Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now against super-delegates?

Regular, voted-for delegates are pledged to support their candidate at the Democratic National Convention. Super-delegates are not. In fact, even if they have expressed a preference, they can change their minds.

Jake Tapper reported the following February 8, 2008, at ABC News' Political Punch blog

Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted, "if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination." Obama suggested "the argument we would be making to super-delegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then I think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty important when it comes to the general election."
CNN's Jim Acosta reported"Clinton's lead grows when superdelegates are counted: Clinton has collected 193 to Obama's 106."

CanWest wrote February 7, 2008

But the buzz among Democratic activists was over the growing possibility Mr. Obama could triumph in the race for pledged delegates awarded in the state-by-state primaries, but ultimately lose to Ms. Clinton if she wins the support of more super-delegates. These include party officials and lawmakers who automatically vote in the Democratic nominating convention in August in Denver. So far, they are backing Ms. Clinton by a three-to-one margin.

The day after Super Tuesday, on the February 6, 2008, edition of CNN's Situation Room, Democratic political consultant, Super-delegate-at-Large and DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Donna Brazile said:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. ... There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly."

Interesting, very interesting.

Why? Because Donna Brazile, speaking at the September 28, 2007, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 37th Annual Legislative Conference forum on The Future of Black Politics, in which "Panelists talked about the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama and what it signals for other black candidates," said in regards to Super Tuesday

Over 45% of our delegates will be chosen on that day and if you don't think that we have political power, just wait until February 5th, 2008, we can determine the next nominee of the Democratic Party. We can also expand the number of African Americans who are holding political power. We can also build upon the success of Barack Obama. ... We have enormous political power and its time that we leverage it, and we build upon it, and we expand it...
No, this is not an exact transcription, although the tape was rewound several times to capture the statement. Listen for yourself. It comes from this archived video from C-SPAN. Download and skip to the second section where Brazile speaks at approximately 13:20 minutes into the video.

But does this honestly sound like somebody who doesn't think that the super-delegates are significant? Does it sound like somebody who will quit the Democratic Party if the super-delegates—of which she is one—decide the election?

In September 2007, Donna Brazile believed that the regular, voted-for delegates were going to hand Sen. Barack Obama the Democratic presidential nomination.

On February 6, 2008, Super-delegate Donna Brazile apparently decided that if the regular, voted-for delegates weren't going to hand the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. Obama, then the role of the super-delegates should be ignored -- unless they were going to be voting for Sen. Obama.

As one blogger wrote, Brazile is a super-delegate. "She can vote for whomever she pleases. No one elected her to do this. She doesn't represent anyone." And that's exactly the point. She doesn't have a dog in this hunt -- or does she?

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Donna Brazile, super-delegates (all tags)

Comments

38 Comments

Tip jar.

Please be kind.

by Artificial Intelligence 2008-02-08 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Tip jar.
Good diary - thanks!
btw - there is a date error in 2nd para.
by annefrank 2008-02-08 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Tip jar.

Got it. Thanks.

by Artificial Intelligence 2008-02-08 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Tip jar.

More important:
With such comments that she deleivered on September 2007, why is she still appearing on CNN and MSNBC shows as a neutral pundit?? Didn't they raise hell when Carville and Begala were commenting?

Time for networks to identify Brazille as an Obama supporter each time she appears on a show.

by ghost 2 2008-02-11 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

Whatever her reasons, what she is saying is right.  I wish we could stay on the issue rather than on people's supposed motives.  I disagree with the idea the Superdelegates should vote the way their State votes, which is the position Barbara Boxer has taken.  Unless I'm mistaken, the allocation of Superdelegates is not representational and in fact there are some who aren't really aligned with any State (reps of the Teamsters etc.).  The only reason for Superdelegates at all is to give them a reward for their work and have them come to the Convention.  But if the SDs end up deciding this election in a direction opposite to the majority of the elected delegates, it is going to rip this Party apart.

by Piuma 2008-02-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
NOW you want to change the rules?

I have a really hard time following the Obama line.

by souvarine 2008-02-08 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW you want to change the rules?

I don't think we should change the rules, at least not in the middle of the game.  That's something Hillary would do (Michigan, Florida, Nevada).  But the superdelegate never made any sense to me.  Let the people speak.  That's something the DNC is going to have to think long and hard about after this election.

by Chili Dogg 2008-02-08 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: NOW you want to change the rules?

So you don't believe in changing the rules in the middle of the game, except when you do believe in changing the rules in the middle of the game, because those rules don't go with your game?

Election.  Election: not pictionary.  "Elected Delegates" "Pledged Delegates" "Pledged Delegates Except for Michigan and Florida" are all mouthfuls of pleh.  

If the candidates are tied, or near tied, the popular vote should mean something.  If superdelegates break in the direction of the popular vote, I think that Democrats should support the outcome, no matter what it is.

by mgee 2008-02-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
Cute!

To say that superdelegates shouldn't decide this thing, is the same as saying they shouldn't have a vote.  There is no difference.

Either their vote should count, and they are free to endorse whomever they want (see: Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick), or they should be stripped of their votes in the middle of the game.  You can't sugercoat it and make it look pretty.  

Yes, it's hypocritical to want to not count Michigan and Florida, but whine about superdelegates.  

by ghost 2 2008-02-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

most of the dems i know will be outraged if the supers don't gravitate to the pledged delegate winner.

it's just that simple.

by Soltare 2008-02-08 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

most of the dems i know will be outraged if the supers don't gravitate to the popular vote winner.

Gore 2000!

by souvarine 2008-02-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

Agree, it is the total number of actual votes that should decide this. One person/one vote rules.

by DaleA 2008-02-08 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

By that, you mean, the popular vote??

The whole thing is a mess, and it's really cute that Obama campaign has picked this theme to hammer for the benefit of the media and getting more endorsements.  

Seems like you guys have a case of Selective Outrage.

by ghost 2 2008-02-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
Hold on

What if the person with the most popular votes is not the person with the most "pledged" delegtes?  Shouldn't the person with the most votes get the nomination?

In 2005, there was a movement to take the appointment of half of the at large DNC delgates out of the hands of the chair of the DNC and distribute them to the four geopgraphic regions, to have more DNC members coming from the 50 states, as opposed to the Washington insiders. Ms. Brazille and a number of other appointed at large delegates objected to redistributing these positions. they argued that the chair used the positions to appoint people from underrepresented communities and labor leaders. When the reformers said that could be addressed by requiring affirmative action goals in the regions, and also by getting local labor leaders on the DNC, as opposed to the national presidents, the appointeds still objected, and got Howard Dean, who was just about to be elected, to oppose the plan.  It was all about keeping power in the hands of the DC DNC crowd. I don't blame Dean; when people like Donna Brazille and the national labor leaders are telling you not to do something, and you are new to the job, you don't know what is going on.

by nascardem 2008-02-08 08:32AM | 0 recs
March poll: 59% say popular vote should decide

As of a poll c. March 8, most voters say 59% of Democratic voters say the nominee should be the candidate with the most popular votes. This include 45% of Obama supporters..)


Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. [....]
Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/
57_say_candidate_with_most_votes_should_ get_nominati

Quotes from those who were for the popular vote before they were against it, are at http://www.ironmyvote.com/superdelegates -follow.htm

by 1950democrat 2008-04-06 06:36PM | 0 recs
March poll: 59% say popular vote should decide

As of a poll c. March 8, most voters say 59% of Democratic voters say the nominee should be the candidate with the most popular votes. This include 45% of Obama supporters..)


Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. [....]
Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/
57_say_candidate_with_most_votes_should_ get_nominati

Quotes from those who were for the popular vote before they were against it, are at http://www.ironmyvote.com/superdelegates -follow.htm

by 1950democrat 2008-04-06 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

It's like markjay wrote last night:  some unfair rules help Obama, and some unfair rules don't help Obama.  The only good unfair rule is the unfair rule that helps Obama.  The only bad unfair rule is the unfair rule that helps Clinton.

It gets easy if you keep this guide in your pocket and refer to it often.

by Beltway Dem 2008-02-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Obama wants to change the rules during the game

He never complained about super delegates last summer, or last Feb when he got in the race.  Now he is crying about them.   Thats weak.  The rules are the rules Barry.   He broke the rules in FL and ran tv ads despite the pledged ban in campaigning at all in FL.  

Now Barry wants a rule change.  Nowhere does it say superdelegates have to vote the way their state voted.  

by dpANDREWS 2008-02-08 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: donna brazile hypocrisy

Well, it's been clear for a while that Donna Brazile is an Obama supporter. So, I understand her reasons from that standpoint.

I find it hypocritical that the same woman who's been pounding the "law and order" table demanding that Florida and Michigan delegates be punished for doing the same thing that Iowa and New Hampshire did in moving up the date of their primary.

Her reason:

"The truth is, we had a process. . . . We're going to back these rules."

What gets me is that EVERYONE STARTED RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT KNOWING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL ROLE SUPERDELEGATES COULD PLAY. Superdelegates have been a part of the DNC nominating rules for nearly 30 years. Second, why should superdelegates have less latitude to vote for their preferred candidate than regular delegates (who literally have complete freedom to vote for whomever they want at the convo). Third, there is no unity among superdelegates. HRC has a lead among superdelegates, but plenty of superdelegates support Obama, and literally more superdelegates declare for Obama every day. There's no reason to think that he can't reach something close to parity with her.

All in all, the debate about superdelegates is much ado about nothing.

by blueflorida 2008-02-08 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: it is too bad the Donna wasn't this determined

If Hillary stomps Obama then the race is over. I'm sure Obama will concede. But if Obama stomps Hillary and the Clintons try and use the super delegates to overturn the victory that would be a problem. If Hillary wins I'll support her but if Obama wins and the super delegates undo the election they might as well hand McCann the keys to the White House.

by hankg 2008-02-08 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: it is too bad the Donna wasn't this determined

This is silly, because nobody is going to "stomp" anybody.  It's going to be darned close either way.  The bottom line is that the side that has been screaming "WE! HAVE! RULES!" about Michigan and Florida is now screaming "CHANGE! THE! RULES!" about superdelegates.

by dhonig 2008-02-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: it is too bad the Donna wasn't this determined

If the race is tied then the super delegates will decide and I think everyone will live with it but if Obama (or Clinton) get a majority of delegates I think it would be unwise for the super delegates to change the outcome.

When they gave super delegates the position they didn't think they would actually be picking candidates. I don't think they should change the rules now I just think those in a position of responsibility should use their power wisely.

by hankg 2008-02-08 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: it is too bad the Donna wasn't this determined

If Hillary wins because she has more delegates, pledged or otherwise, then she will be the nominee.  Period.  No amount of whining will change that.  Brazille is not impartial, she is an Obama surrogate, which also led to the disgraceful treatment of Florida and Michigan, with her pushing the DNC to violate THEIR OWN RULES and remove ALL delegates from those two states when the RULES put down by the DNC clearly stated that any state in violation would lose HALF the delegates.    HALF is not ALL.  The DNC to their shame went with Donna Brazille's recommendation and removed the entirety of the delegates.    Now, with that rule break in the books we are supposed to indulge the rantings of this Obama surrogate further, changing yet ANOTHER rule in midstream just because it helps Obama out?    

No way.  

by georgep 2008-02-08 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

So let me see if I am following here - Brazile is in lock step with the DNC when it comes to disenfranchising FL and MI voters despite the fact that the voters had no say in the decision to move the primaries (I wonder what she would have said if those states were SC and IL?) and says "Those are the DNC rules, everyone needs to abide by them"...

But now is saying that these nearly 800 party honchos, of which she is one, must not participate in the way it was intended?  The fact that so many party insiders can do their horse trading behind the scenes was something the DNC devised - it was ever thus.  Personally, I never liked the fact that my vote may not mean anything in the end thanks to party politics, but Brazile certainly knew this going in, as a party insider. See how quickly the "injustice of it all" will be forgotten if silver-tongued Obama starts to gain the upper hand with the superdelegates.

by Sabrina Duncan 2008-02-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

Donna Brazille is not just in lockstep with the DNC's treatment of FL and MI, she actually went to the mat for the draconian treatment the DNC handed out, in the process breaking their OWN RULE of punishing by removing HALF the delegates.   The attempt here is to break rules to win Obama the presidency.  It worked on the part of the shabby and rule-breaking treatment FL and MI received, giving Obama a boost in the process (he had no prayer in either state,) but we can't let that happen again with the Super Delegates.  If they feel Clinton is worthier of their support, then that is the way it is going to go down.   Dammit.  

by georgep 2008-02-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile

Because she wants to "change the rules in the middle of the game."  She wants to "play Calvinball."  Does any of this sound familiar?  Yeah, I thought so.

Also, the argument is crapola. Why?  Because the "pledged delegates" are not assigned proportionate to votes.  Remember, different precincts are weighted to give more emphasis to rural voters, particularly in caucus states.  Just look at Nevada, where Hillary won the popular vote, but Obama may come out with more delegates.

Now if they want to go to winner-take-all per Congressional District, and statewide, go for it.  But Donna Brazile will never say any such thing, because that would be a Clinton landslide.  Instead, what they are actually saying is "force superdelegates to vote in an UNdemocratic way that favors Obama."  Well, superdelegates EXIST, at least in part, to counteract just such vagaries in our existing system.

Of course, if you really want to "play Calvinball," can we start by talking about Florida?

by dhonig 2008-02-08 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate

ANYONE that thinks superdelegats have the right to OVERRIDE the majority of voted delegates -- hasn't got a CLUE what they'd be letting happen come August.

If Obama or Hillary have the majority (even if by 1) of the voted delegates, and the superdelegates get together and FORCE Americans to accept THEIR choice, there WILL BE RIOTS in the streets.  I don't care if it's Hillary OR obama that gets their votes.

The Democrats are so stewed up over the Bush administration ignoring THEIR wishes, if there OWN party does it - all HECK will break lose and the Party will end up losing for years to come.

Superdelegates are like movie stars and 'connected' people.  Having 795 people out of millions deciding -- is NOT the democratic way.

Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

by coonbug 2008-02-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
re

The whole world is against Hillary but she just keeps on going! She's like Eva Peron lol

by rossinatl 2008-02-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Blacks could be alienated

Think of it this way (my Obama support aside): If superdelegates tip the nomination to Hillary it could be viewed as a snub of black people, it could be viewed as an oppressive action.

Imagine it, Party elites (most of the white) select the white woman over the black man.

It is a scenario that is fraught with so much potential ugliness. Where there is the greatest light there is also the potential for deep darkness.

This is what we get for being the progressive party, not that we would want it any other way. Growth is difficult. It's happening and the nation will be the better for it.

by Dmitri in San Diego 2008-02-08 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Blacks could be alienated


I meant to say (in the 2nd sentence)...

Imagine it, Party elites (most of THEM white)...

by Dmitri in San Diego 2008-02-08 08:26AM | 0 recs
Women could be alienated

Think of it this way: If superdelegates tip the nomination to Obama it could be viewed as a snub of women, it could be viewed as an oppressive action to over 1/2 of the Democratic voters.

Imagine it, Party elites (most of them men) select a man over the woman.

Alienating women? That's a guaranteed formula for losing the vote in November.

by LakersFan 2008-02-08 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

I meant to say (in the 2nd sentence)...

Imagine it, Party elites (most of THEM white)...

by Dmitri in San Diego 2008-02-08 08:25AM | 0 recs
You want

to guarantee a dem loss in november , you use party big wigs to over the peoples voted delegates and swing the nomination to either candidate.

Michigan and Florida should conduct caucus' in late april and get this thing figured out before june.

I say do michigan and florida over..and both sides agree to nominate the candidate with the most delegates as voted on..

I think it is the fair way to go and the only possible way to have a united party come november. I have always said I would vote for the dem nominee..if it was a fair contest. IF not, them many disillusioned supporters of either candidate will stay home and mccain will win.

by hawkjt 2008-02-08 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile

If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party.

Buh-bye Donna. And good riddance. We need party leaders who know how to win elections and who believe in counting everyone's vote.

by LakersFan 2008-02-08 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile
she is the one that fought to have Florida's delegates taken away, so she has absolutely no problem with disenfranchising voters?  but she suddenly has a problem with superdelegates?
it's obvious she has a pro-Obama agenda, you can tell by listening to her on CNN.
i hope she does quit the Democratic party and never ever comes back, we don't need these type of people running our party.
by musicpvm 2008-02-08 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Super-delegate Donna Brazile now agains

I really feel we are headed down a path which could lead to a real problem in this election and I take no solace that it might actually lead to real reform of the primary process and result in a National Primary Day or a Series of 4 Regional Primaries.  Some of the real problems we can now see:

1. Super-Delegates.  I haven't invested money and time into my candidate to have my Congressman, local Party hack, or Teamster Rep determine the outcome.  I saw a calculation last night that Superdelegates are essentially equal in power to more than 10,000 votes.  That's not the Party I want to support.

2. Popular vote.  Someone brought up the question of what if the elected delegate split is different than the popular vote.  It would be a good question if we knew what the popular vote is which we do not, thanks to the caucus states.  The idea that some states use the caucus system and some use primaries is absolutely insane.  We must have one system for all States.

3. Convention Date.  The Party has let all these states move up but didn't change the date of the convention.  It is not until late August.  No big deal if the candidate was chosen after the first 4 states as in the past, but we have a situation where we could be headed for a brokered convention which won't take place until less than 3 months before the General Election.  John McCain is running his GE campaign from today.  This could be a serious, serious disadvantage for us.  

by Piuma 2008-02-08 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: it is too bad the Donna wasn't this determined

Right. If Obama wins more delegates after failing to carry NY, NJ, CA, MA and NY -- we've got a huge problem. Despite Obama's frequent claims that all dems are going to support him in the end...he'll be the first democratic nominee not to carry any primary voting democratic states.

by seattlegonz 2008-02-11 06:59AM | 0 recs
March poll supports popular vote

As of a poll c. March 8, most voters say 59% of Democratic voters say the nominee should be the candidate with the most popular votes. This include 45% of Obama supporters..)


Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view. [....]
Still, 45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/
57_say_candidate_with_most_votes_should_ get_nominati

Quotes from those who were for the popular vote before they were against it, are at http://www.ironmyvote.com/superdelegates -follow.htm

by 1950democrat 2008-04-06 06:38PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------