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.
