Democratic Unity Meetings Scheduled for Thursday
Tomorrow, Democrats are hosting events in Portland and Eugene to demonstrate their unity following a spirited primary season. The Democratic Party of Oregon reports:
Merkley and Novick will lead statewide candidates and their primary opponents in two Democratic Party Unity Events. Oregon Governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber and State Sen. Kurt Schrader will also participate in Portland.
Fresh off his primary victory, Democratic Party U.S. Senate nominee and House Speaker Jeff Merkley will lead candidates for Secretary of State, Attorney General and State Treasurer in two Democratic Party Unity events. Many of the primary opponents in each race, including Steve Novick, will join the nominees onstage.
State Sen. Kurt Schrader, the nominee for the 5th Congressional District and Governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber will also join the candidates in Portland.
"Our party is united for change and preparing for victory," DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith said. "From now through Election Day, Democrats in Oregon are united behind one goal, victory in November."
Event details:
Portland
Smith Memorial Student Union Rooms 296/298
Portland State University
1825 SW Broadway
Thursday, May 22, 9amEugene
Erb Memorial Union, Fir Room
University of Oregon
1228 University of Oregon
Thursday, May 22, 1 pm
Discuss.
|
May 21, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (92 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | May 21, 2008 8:06:25 PM
Wish I could be there, but getting to PSU at that time from Gresham? Not gonna happen unless I decide to put my safety in danger by using public transportation out here. And yes, the buses are just as bad as the MAX - my sister was almost assaulted coming over to watch Abby yesterday so I could be in Portland for Election Day.
Hope there's a good turn out.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | May 21, 2008 8:20:37 PM
Speaking of party unity, I was surprised to hear Kevin Mannix say he won't be supporting his GOP rival in November because he couldn't support a dishonest man who was also a hypocrite. He just couldn't do it. But wait, didn't he support President Bush back in 2004?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 21, 2008 8:49:49 PM
I'd love to be there to personally congratulate Merkley's folks but unfortunately am on deadline until 3 p.m. on Friday. I join Novick in wanting to help Merkley and will do everything I can to defeat Gordon Smith in the coming months.
This wasn't the outcome I hoped for last night but I'm incredibly proud of the campaign Steve ran. I also agree with Jeff that the primary helped make him a better campaigner. That's very gracious of Merkley to say. We've got an incredible opportunity this year and I have full confidence Democrats will take advantage of it.
It's the least we can do for the Obama administration:)
Posted by: James X. | May 21, 2008 9:19:48 PM
Thanks for chiming in, Charlie, and I want to congratulate Novick's folks again for the extraordinary campaign they ran, too. Maybe this thread can be our own Democratic unity meeting.
Posted by: pissed | May 21, 2008 10:54:38 PM
DPO Chair Smith needs to get off her ass and endorse OBAMA if she wants unity. if she thinks she can just sit back while Clinton tears the party apart,she has another thing coming. it is time for OBAMA supporters to take off the gloves. The Democratic party has spoken in this state and it said OBAMA. Smith, DO YOU HEAR ME.DO You want Insane McCain. No choice. More war. No health care. No education. GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO YOUR GOD DAMN JOB. And keep Bradbury and K off the stage. They make me sick.
Posted by: James X. | May 22, 2008 12:34:34 AM
Well, anonymous stranger, you've certainly convinced me to want to hold hands with you, and you may have your wish on Friday. I'm always happy to read all your productive contributions from all your pseudonyms to the progressive side of the blogosphere.
Posted by: John Mulvey | May 22, 2008 12:58:59 AM
Don't hold back, pissed.
Perhaps you can hold your own Unity Rally, and then you can exclude all those people who make you sick.
John
Posted by: Johnny Gnosis | May 22, 2008 2:49:08 AM
Meredith is a Clinton supporter too. I doubt we'll see her lift a knuckle until Hillary concedes. And then we'll all be watching.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | May 22, 2008 3:58:15 AM
Johnny Gnosis, you can say the same for Wyden. Although he hasn't indicated that he is a Clinton supporter, he says he will wait months yet (at the convention apparently) before he endorses anyone. What is this? Lack of conviction? Waiting to see who is finally the winner before declaring where he stands? In the meantime the national party is undergoing something like a constitutional crisis with the Clinton faction having agreed to all the rules and then willing to break each and every one of them until she can find some way to steal the nomination. I call it gross election fraud on their part.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | May 22, 2008 6:16:37 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You guys are getting out of hand.
It is really uncool to attack Meredith and the other undeclared super-delegates when you don't know their preferences or what they plan to do. As near as I can tell, you've imagined a scenario that makes you angry and then reacted like it's true.
Slow down. Wait to see if there's actually a problem before freaking out. And, really, screaming threats and calling names is not an effective way to convince anyone of anything.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 6:56:14 AM
Fact is, the party elders are enabling the Hillary Clinton plan to sabotage the fall election so she can make a comeback in 2012. Now she's likening the party, and the rules she helped make and signed on to in Fl. and MI to Zimbabwe. Until her own SD supporters do an intervention on this baloney, there won't be any party unity. The impact will be felt all the way down the ticket.
Posted by: Ruth Adkins | May 22, 2008 7:26:03 AM
Regardless of whom they support, it's past time for our remaining super-delegates to declare themselves. They are the only ones who can end this. I respectfully ask that they step up and declare themselves so we can unite behind our nominee and get busy defeating John McCain. I can only imagine the pressure they've been under, but really, it's time to make that decision.
Posted by: Kevin | May 22, 2008 7:54:26 AM
And keep Bradbury and K off the stage. They make me sick.
Oh how quickly the memories fade of Bradbury having been one of People-Powered Howard's most vocal supporters when he ran for Prez in 2004.
Posted by: Katy | May 22, 2008 8:07:39 AM
Wow, you guys sound like crazy people. Johnny Gnosis, you've spoken with Meredith personally and know this to be the case? Hahaha, of course you haven't. Give it a rest already. Seriously, what will change if Oregon's automatic delegates declare themselves now or after the primary season? Let me guess, one of them will support Hillary and you can trash that person on BO?
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 8:12:38 AM
I don't know what Meredith or other Oregon SDs plan to do. But Hillary has let it be known she plans to sabotage the election by invoking the nuclear option all the way to the convention. So any delay by these SDs is simply enabling her and destroying Dem. party unity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/compromise-in-works-to-se_n_103010.html
Posted by: Wayne Kinney | May 22, 2008 8:20:54 AM
We're coming. Please be patient.
There's a couple of things that I need to do first, mostly finish the report that will be used to apportion the delegates between Obama and Clinton. We need numbers by congressional district, and I won't have those until tomorrow. The report will be posted on the DPO website Monday, and I'll be announcing shortly after that.
As for pressure, I'm getting phone calls and e-mails, but not feeling pressured. None of us "super" delegates are weaklings. We've been called names from all sorts of places, and whether its from posters on Blue Oregon, Willamette Week, or angry Floridians, we'll hold up just fine.
It's my birthday, so please be nice to me today. If you want to get all foamy at me and my colleagues, please wait until tomorrow.
In the meantime, we Democrats have every reason to be happy about the primary. We had a record turnout, and we're in excellent shape for November.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 8:38:38 AM
Wayne,
Thanks for the response. But while the Clinton campaign is moving toward the "nuclear option" of open conflict in the convention over rules that they made and signed on to, Dem. unity is pretty much an impossibility. And your failure to speak to this threat is not defensible.
Posted by: Wayne Kinney | May 22, 2008 8:47:53 AM
The DNC Rules Committee meets May 31. Florida and Michigan Democrats have proposals that will be considered. Let's see what happens before we all get too excited.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 9:10:27 AM
Wayne,
Hillary herself and her campaign have confirmed they want us all to pretend that those elections actually happened and they want all the delegates from them, or else... And they will take it to the convention if they don't get what the want. We both know the DNC Rules committee and the DNC Credentials Committee are not going along with that preposterous demand. So, this is about Hillary and her ambitions. If she can't have it now, she will have it in 2012. She can appeal to the convention, and she has said she will, because the Dem. party is so sexist and so unjust.. just like "Zimbabwe." So I can only view the passivity by folks like yourself as enabling this kind of behavior as being destructive to the party and making party unity impossible.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | May 22, 2008 9:11:02 AM
Let me second Wayne's comment about our DNC committee people not being pushovers. I talked to Jenny Greenleaf in the Kate Brown party on election night, and she told me of her experience of having half the Democratic party luminaries, big name governors, national candidates, leave messages on her answering machine. And that she didn't bother to return their calls.
I think I'm the only person who has never campaigned Wayne, Jenny, Meredeth, Frank, or anyone else about the Presidency. I figure they get enough input as it is.
But since I'm on the subject, to me it's far more important that - regardless of nominee - Florida and Michigan are substantially punished for trying to cheat the Democratic party process. If they get away with a slap on the wrist, I guarantee it will make any meaningful calendar reform impossible to achieve. In fact, it may very well start a early schedule arms-race.
Most people get sick of this stuff after one year of it. Do we really want to push it to two?
Posted by: Steve Packer | May 22, 2008 9:21:48 AM
Getting people to read the delegate selection plan was almost impossible and I suspect none of us who did read the plan foresaw the improbable results of this process. However, we did approve to continue inclusion of the automatic delegates, many of whom are elected by large numbers of voters and all of whom are needed to win the election. The DNC members I know were all elected for their judgment and their commitment to democratic principles. The task we gave them when we elected them was to use their best judgment for the good of the country and that is what they should do. In the future, I hope we can remember the importance of being involved in less exciting times.
With our proportional allocation rule for delegates, a rule that I believe enabled a candidate like Obama, I can accept that some of our automatic delegates will support the Senator Clinton. There are some truly wonderful people in the party who support Senator Clinton and we need them to win this election. Nothing good can come of driving them out before the process runs its course. The key will be to follow the rules and this includes resolving the Michigan and Florida issue and not rewarding rule violations.
Posted by: Andrew Plambeck | May 22, 2008 9:23:48 AM
Happy birthday, Wayne!
Posted by: doretta | May 22, 2008 9:28:17 AM
Wayne says he's going to speak very soon. Petulant rants that claim it's indefensible if he doesn't do it exactly on your timetable just make you sound like an impatient toddler who's melting down because he's been told he has to wait until after dinner for his lollipop.
The situation is quite serious but the apparent assumption that Hillary is the only one acting now just because she's the one talking about it in public is certainly wrong.
There's an excellent argument to be made that our candidate needs more time to bring the party together than they'll get if there's no nominee until the convention. Despite the borderline hysteria developing in some people minds (listened to Rachel Maddow lately?) there's not nearly so good an argument that we can't afford to wait a couple more weeks until the primaries are over.
Posted by: doretta | May 22, 2008 9:34:41 AM
Wayne,
If observing the political sphere has taught me anything, it's that what "we all know" is just as likely to be wrong as to be right.
It *is* about coming together to beat the Republicans in November and Hillary needs to be a part of that.
Waxing hysterical about what "we all know" is not going to further that goal.
Posted by: doretta | May 22, 2008 9:37:53 AM
Sorry, my last comment was two partial comments.
The first was supposed to be "Wayne, happy birthday" and the second part that actually showed up was addressed to Bill.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 22, 2008 9:45:05 AM
Posted by: pissed | May 21, 2008 10:54:38 PM
I have faith that the Oregon DNC delegates (such as Meredith, Jenny Greenleaf, etc.) will be for our nominee (i.e. Obama), but the throttling of rate of publicly coming out in support is being managed by the Obama team so as to not be 'too many, too soon' which would further enrage Clinton supporters.. and they will bring this in for a soft landing.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 9:59:00 AM
Doretta, I think you undermine your points when you simply insult people and insult their intelligence.
The point is being made that people should chill until this meeting on May 31. I disagree,May 31 may not resolve anything, because I think that there is a more malicious dynamic at play. When the Dem. party is attacked as being sexist or like "Zimbabwe" because Hillary didn't get nominated that is not helpful to any Dem. candidate. And when the intent has been expressed to take the FL/MI issue to a floor fight at the convention, which is within the rights of the Clinton Campaign, then the intent is clear. I hope the Clintonites will change course, but it doesn't seem to be the case. In the meantime, forget about unity.
Meanwhile behind the scenes here is the situation.
This is the background to the threats around the nuclear option and MI/Fl, and the attack on the Dem. party as being sexist and like Zimbabwe. Al Giordano is reporting that Hillary asked for the VP slot and was turned down. The nuclear option is her response for leverage and blow back. Time magazine is giving corroborating evidence.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248#comment-40654
"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process."
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 22, 2008 10:07:57 AM
I think I'm the only person who has never campaigned Wayne, Jenny, Meredeth, Frank, or anyone else about the Presidency. I figure they get enough input as it is.
Nah Steve, you're not the only one. I've shot the breeze with Meredith, Jenny, and Frank in the last couple of days and (I suspect) like a lot of others, limited my remarks to generalities. We get it.....
Despite the borderline hysteria developing in some people minds (listened to Rachel Maddow lately?) there's not nearly so good an argument that we can't afford to wait a couple more weeks until the primaries are over.
I'm kinda with you in disagreeing with the Good Dr. Maddow (although using the word hysteria to describe her argument yeserday might be a little over the top.
Bottom Line: Our Oregon supers have been models of good party behavior so far (not counting the electeds that came out early for both sides IMO) and I'm pretty sure that waiting until Montana, Peurto Rico, and South Dakota finish up will not sink us in the fall.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 22, 2008 10:08:31 AM
"there's not nearly so good an argument that we can't afford to wait a couple more weeks until the primaries are over. "
Having the nomination be a mathematical fait accompli before Clinton tries to make her case on the 31st is an excellent argument, IMO. She cannot be trusted one bit.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | May 22, 2008 10:13:15 AM
Steve Packer, apportioning the delegates "enabled" Obama? It also "enabled" any other candidate who potentially could have won the nomination, e.g., John Edwards. It created the touted level playing field. The only candidate it did not enable was Clinton. Instead, we were given time to vet Hillary Clinton, and the results of that vetting have unearthed much about her character and so called experience. Under GOP rules, which the Clintons are now kicking themselves over for not having fought for, or in a national, one-day primary, Clinton indeed would have been the inevitable candidate, based on name recognition, media cooperation, and the support of the Democratic establishment. Instead, we had a real primary in which the grassroots have finally been able to have some input. So please don't speak of "enabling" as if Barack Obama has won this contest by affirmative action.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 10:16:29 AM
The meeting of the rules committee on May 31 is painted as a cold deliberative process. I wish that were so. It's going to be public which is good. But there are reports now that the Clinton campaign is arranging to have busloads of supporters there to raise hell to pressure the DNC members to see it their way. Looks to me like it's going to be an ugly circus with shouts of sexism and unfairness. So I would like to know from Wayne and others how that is going to help with party unity.
Posted by: RichW | May 22, 2008 10:24:00 AM
To my way of thinking this period is a great time for Obama to exercise progressive advocacy vs. McCain rather than primary politicing. Let HRC do whatever. Obama simply can act as the presumptive nominee without declaring it so. This way HRC has no quarrel when she officially loses - fair and square. HRC could cry out that Obama won't fight with her, but that will just make her appear silly.
Posted by: Steve Packer | May 22, 2008 10:59:37 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the alternative to proportional delegate allocation is winner-take-all. I believe grass roots candidates have a better chance of success with our current system than with the previous one. Howard Dean showed us the way, but Obama has created an amazing organization to actually win. It may be a fantasy, but I sure would like to believe we can win elections without the PAC money and Obama is on the way to prove it.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 22, 2008 11:13:05 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the alternative to proportional delegate allocation is winner-take-all. I believe grass roots candidates have a better chance of success with our current system than with the previous one.
Well yeah, but the sucky part is that Dems first do the very fair "proportional representation", but then follow with the extremely undemocratic super delegates who can basically nullify all the previous voting.
Once we get through this anti-democratic mess by relying on the supers to "do the right thing" it'll be time to revamp the party system to reflect the will of the primary voters..........Oh I know, what if we had an election based solely on the actual results of the primaries........a revolutionary concept, I'll admit, but I'm willing to take the risk.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 22, 2008 11:18:10 AM
One more thing:
I recall the Senior Mr. Smith pointing out a while back that party officials, (excluding the electeds) get damned few perks out of the job. A good and valid point that would lead me to support the idea that top state party leaders could bget "first dibs" on being apportioned to fill slots for their preferred candidates bsed on the popular vote outcome within the state.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 11:21:36 AM
Obama has been doing the right thing, focusing his attack on McCain, going forward with the VP vetting process, and praising HRC and her supporters. Who hasn't been doing the right thing are the people who are supposed to be concerned with party unity and success in the fall, by sitting by and saying or doing nothing, while HRC tries to split the party further with her antics, and by doing everything possible to taint the legitimacy of the Obama nomination. She says she's taking her fight of changing the rules of nomination all the way to the convention and any "unity" in the party will be sorely damaged by that destructive effort. Meanwhile the Oregon SDs fiddle while the party burns.
Posted by: Jenny Greenleaf | May 22, 2008 11:24:48 AM
Happy birthday to Wayne!
Just give me a little more time, folks. I'll be announcing very soon.
And I am very much looking forward to going back to being nobody. While it's a huge honor and a big responsibility to be a superdelegate, it isn't why I ran for the DNC. I'm not even that enamored of the whole superdelegate system, although I understand the reasons for it and am trying to do my job as best I can. I'm not necessarily feeling pressured, but I'm uncomfortable with all the attention. I'd really rather just be behind the scenes, working hard to get Democrats elected.
I would advise those who are fear-mongering to just let the process play out and keep your eyes on the prize: a Democrat in the White House, Merkley in the Senate, Schrader in District 5, and increasing majorities in the Oregon House and Senate. This is our year, and we're going to make the most of it.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 11:53:54 AM
Jenny Greenleaf: "I would advise those who are fear-mongering to just let the process play out"
I don't consider myself one of those who are fear-mongering, but I suspect you might have been addressing me. I am glad you are going to announce soon. Fear-mongering is based on imaginings not based on reality. We have learned in this election that no tactics are off the table, including using racial polarization to marginalize your opponent ( "the hard-working white people"), or to send out surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro to play to accuse your opponent of sexist tactics and to invite women not to vote for the Democratic nominee, nor to threaten to disrupt a meeting of the DNC by sending bus-loads of supporters to appear to influence the outcome, nor to threaten to take a fight over rules to the Aug. convention to damage party unity. That's not fear-mongering, those are the facts. And yes, they do damage party unity, particularly when they are passively sanctioned by party leaders such as yourself.
Posted by: LT | May 22, 2008 11:57:32 AM
"I'm not even that enamored of the whole superdelegate system, although I understand the reasons for it and am trying to do my job as best I can"
Jenny, you are not the first superdelegate to say this publicly.
And I would remind everyone (as a former delegate once involved in delegate selection rule revision) that the convention is where reform of any such system starts. And this would seem a good year to have that conversation again (as in 1984 the Fairness Comm. was created, etc.).
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 22, 2008 12:07:39 PM
The reason the Oregon Dems held this rally today was because our primary ended. (I was there, and it was nice to see Jeff and Steve on the same stage, flanked by Govs Roberts and Kitzhaber.) The presidential race isn't over. I encourage everyone to relax, exhale, and let it play out. Clinton will do the right thing, and beating the drum for her withdrawal before he final three contests just doesn't make sense.
Obama's the nominee and nothing will change that. Clinton's battle for Florida and Michigan will help define her campaign, and I hope she has the wisdom to recognize what's at stake--personally, if not for the party. But it doesn't do any good to get too hepped up in the meantime. By June 4 it will be a settled matter.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 22, 2008 12:30:26 PM
"Clinton will do the right thing, and beating the drum for her withdrawal before he final three contests just doesn't make sense."
You do know she's planning to have her supporters beseige the process, which is open--right?
The woman is toxic, and will do whatever she believes necessary to attempt to secure the nomination. Cutting off the debate before she ever gets the chance is a must.
Posted by: John Dunagan | May 22, 2008 12:33:21 PM
Jeff, "Clinton's battle for Florida and Michigan" is an exceedingly generous way to describe it. We're not being battled for, we're being invoked by the Clinton campaign to stand as proxies for someone we didn't vote for.
On her best day, Clinton didn't win ALL of the delegates from either of those states, and it's a joke to consider what we had in Florida, for one, as any kind of a primary.
And I'll be getting, along with several thousand of my closest ideological brothers and sisters, very much in the face of my state Party to make sure that we are not being misrepresented.
The 'ongoing struggle to make Florida's votes count' is a canard, concocted from the fertile imagination of the brightest minds of Team Clinton in Florida. It's not a reflection of the Democratic electorate in Florida at large in any way, shape or form.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 12:34:01 PM
@ Jeff
I don't know where you get this naive idea that Hillary Clinton will do the right thing. The NY Times seems to indicate otherwise. She's now claiming it's all about civil rights and freeing the slaves. This is disgusting. This is not about party unity.
"On the trail and in interviews, she raised a new battle cry of determination, likening her struggle for these delegates to the nation’s historic struggles to free the slaves and grant women the right to vote."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22florida.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Posted by: doretta | May 22, 2008 12:52:20 PM
Bill,
I didn't insult your intelligence, I remarked on your behavior.
The reality is that if Hillary chooses to hand the election to McCain, she may well have the power to do so. That power derives from her influence with her supporters and potential supporters. That's the core issue at this point.
No matter what happpens, like the Republicans, the Democrats will not have an official nominee until the convention. I agree with you, May 31 won't magically change that and neither will the end of the primaries. However, declarations by the superdelegates won't either. If every single superdelegate declares their intention to vote for Obama tomorrow, Hillary can still claim that she's won the popular vote, they've made a mistake and she's fighting on until the convention with the intention of changing their minds.
The best, and quite possibly only, way to win in November is to convince Hillary it's in her best interest to cede the nomination and support Obama. The superdelegates are a part of that, but only one part.
If FL and MI come into the rules meeting with proposals for seating their delegates that the party can live with that will cut Hillary off at the pass on that one. Once the primaries are over then everyone has voted and that's also no longer an argument.
Again, my point is that the superdelegates are not the silver bullet that you are looking for. There is no silver bullet. The superdelegates need to declare their intentions in concert with the work of sorting out FL and MI, negotiating with Hillary and continuing to win over the voters.
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | May 22, 2008 1:03:36 PM
Steve Parker, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your use of "enable". You too seem to think that the system we used this year was preferable to winner-take-all. This was the first time the system was used, and as in our mail-in ballot history, a lot of wrinkles will need to be ironed out.
It appears that some of you have connections to the national party, e.g. the superdelegates commenting here, and one big change the party needs to make a priority is not allowing Republicans to freely cross over and vote in our primaries. I know I am preaching to the choir in Oregon because we don't allow it. But the Republicans have played with our heads this year to an unbearable extent and balled up the works in states which allow it. No state party can be forced to do so, but I hope there will be a discussion on the damage which can arise when Republicans are allowed into our primaries.
Posted by: Jenny Greenleaf | May 22, 2008 1:25:09 PM
naschkatzehussei, our methods for selecting a presidential candidate certainly do need an overhaul.
I've posted here before that I'm in favor of rotating regional primaries, but it's going to take some doing to make that happen.
The DNC and RNC can make rules, but it's state parties and state legislatures that make the decisions about how and when elections/caucuses are held. We have a complete hodge-podge of open and closed primaries, caucuses, and the Texas hybrid. Each state is attached to their way of doing things and New Hampshire and Iowa will fight to preserve their first-in-nation status.
I wish the DNC could fix it, but it can't do it alone.
Posted by: Bill R. | May 22, 2008 1:26:25 PM
Doretta: "Again, my point is that the superdelegates are not the silver bullet that you are looking for."
Your personal insults as an attempt to denigrate an appropriate argument are not well received and *do* undermine your argument.
I'm not expecting any "silver bullet". What would be helpful from people like Wayne Kinney and Jenny Greenleaf is a demonstration to Hillary Clinton and her campaign that her tactics are divisive and hurt the party, and her announced intention to portray her fight as a "civil rights" cause and continue the fight to the convention is bogus and destructive. By speaking out against these tactics that direclty undermine the party and the nominee and by announcing their support for the party's nominee they can show her that her destructive efforts are without support.
Posted by: Chris #12 | May 22, 2008 1:36:17 PM
Back to the "Unity" meeting--how did it go? Everyone kiss and make up? Did Merkley or Novick say anything to help us bitter Novick supporters get on board the unity train?
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | May 21, 2008 7:53:48 PM
How about unity behind the presidential nominee, Barack Obama? Hillary say she's going to take it all the way to the convention. Are Josh Kardon and his group going to go along with that? How can there be unity when the Clintonites are trying to bring down the party and its chances in the fall so she can run in 2012?