No, actually, we just signed on to a letter to Howard Dean taking a critical look at the state blogger credential selections for the Democratic National Convention.  As Matt Stoller notes, some of the selections were unusual, whether in Michigan or New Jersey or New York, and we’re just looking for some answers about the process.  I don’t envy the DNC’s job here; you’re talking about hundreds of blogs in 50 states and only enough room for one each (maybe that was the problem).  But it seems like some more care could have been taken. Marc Ambinder reports on it and prints some of the letter.  Here’s the whole thing (on the flip):

Governor Howard Dean

Democratic National Committee

430 S. Capitol St., SE

Washington, DC 20003

Monday, May 19, 2008

Governor Dean:

Let us begin by noting our respect for your position at the Democratic National Committee and the reforms you have made. Your efforts to rebuild the Democratic Party in all 50 states has reinvigorated the political debate across the country — and strengthened not just the party, but our country as well, in the process.

We write to you today out of concern that the same principles that have strengthened our party are today being ignored in the state blog credentialing process for the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

As long-time progressive state bloggers, we have now witnessed many of our well-respected colleagues from crucial states be passed over. In many states, it appears that parochial politics and hurt egos played a role in these decisions. These concerns run counter to our shared goals of using programs like the state blogger pool to “tear down the walls” in Denver — and better connect the American people with the events on the ground.

The Democratic Party endangers its own long-term viability when it makes fealty a criterion for inclusion. Instead, the Party should act to ensure that it includes its ideological media allies, even if those allies are occasional tactical or strategic critics.

We, the undersigned, have been included in the state credentials pool, despite our own history of criticism of local Democratic actors. This speaks well to the character of our own local parties. But while our peers in other states are being excluded, we’d be remiss in staying silent.

We encourage you to review the selection process undertaken and reasons given by state parties for excluding some of America’s most respected state level progressive blogs. We believe a fair and thorough review is necessary to ensure success for this promising experiment in shining a light on the Democratic Convention.

Sincerely,

Charley Blandy, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Robert Cruickshank, Calitics (CA)

Dave Dayen, Calitics (CA)

Lowell Feld, Raising Kaine (VA)

Jon Flack, Tondee’s Tavern (GA)

Matt Glazer, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Steve Hanson, Uppity Wisconsin (WI)

Matt Jerzyk, Rhode Island’s Future (RI)

David Kravitz, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Brian Leubitz, Calitics (CA)

Phillip Martin, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Ryan McLeod, Daily Kingfisher (LA)

Kyle Michaelis, New Nebraska Network (NE)

Karl-Thomas Musselman, Burnt Orange Report (TX)

Bob Neer, Blue Mass Group (MA)

Chad Nodland, North Decoder (ND)

Lucas O’Connor, Calitics (CA)

John Odum, Green Mountain Daily (VT)

Kenneth Quinnell, Florida Progressive Coalition (FL)

Julia Rosen, Calitics (CA)

Matt Singer, Left in the West (MT)

Joe Sonka, BlueGrassRoots (KY)

Jay Stevens, Left in the West (MT)

Jeff Wegerson, Prairie State Blue (IL)

We at Calitics certainly don’t shy away from criticizing the state party or national Democrats from California, and the fact that we were included for selection speaks well of the process as it played out here.  But it’d be nice to know how that went sideways in some other states.  As part of the state blogging network we rise or fall together, and so there was no hesitation at asking for answers about why some of our finest colleagues were shut out from credentialing.

Today is the day to choose the delegates for this year’s DNC Convention in Denver. Since the Clinton team refuses to acknowledge the math, it could be the first convention floor fight in a generation so choose well. Here’s what you need to know:

• Get there early, registration is from 2PM – 3PM followed by the caucuses. So get there early (I’m aiming for 1:45).
• Find out your caucus location. It is by congressional district. Obama sites – Clinton sites
• Check out the candidate list. There are a ton of candidates with many running like actual campaigns and such.
• Any other questions? Check out the FAQ

And let us know how things worked. I’m predicting record turnout with logistical problems because of record interest. Speaking of which, bring your friends!

P.S. You MUST be in line by 3PM to vote. Did I mention to get there early?

One thing I’ve noticed about the Obama campaign is that it reflects the candidate, in that they actually bother to listen and respond.

And so:

David Plouffe just sent out this email…

There has been an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots support for Senator Obama among Democrats and Independents in all 53 California Congressional districts.

In recognition of this tremendous enthusiasm, our campaign has asked the California Democratic Party to allow all persons who have filed to be a district delegate candidate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention to participate in the caucuses this Sunday, April 13, 2008.

We are confident that delegates elected from this pool will reflect the Senator’s commitment to a diverse and unified delegation at the National Convention.

An overwhelming number of supporters have signed up to run for delegate, so there will likely be lines and tight space at the caucus locations. We ask for everyone’s patience and cooperation.

Most of all, please enjoy this opportunity to meet other Obama supporters and elect delegate candidates to the Convention in Denver.

If you have any questions, please contact Daryl Sprague at [email protected].

Thanks for your interest and active participation in Barack’s campaign to change politics and change America.

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

In the end, the weird randomness of the pruning and anger from sections of the grassroots necessitated this.  I didn’t have as big a problem with it as everyone else, but I’m glad it reached a good resolution… until Sunday, that is 🙂

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

Well, I guess it’s down to me to take the contrarian view of this whole list purge business.

The short answer is that activists aren’t owed seats in Denver just because they’re activists.  It’s perfectly legitimate for the Obama campaign to reward supporters who walked precincts, made phone calls, dropped lit, stayed up late at the campaign office, and generally did anything and everything logistically to help the candidate win California (confidentially, I was told by someone high-up on the campaign last night that they did indeed tie on Election Day; it was the absentees that swung the race to Clinton).  Just being a good activist is not enough.  You’re actually not going to the convention to represent the party, you’d be going as an Obama or Clinton delegate, representing the candidate.  Honestly, considering that there were about 1,000 precinct captains in California, if you weren’t one, you shouldn’t be an Obama delegate.  Bottom line.

What I and many of us object to is the haphazard, seemingly random standard applied here, where delegates with little or no ground experience remained on the ballot, while those with a lot didn’t (like the guy in CA-36 who was a paid Richardson staffer who remains on the Obama list).  Because you’re talking about 1,700 delegates, there are lots of arguments you can make for why the campaign chose one candidate or another, but they’re all unprovable and contradicted by the group in the next district over.  The people still in the race range from bundlers to people who never gave a dime, those who worked their hearts out to those who didn’t lift a finger, progressive antiwar activists to those who aren’t as vocal.  When you’re talking about 1,700 for 108 slots, there’s not going to be any one reason, and anyone who says otherwise is being extremely myopic.  In addition, there are the well-established CDP demographic rules and needs, so compiling a list that will fit those needs is probably a great puzzle.  And also, practically everyone on the Obama campaign is in Pennsylvania or North Carolina and Indiana by now, so the vetting process had to be undertaken by a very small number of people.

Over…

I’m not defending the Obama campaign at all, but I have to say that there are those in the grassroots that need to, and this is where the flame war might begin, grow up.  You don’t just automatically get to be a delegate to the DNC because of who you are or what you advocate, even.  You ought to get it because of what you’ve done, real work on a personal level.  If you did and you were culled, that’s wrong.  If you didn’t and you’re still on that list, that’s wrong.  But it’s a huge undertaking and you have one or two staffers making value judgments on 1,700 people based on all sorts of criteria, and there’s bound to be slippage and “my activism is better than your activism” arguments.

What’s more, if you actually think your activism is better than someone else’s activism, you can actually appeal to a higher power!  From an email:

It is actually Brent Messenger in Northern California that vetted the candidates.

brent.messenger-at-gmail-dot-com

What they are asking for is evidence like “you were a precinct captain for Obama”

They are purging all people besides those that worked heavily on the campaign.  

They want FOR SURE Obama delegates.  

I spoke with Laura of LAgrassroots4obama and they are rewarding people that have spent the last year of their lives on planes and in the volunteer office.

If you are in Southern California and truly worked on the Obama Campaign prior to the Feb 5 Primary and were cut from the candidate list contact Laura:

laura-at-LAgrassroots4obama-dot-com

I do think the Obama people are a little paranoid from Clinton’s whole “there’s no such thing as a pledged delegate” shtick, and they let it get inside their heads.  But people who did the time should get the prize.  So if you did the work, don’t mourn, send an email and organize.  If you didn’t work and you’re pissed, all politics is local so go talk to your neighbors instead of deciding you’re entitled to a trip to Denver.

…I would also say that a part of the problem was having post-primary delegate elections in the first place.  Before the primary it would have been very clear to the candidate who the supporters and activists were and there wouldn’t have been so many mistakes.  Susie Shannon’s delegate selection proposal was far more reasoned and thought-out than what we ended up with.  Her letter from July 10 of last year is prescient.

July 10, 2007

Dear Delegate Selection Committee,

At the Los Angeles Delegate Selection Plan Hearing I testified that my

main concern regarding holding delegate elections post-primary is that it

encourages opportunism over loyalty to a candidate. The plan, as

presented, opens the door for supporters of candidates receiving low votes

in the primary to take over the delegate elections of candidates receiving

high votes.

It is my strong opinion that delegates of presidential candidates to the

Democratic National Convention should be representatives of that candidate

and should, to the best extent possible, be loyal supporters.

How are we to stay unified through the 2008 general election if we create

a process that risks fracturing California Democrats between those who

work hard and are loyal supporters of a particular candidate and those

looking to become delegates any way possible? The delegate selection

plan as presented also raises basic issues of fair play and can be

disheartening for hard working democrats who we hope will maintain a

strong will to work through the 2008 general election.

After the Los Angeles hearing I spoke to Eric Bauman about the possibility

of having elections post-primary but setting the delegate filing deadline

prior to the California primary. I also mentioned this plan to the 42nd

AD delegates at our meeting last month and to various other delegates and

E-Board members of the CDP. I believe that some of them have already

submitted testimony to your committee. This seems to me the only fair and

logical compromise. It would allow candidates more time to locate venues

and arrange for elections post-Iowa Caucus, but also create a more fair

delegate selection process in California.

My proposal is to set the delegate application deadline for January 31,

2008 (pre-California primary) and hold elections the weekend of March 1,

2008 – 30 days from the application deadline.

I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration by the

Delegate Selection committee.

(And get there early. Props to our CDP – promoted by Bob Brigham)

This Sunday, April 13, you get to pick the delegates who will be sent from California to the Democratic National Convention in Denver next August. Whether you support Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama, you’ll have a chance to determine who goes to Denver and who watches on TV.

The caucuses to elect the delegates will take place on April 13th everywhere in the state at 3:00 p.m., with sign-in and voting starting at 2:00 p.m. You must be in line by 3 p.m. to receive a ballot.

Every aspect of the 2008 Democratic presidential race has generated lots of enthusiasm and excitement, so we expect that these caucuses will be very well attended. This raises the likelihood of long lines as people sign in to get their ballots.

In order to cut down on the waiting time, the California Democratic Party has developed the widget below to allow attendees to pre-register online.

The deadline for pre-registration is Thursday, April 10th at 12:00 Noon.

Just fill in the blanks and follow the prompts. You can cut down on the long lines and help out the campaign volunteers who are staging these events by taking this simple step ahead of time.

More info on the caucuses on the flip.

You can only vote in one caucus and you MUST vote in the Congressional district where you are registered as a Democrat. Please plan to get to your caucus early so you have plenty of time to park and sign in. You must be in line by 3:00 p.m. in order to receive a ballot.

We hope you take this opportunity to come out and participate in the next step of the historic 2008 presidential election and help choose the delegates who will represent you at this summer’s Democratic convention.

For more information about the caucuses, please check our website.  Here are some links.

To find the locations for your Hillary Clinton caucus, visit:

www.cadem.org/clintoncaucus

To find the locations for your Barack Obama caucus, visit:

www.cadem.org/obamacaucus

If you have any other questions, you can check out our handy FAQ at:

www.cadem.org/delegateselectionfaq

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

Here and across my series of 872 blogs, I’ve been pretty vocal about the superdelegate situation, about how it’s a media creation designed to set Democrats against themselves and damage the party’s credibility as we move into the fall.  I’m not the only one, either.  Today comes a thinly sourced story about how the Clinton campaign is vowing to go after pledged delegates who represent the distribution in the various state primaries and caucuses, a charge that the campaign summarily denied.  The truth is that the Democratic Party’s somewhat convoluted system practically demands that some pledged delegates will be up for grabs, but this Politico/Drudge effort doesn’t pass any kind of smell test.  Essentially, my feeling is that the Democratic Party put together a system they never thought they would have to use.  For decades now both parties have created a calendar designed to nominate a candidate as early as humanly possible.  They never considered the implications of having two equally strong candidates and a campaign that would grind on (although let’s get some perspective on that; it’s only February 19 here, and the scenarios being games out may be inoperative in a matter of weeks).  Now that the system is being trotted out, pretty much for the first time ever (arguably, 1984 brought these rules into play), it’s showing a little rust.  OK, a lot of rust.  They’re trying to patch it up and have a bunch of elder statesmen manage this situation.  I think this is a freak-out that is far too premature.

over..

However, I have to continue to call B.S. on this idea that superdelegates will somehow subvert the popular will and act to destroy the Democratic Party from within.  I understand there’s not a lot of belief from those who have seen the party screw over their base time and time again in recent years.  While I agree that the concept of superdelegates should come as a surprise to many, and they almost certainly should be fixed so this doesn’t happen again, there’s a ton of misinformation out there about who these superdelegates actually are.

I talked with Garry Shay, a superdelegate from here in California, a DNC member and the Chair of the Rules Committee for the California Democratic Party.  He is a party activist who has a day job and was concerned by all the media attention taking him away from his work.  He was an antiwar activist who worked hard for George McGovern.  He was elected by the executive board of the CDP to his DNC post and essentially is a representative of the state party rank and file.  That includes someone like me, who ran and won a seat on the Democratic State Central Committee in this state.  The barriers to entry, then, are very low, and the likelihood that these superdelegates are not “party bosses,” whatever that means, but committed activists, is very high.  Shay surmised it was about 1/2 of all superdelegates.  These are in large part, the people who elected Howard Dean to the chairmanship of the party, against the will of much of the elected leadership.  A good summary of who these delegates are is here.

Why are there superdelegates at all?  Basically, before 1972 the process for choosing a nominee was far less small-d democratic.  The McGovern reforms regarding primaries, and the 1974 charter added some structure to the process.  Shay didn’t agree with me totally that this created rules that were essentially designed to not come into play, but he did say that superdelegates were created to “give members more of a connection to the nominee,” almost a psychological basis, rather than a concerted effort to impose their will on the party.  In fact, superdelegates have never sought to choose the nominee in a way that didn’t reflect the popular will.  Even in 1984, when Walter Mondale had a plurality but not a majority of delegates, the superdelegates did not step in and anoint Gary Hart.  

The either/or of whether a political figure has a responsibility to his own conscience or a responsibility to his own constituents is an age-old argument, and I don’t think any side of this debate, with their own partisan reasoning, is going to advance it in any meaningful way.  But clearly, there are outside pressures that would have come to bear on them with or without the overwatch by progressive organizations like MoveOn and DFA.  The candidate with the most votes is going to get the majority of the superdelegates (probably by a similar proportion), and all of these machinations are going to amount to nothing.

Of far more concern to Shay, and myself, is what to do with these delegates in Michigan and Florida.  It’s an issue with few or no winning moves.  Shay suggested a couple possibilities, like seating Florida with delegates halved, or holding new elections.  But there are pitfalls with every scenario and clearly the rules were enforced with an eye to a clear winner emerging.  This was a mistake, but the bigger mistake is exacerbating this by assuming all kinds of bad motives on the superdelegates and the party itself.  The party gave out a bunch of votes to make everybody feel like they were participating and happy about the process.  They never expected it to be decisive.  And it still might not be.  This is a failure of forward thinking, perhaps even incompetence, but not an attempt to hijack the democratic process.

That is safe, but the reputation of the Party may not be.  Several developments over the last few days have given me pangs of concern about the Presidential race – the teflon coating being placed on McCain, the continued implementation in progressive political circles of right-wing smears on Obama and Clinton, and now this furor over superdelegates, which makes the process look very suspect.  This is a narrative that can easily be fed to swing voters across the country, that the Democratic Party is some sort of top-down monolith that will ignore your votes.  It’s actually not true; the superdelegate effort was designed to create inclusion instead of exclusion.  But exposing the underside of the primary process, between caucuses that are inherently disenfranchising and superdelegates that have a bigger say in the process than previously known and delegate distributions that don’t reflect the popular vote, is giving the electorate something of a foul taste.  Come the fall, much of that is likely to be forgotten.  But it could be effectively implemented to really harm efforts both in retaking the White House and downticket.  This is pretty bad news.

By the way, my perfect solution for the superdelegate problem in the future is to only have their votes count on the SECOND ballot, not the first.  That way, they don’t have a say in the initial process, and a percentage of the elected delegates can be established as a bar that can be scaled by a nominee on the first ballot.  This won’t piss off those party officials and will reassure the public, and most important won’t give the media an excuse to include superdelegates in their counts.

Just a quick note: I will be attending this weekend’s California Democratic Party Executive Board meeting at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento and posting occasional updates on the proceedings on Calitics.  The main issue that everyone seems to be talking about is the process for picking delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in the state, whether those delegate caucuses will be held before the California primary (as is typically the case) or afterwards.  Frankly, I think it’s an inside baseball kind of deal, and while both sides have passionate arguments in favor of or against it, I’m a bit unmoved by them (Pre-primary advocates want a more diverse slate of delegates going to the convention to impact the platform, I believe, to which I say, how many people actually read and ingest and make decisions based on the party platform, and is that number in triple digits or not?).  But I’ll be up there to let you know about them.

The two things I want to see, and will report back about, are the Progressive Caucus on Friday night at 8pm, and a debate on Saturday morning at 8:30am about net neutrality, between Brad Parker of Progressive Democrats of America, and Jim Gordon, the chair of the Labor Caucus (and a member of Communications Workers of America, who are resistant to the principle of net neutrality, to put it mildly).  That should be very fun.  I’ll post the agenda of the meeting on the flip, in case anyone is in Sacramento and would like to attend (apparently observer passes will be available on-site for a nominal fee, I think $15).

EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA
July 13-15, 2007
Radisson Hotel, Sacramento
6/29/07 Tentative

Friday, July 13, 2007

5:00-6:00PM
Credentials Committee
6:00-9:00PM
Registration
6:30-8:00PM
Executive Board Social
8:00-9:30PM
Caucus Meetings
  African-American
  Computer & Internet
  Disabilities (election counting)
  LGBT
  Progressive
  Senior’s
  Veteran’s
  California Young Dems.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

8:00AM-12:30PM
Registration
8:30-10:00AM
Labor Caucus
10:00-12:00 noon
General Session
12:00PM-1:15PM
Luncheon
1:30-3:00 PM
Delegate Selection & Affirmative Action Committee

Workshop: Get Organized: Voter Tactics for 2007
3:00-5:00PM
Standing Committees
  Finance
  Legislative Action & Equal Opportunity
  Voter Services
  Organizational Development
  Platform

3:00-6:30PM
Standing Committees
  Resolutions
  Rules

5:00-6:30PM
Caucus Meetings
  Arab-American
  Asian/Pacific Islander
  Chicano/Latino
  Environmental
  Native-American
  Rural & Irish-American

California Democratic Council
6:30-8:00PM
Caucus Meetings
  Business & Professional
  Children’s
  Disabilities (business meeting)
  Filipino American

Federation of County DSCC Members
8:00-9:30PM
Caucus Meeting
  Women’s Caucus

Sunday July 15, 2007

8-9:30AM
Registration
9:30AM-12 Noon
General Session

You can look at the proposed bylaw changes for the CDP here.

There’s a resolution to support parole and sentencing reform that I’m a co-signatory to, that I’m particularly interested in as well.