March 16, 2008
WASHINGTON - In focus // politics
Barack Obama blew Hillary Clinton away in last month's Mid-Atlantic primary. Nearly half of Obama's delegate lead over Clinton can be traced to his landslide victories in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
But the region's superdelegates are in a different camp. Those who have made endorsements favor Clinton over Obama in each of the jurisdictions that held primaries that day.
In Maryland, a state she lost by 23 percentage points, Clinton has twice as many superdelegate backers, 10 to Obama's five.
Chalk that up to one of Clinton's biggest - and most overlooked - advantages in the nomination fight: the Democratic National Committee.
Anyone with passing interest in the '08 campaign knows that superdelegates include Democratic governors and members of Congress. In part because their own necks are at risk on Election Day, they've been given the power to pick any candidate they want and, if necessary, help steer the party away from a disaster in November. These superdelegates are getting intense media scrutiny, along with relentless lobbying by the candidates and their supporters.
Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, who is uncommitted, has been contacted twice by former President Bill Clinton, and he chats from time to time with both Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with their top surrogates.
"It's soft-sell, at best," Cardin says. The campaigns were taking his temperature "almost hourly" in the lead-up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, when he was rumored to be on the verge of an endorsement (he declines to say for whom).
There's another category of superdelegates, more numerous than the governors and members of Congress combined but almost totally out of the public eye: the roughly 400 activists who make up the party's national committee.
At the moment, they are Clinton's secret weapon in the race for superdelegates, accounting for nearly her entire advantage in that category.
Clinton has 255 superdelegate supporters to Obama's 207, according to a New York Times count, a difference of 48 superdelegates. According to information supplied by the campaigns and other sources, Clinton has 151 DNC superdelegates to Obama's 110, a lead of 41.
Unlike members of Congress and governors, most of the largely anonymous DNC members lack significant experience in national campaigns. They haven't had to worry about whether an unpopular presidential nominee could sink their own careers because not many hold elective office.
"They bring almost nothing to the table," said Mark A. Siegel, a Clinton supporter from Maryland who speaks from long experience. As a former executive director of the DNC, he chaired an advisory panel to the 1982 party commission that rewrote the nominating rules and created the class of delegates that came to be known as superdelegates.
He said all DNC members, other than state party chairs and vice chairs, could be eliminated from the superdelegate category without harming the party. The original superdelegate rules did not even include the DNC members.
"They added themselves," explained Siegel, a DNC member for many years. (The Republican National Committee liked their Democratic counterparts' idea so much, they copied it and made themselves automatic convention delegates, too.)
During the Clinton administration, DNC members were feted at the White House and given special tickets to the presidential inauguration. More than a few DNC members owe their seats to President Clinton (and, like Supreme Court justices, many serve virtually for as long as they choose).
Twenty-one of Clinton's 25 area superdelegates sit on the DNC (the others are Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger and Bill Clinton's former national party chairman, Terry McAuliffe). Her DNC superdelegates from Washington, D.C. , Maryland and Virginia include at least seven who were aides or appointees during the Clinton presidency.
The strong Clinton tilt among "Potomac primary" superdelegates also reflects the DNC slots that the party provides to its most powerful interest group, organized labor. Several labor superdelegates live in Maryland, including officials of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and two from the machinists union, both of which have endorsed Clinton.
Obama's area superdelegate supporters include an official of the Service Employees International Union, which has endorsed Obama. AFL-CIO head John Sweeney, a member of the Maryland delegation to the convention in Denver, is still uncommitted, as are almost half of the state's superdelegates.
Greg Pecararo of Westminster, a DNC member since 1996, said he complained in jest to a Clinton delegate tracker that he hadn't even gotten a call from the candidate's daughter, Chelsea.
"It shows where I rank," said Pecararo, who sees no reason to make a choice until the August convention and dismisses the notion that a prolonged nomination fight will help John McCain.
How Maryland and the rest of the country voted will be one factor in his decision, said Pecararo. But the rush of states to hold early primaries did "not allow the normal nomination process to play out" this year, and party rules "give us the obligation to substitute our judgment for what would have happened there."
He said it was a "philosophical question" as to whether other factors might also influence his vote, such as the interests of his trade association. Pecararo runs a lobbying arm of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and "if your employer came to you" and expressed an opinion for one Democrat over another, he acknowledged, "you might take that into account."


Comments: 22
Okay Alan D--it's your turn! :)
Good morning Kay K. I am done hillary bashing. There is too much at stake for a Bush third term. I will continue my support for Obama but will support Clinton. I want the process to be fair. If Hillary takes it, it has to be fair. The super delegates need to give people a sound rationale of over ruling the pledged delegates. If they don't every reasonable person knows John McCain will win and I don't want that to happen. I hope one of these two emerges fair and square otherwise it will be the democratic party's loss.
Take a pause, and look at the big picture. The democrats are destroying each other, doing the GOP work and we will lose in November. That would be tragic.
Alan, what would be the problem taking this issue to the convention. Let each candidate make their case and allow ballots to be taken until a winner is decided. It would allow a full airing of both sides on national television, with the best candidate winning. Many issues have surfaced on both candidates after key primary votes. A convention debate would put all issues on the table, and the best candidate for the party would get the nomination.
What's the problem with taking this to the convention? I don't know, never been to one, but it looks like I might be in Denver. From what I heard from people who have been there and the DNC officials, you don't want a fight there. Actually the cameras are not everywhere and you will not see the backroom dealings anyway.
Let the voters from the other states have their say. I think both campaigns need to compromise at this point. Barack camp should let go this Mi and FL and the Hill camp should not make that pop vote argument if Barack let the MI and FL have full blown primaries again. Michigan and Florida need their votes to count and at that point, if Hillary does not make it with having her way with Michigan and Florida, she needs to let it go. That's my opinion. But it's not up to me or any voter at this point. Both campaigns need to agree and DNC needs to make it happen.
From my end, I will just support my candidate and tone down the negativity. I was at Daily Kos and the Clinton supporters are menacing to stop blogging and it has become nasty. As an Obama supporter you can't say we are against the old politics of bickering and fighting and then engage in just that, sounding like the GOP attack dogs going after Hillary. That's hypocritical and needs to stop.
However, the Wright scandal could change the dynamics, along with the NAFTA-Canada fib. It's going to be interesting, in any case.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/03/03/2008-03-04T000047Z_01_N03391783_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-OBAMA-UPDATE-1.html
RCP Average 03/05 - 03/15 - 45.8 45.0 Obama +0.8
Gallup Tracking 03/13 - 03/15 1223 V 48 45 Obama +3.0
Rasmussen Tracking 03/12 - 03/15 900 LV 47 44 Obama +3.0
NBC/WSJ 03/07 - 03/10 RV 43 47 Clinton +4.0
Newsweek 03/05 - 03/06 573 RV 45 44 Obama +1.0
Sure the polls will be affected the time it takes to correct the smear. So FAR SO GOOD. Looks like a jump from March 5th
They sit on stories, wait until will do the most damages, then fire. The New York Times endorsed John McCain, waited until he won the nomination and run a smear piece on him.
It's about others, not Obama. When you geniuses can come up with any evidence Obama believes any of the cited views , you'll have something. I can show you tons that proves he does not. Right now, you've got smear by osmosis, or some such sh*t. If we were all judged by even our extended relative's views, I think none of us would make good candidate material, if we are honest, not that I expect those opposed for other reasons to be..... What you have, really, is only swiftboat material. Not that the pasting of a candidate with false claims is something you all have ever had qualms about before..........
Keep that in mind.