think Clinton orchestrated it, actually, this is what some rich people do when they're trying to get what they want:

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

If that doesn't tell you that we have to radically change the delegate selection process, nothing will. Whether you're an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter, there can be no doubt that the manner in which the party chooses its nominee is haphazard, uneven, counter-factual, and simply unbecoming of a political party that prizes every vote and every voter. The system buckles when anything happens except a runaway winner taking charge early. The drawn-out fights get more drawn-out. The superdelegates decide the nominee, and even if most of them are elected it's unseemly. The number one topic on the agenda at the DNC after the election ought to be how to reform this busted system and come up with a primary process we can all be proud of.

I also agree with TBogg, the Presidency is not about picking the first whatever, it's about choosing someone fit to lead the country, and the devolution of this primary into identity politics was extremely unfortunate and sad, and it turned me off to the process in many ways. I'm over it now, but that's ALSO a factor of how the nominee was chosen. So it's all got to change.

Wrapping It Up

It's kind of funny that the Obama fans in the blogosphere were the ones worried about the superdelegates deciding the nomination in favor of Hillary instead of "the people," when in reality they're deciding it for Obama. Which is their right, and considering that it's completely within the DNC rules and there's no "real math" that ought to be stopping them, I say good. There's certainly no additional information that they need. According to Obama's tabulations, he's 160 delegates from clinching the nomination.

Clinton is reminding me of that Hall of Famer who plays just one season too long - see Babe Ruth for the Boston Braves, or Willie Mays with the Mets - but she's earned the right to go out on her own terms.

Wash

So we've got primaries in North Carolina and Indiana tomorrow. I think the best rule of thumb in this primary is to assume that the scenario which is most inconclusive politically will happen, even though that same scenario will improve Obama's position but while everybody in the media acknowledges this immutable fact nothing will be done about it. So it is with tomorrow. Obama will win North Carolina, Clinton will probably win Indiana, half of the remaining pledged delegates will be split almost evenly, Obama will have all but clinched his lead on that score, but the race will continue because a certain someone refuses to accept reality. The superdelegates are actually coming out of the woodwork, and the fact that more of them are swinging to Obama means that Clinton really, really, can't win. But "the fight goes on."

The Clinton McCain 419

This letter at the new site Gas Tax Scam is hilarious.

CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL

Dear Sir

First we must solicit your confidence in this issue. This is by virtue as being utterly confidential and "top secret".

We are SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, the wife of the former United States head of state, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, and also SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, friend and associate of current head of state PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH. We got your contact through business inquiries as we were searching for contacts of a citizen who can help save our and our family's political careers since our country has been frustrating us.

We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains.

If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a "GAS TAX HOLIDAY". You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Please supply your bank account, social security number, address and your vote in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION.

It's surprising that a proposal that, after all, at its heart cuts taxes on driving does not have a plurality of support. It's kind of a freak occurrence (a contested primary with few other differences in policy forces the traditional media to actually cover the issue in a substantive way, and the unanimity among experts forces them to insert that into the debate rather than the more expected he-said she-said), but it does show what can happen when people get all the facts and are able to think for themselves. A pander only works when it's actually popular.

Of course, this is not really about the gas tax, but about Clinton's gambit to paint Obama's supporters as not real people. It's code for the "elitist" label that she's clearly been trying to stamp on him. And none of this changes the fact that superdelegates keep moving against her and the window of opportunity to actually win the nomination is closed. It just pisses off those Democrats who have been paying attention. Understand that this entire gas tax kerfuffle only aids Republicans in their effort to perpetuate a stereotype against Democrats.

Rachel Maddow on Friedman Units

Rachel Maddow basically just namechecked Atrios on MSNBC and called the race a series of Friedman Units, where pundits and media types say "the next primary will be over!" and then nothing happens. This was the ultimate inconclusive result, the most annoying result, in Pennsylvania, 30-40 million to get a 10-point win with probably less than ten delegates in Clinton's favor. The media has a real desire to keep this thing going and hype up the "this is it!" nature of the next primary, and then nothing happens. I'm with Matt Yglesias - this has to end. There really isn't a whole lot more information that superdelegates are going to get. There's a saturation level that has been reached. We know the strengths and weaknesses of these candidates. We know what demographics they win against one another and what demos they lose. About half the Democrats in the country like Clinton and half like Obama. She's from the Northeast and he's from the Midwest, and they get a tilt in their favor in each of those regions. He can't knock her out because she's really good at campaigning, and she was swamped by him early because he's really good at campaigning. The level of competition is far higher here than it will be in the fall against John McCain, actually. So the superdelegates can make their choice. They could make it today.

And I agree with Stoller, we're going to be fine. Democrats forced a runoff, and came within a hair's breadth of winning, in a seat in the middle of Mississippi (MS-01) tonight, an R+10 seat. The "Clinton/Obama voters will vote for McCain if their guy doesn't win" polling is about as relevant in the middle of a hotly contested primary as a national Giuliani-Richardson head-to-head. There were high numbers for disafffected McCain supporters voting for Gore over Bush at the time. This is essentially a Parliamentary country among core party members, the kind who vote in primaries.

Obama lost the plot in the last several weeks, and Clinton capitalized with a fairly divisive campaign. He needs to get back on his feet in two favorable states. Obama has not lost a single state that shares a significant border with his home state of Illinois (Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri). His speech tonight was pretty much a replay of his 2004 DNC keynote, and he's trying to return to the themes on which he won early. If he wins those two states it will be very significant. But the superdelegates need to come out from under the rocks where they're hiding and end this.

Kind Of Over

No matter who you support in this Democratic nomination, the detached view has to be that Hillary Clinton is almost certainly unable to win. She and her surrogates have acknowledged that they are likely to come up short among pledged delegates, but feel that if they keep it reasonably close the superdelegates would be able to hand her the nomination. Except that since Super Tuesday on February 5, the disparity between superdelegates for Clinton and Obama is massive:



Obama has gained 69 superdelegates and Clinton has lost 2 over the past 60 days. And in that time, we've had the Rev. Wright controversy and Clinton's victory in Ohio. The idea that some other bit of news will come around that would alter a two-month-long unbroken string of momentum is frankly at odds with reality. If those undecideds haven't swung by now, they're simply not going to swing.

...this is regardless of who you feel should be the nominee, or whether Sen. Clinton should stay in the race. It's just a depiction of reality.

Everything Will Be OK As Long As We Win

The news that Clinton went ballistic during a closed-door meeting with superdelegates at the CDP Convention, so much so that Art Torres had to apologize to one of them, and then walked onto the stage and told everyone to "chill out" and that the extended primary won't cause a rift in the party is pretty revealing. I believe Clinton DOESN'T think there will be a rift in the party - as long as Hillary is the nominee. And that internal logic must seem pretty iron-clad to him.

This is pretty much the same with Harold Ickes, who expressed to TPM yesterday that the party is "sturdier" than the "hand-wringers in Washington" think, and then went on to do some championship-level handwringing:

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

I'm EXTREMELY tired of these two characteristics of Clinton-era Democratic politics: the Clintons putting themselves ahead of the party, and the constant defensive crouch. I actually heard a very similar idea in talking to a superdelegate who's committed for Clinton at the CDP. Rather than worrying about what the Republicans are going to do, how about confidently expressing what the Democrats are going to do in the general election? I suspect that the Clinton camp is capitalizing on a natural fear from Democratic leaders. But it's so depressing.

Republicans are not electoral wizards. Let me say that again. Republicans are not electoral wizards. Their last unequivocal electoral victory was 14 years ago. In 2006 Democrats took Congress by a bigger margin than the Republican Revolution ever had. In 2004 the spread was the lowest for an incumbent since Woodrow Wilson. 2002 was right after 9/11 and it was essentially a tie. We won in 2000 in Congress and the Presidency. We gained seats in 1998. We won in 1996 without much trouble.

To the extent that Democrats have blown elections, it's because they've been trash-talked into submission by internal fears of how Republicans will portray them. It's pointless and distracts from the offensive, politics of contrast strategy that is a proven winner for Democrats. I'm not worried that we're stepping out on a limb and choosing between a black man and a woman, either. As Yglesias eventually says, the fundamentals for Democrats are pretty strong so it's as good a time as any to break down barriers. I wanted Edwards but that wasn't for electability reasons but reasons of policy.

Republicans are in deep trouble and they know it. What can derail this is a weak, cautious, "what're they going to say about us?" approach that will reinforce the traditional message that Republicans use of Democrats as weak and cautious. When we are forceful and stand in contrast, we win. That's the bottom line.

Reality Has A Well-Known Obama Bias

Watching Bill Clinton's speech yesterday was really like living in an alternate universe. He made all the arguments for his wife that he could have made over a year ago, with no sense of her situation as it stands today. Similarly, a DNC member supporting Senator Clinton told me about a potential "Clinton winning streak" that would convince superdelegates to rally to her side.

And yet...

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.

I know that any politician worth their salt has to say they're in it to win it and that they'll do whatever it takes. If you don't say that nobody will hand you a check. But it's really a bizarre scenario to notice the disconnect between appearance and reality here.

My Take On Clinton Dropping Out

I talked a little last night with Chris Stampolis, a DNC member who is backing Senator Clinton. He was precisely using the phrase "automatic delegates" to describe superdelegates, a frame supplied by the Clinton campaign. He made a compelling case for Clinton staying in the race to see where the momentum lies, let everyone have a voice in the process, and have the eventual nominee face the kind of barrage that they'll face in the fall. And that's all fine. I've said that I want Obama to win the race as opposed to not losing it and backing his way in (although reports that he blocked the Michigan revote is a lot of spin by Democratic officials in that state who are backing Clinton). But to me, the Clinton campaign can stay in the race as long as they pay their goddamn bills. I don't think they're hurting the party necessarily, but they're hurting local vendors for no reason. Instead of holding a fundraiser on their website to pay for yet another ad in Pennsylvania, how about a fundraiser to pay for the small business owner in Iowa who provided a couple thousand dollars in food for the campaign?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys, but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small business circles.

A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Her campaign, say representatives of the two companies, has stopped returning phone calls and e-mails seeking payment of outstanding invoices. One even got no response from a certified letter.

Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Honestly, they can hold off paying the $2.5 million owed to Mark Penn forever. But pay the small business people who depend on that money. And don't feed me a line about how you care about the little guy until then.

Knock It Off

I'm on the record as saying that I have no problem with this Democratic primary trudging on until May or even June. But I'm not a superdelegate. And this seems to me like they'll shut it down if the Clintons continue with this nonsense.

At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good.

The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.

"In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton [...]

"I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit."

As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that.

"We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him." [...]

The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama.

"I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws." [...]

The delegates said there is little the party or its leaders can do to prevent the current back and forth. But some said they were increasingly in touch with Clinton campaign officials to say their support is in jeopardy.

"Uncommitted delegates can come out and say, 'If you don't stop this now, we won't vote for you,'" one uncommitted superdelegate said.

This is pretty much where I'm at. The fact of remaining in the race is not a problem at all. It's the style of campaigning, the "Tonya Harding strategy," that's the problem.

Richardson Endorses Obama

And he'll be on the campaign trail with him Friday in Portland. We've seen throughout the course of the campaign that these endorsements end up meaning little, but this one is interesting because Richardson appeared to have been swayed by Obama's race and politics speech. From his email to supporters:

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them. We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

What's notable here is that, as a superdelegate, Richardson was moved enough to endorse, when it was really past the time when that endorsement could have an effect. The superdelegates can end this thing now if they wanted to, and that Richardson decided to endorse at this moment suggests that they might. At this point it looks like the superdelegate fight will be dead even by the convention, meaning that they won't be a factor. The nominee will be the winner of the pledged delegate battle, which mens it'll be Senator Obama.

That the speech itself had the power to move people is also very notable. I don't think a politician like Bill Richardson is a sample of the Democratic electorate per se, but clearly Obama changed the conversation and dominated the news for the entire week. And he did so by weaving the progressive message into that complex and difficult discussion about race. I think Drew Westen penned one of the best essays about the speech.

But from a political standpoint, at least as important as the primary message of his speech was a series of meta-messages he conveyed as much through his actions as his words. Obama's speech was in many respects a rejoinder to a number of questions raised about him over the last few weeks that contributed to defeats in Ohio and Texas.

...he did more than talk about race. He began to build a progressive narrative that Democrats, and the progressive movement more broadly, have had difficulty developing. He offered a progressive vision of patriotism, integrating a more traditional view -- referring to his grandfather's service under General Patton, and the military service of Reverend Wright -- with the notion that love of country is not blind love, that forming a more perfect union -- the essence of progressivism -- is part of what it means to love one's country.

Does he have the courage, capacity, and cojones to lead? Yesterday, he led us as a nation, and he showed a firm, steady, and unflinching hand. Not only did he utter words most Democratic politicians don't speak in polite company but should have spoken years ago, but he refused to take the low road -- to denounce and cast aside someone who clearly matters dearly to him simply because he had become a political liability -- displaying both courage and conviction.

I think that's what many found touching. The speech was a discourse on race but also a display of character. That's what Bill Richardson saw as surely as whites and African-Americans and Asians all over the country saw. It does feel like something new is in the air.

San Jose - Superdelegate Ground Zero?

Everybody should get out their Bob Mulholland novelty masks, just for the party access possibilities:

The road to the Democratic National Convention in Denver may go through San Jose.

The state Democratic Party is holding its annual meeting here the final weekend in March, and party officials are awaiting word on whether Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will accept invitations to appear.

Why would the dueling Democrats come when Pennsylvania holds the next crucial primary April 22?

One word: superdelegates. And perhaps a chance to throw in a megabuck fundraiser or two.

"There will more politicking going on at this convention than in decades," predicted Bob Mulholland, adviser to the state party. Mulholland would know. He's one of about 20 uncommitted superdelegates in California whom the campaigns are heavily wooing in their quest to secure their party's nomination.

The convention is right in the sweet spot, a few weeks before Pennsylvania. And the fundraising opportunities in the Bay Area are numerous. I don't think there's any question that Obama and Clinton will be on hand. But will there be chocolate fountain parties for uncommitted superdelegates only?

Math Is Hard

But it happens to be the determining factor in who will be the nominee on the Democratic side, so it can't be shifted aside in favor of talk about "momentum" or "buyer's remorse. Frankly, Senator Clinton's campaign has waited too long to rally. She has a serious math problem. Considering that the nature of proportional delegate allocation means that it's highly unlikely to get more than 60% of the delegates in any one state, it is virtually impossible for Clinton to catch up in the pledged delegate count.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 56-delegate lead.

It's just not possible. And before you think that all Clinton needs to do is get close enough in the pledged delegate race to have the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, it's actually just the opposite: the superdelegates are going to try and push Clinton right out of the race.

Tom Brokaw Says Obama Has 50 More Superdelegates in His Back Pocket

NBC News superreporter cites a source "very close to the Obama campaign" who says the additional superdelegates are "ready to go public before too long."- The Page

That would completely wipe out whatever gains Clinton may make tonight and then some. And I'm not even certain that, despite late movement to Clinton, she's going to be able to pull off a sweep of the big states tonight. Though turnout in Ohio is considered high, you can't tell me that the horrible weather in the southeastern part of the state, Clinton supporter and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's home turf, isn't going to be a factor, particularly for seniors. And the ridiculously large early voting in Texas, which appeared to favor Obama, is going to be a big hurdle, not to mention the hybrid primary/caucus setup.

There are also election irregularities in Ohio to track.

But what happens tonight, whether it's a victory for Clinton or Obama, will be across a very narrow band. Realistically, there's not much that Clinton can do to make up that delegate lead. As Markos says:

. If Clinton doesn't make substantive gains on the race that matters -- the delegate race (remember, the Clinton campaign said it was all about delegates after Iowa) -- then there will be a major push from Obama and the party to shut this thing down.

Bill Richardson has already said the delegate leader after today should be the nominee (which by default is Obama, since Clinton couldn't possibly overtake him today). There's the Tom Brokaw announcement that Obama has 50 super delegates in his pocket, ready to announce post-election. And aren't you wondering why Obama's campaign hasn't announced its February fundraising numbers yet?

Expect Clinton to get the early media spin victory, but soon expect the hammer to fall -- 50 supers, a gazillion raised in February, and high-profile converts like Richardson will create intense pressure for Clinton to call it a day.

If she doesn't, she can continue running. It's a free country, and I like the thought of both campaigns building infrastructure in Pennsylvania. This primary season has done wonders for party building, and I'm under no hurry to shut it down. And Hillary's campaign can continue to play "Karl Rove" to Obama's effort. It's good practice for the shit Republicans will fling at Obama this fall. And if Obama can't handle the Clinton crap, how's he going to handle the McCain crap? So I'm cool with that as well.

But realistically, Hillary Clinton would be little more than our version of Mike Huckabee, nominally in the race, but everyone else having moved on.

Those are cold, hard facts. They really can't be spun away.

UPDATE: It's brilliant that MSNBC's mannequin is getting the information on delegate counts from a 14 year-old girl reporter from Scholastic News. And then Contessa Brewer goes "Do you really care about this stuff?" Because if you do, young lady, you'll never make it as a reporter!

The Teamsters Go All In

They're endorsing Barack Obama. Obama, by the way, took union households in Wisconsin last night by about 54-44%.

There have been quite a few endorsements headed Obama's way of late, as groups and individuals are trying to jump aboard for the big victory. Which reaffirms the point that the superdelegate controversy was manufactured nonsense.