Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift - Gore could be key broker (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JO BECKER

Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 796 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

<SNIP>

“Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker,” said a close associate of Mr. Gore’s, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “He’s probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this.”

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

[rateyes]

1. If Gore had gotten in the race last fall we would already have our nominee. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. Without a doubt

He spoke out against the war strongly before many did
and lead the way on global awarness to the problems that
humanity is facing with an inconvenient truth.

He was even leading at one time not even being a candidate.

When Gore speaks the nation and the world listens.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

30. and sadly the Obama people would have thrown him under the bus too

[Guaranteed]

31. Ummm.....no, I don't think so. nt

[Tatiana]

39. Uhhh... not even. We respect Mr. Gore and he'd ALWAYS be my first choice. n/t

[catgirl]

43. That's laughable

All the Draft Gore people are with Obama now. Gore and Obama both have
integrity (unlike another candidate we all know), and they are friends. There
was a Gore/Obama movement out there until it became clear Gore wasn't
jumping in the race.

[TheDoorbellRang]

47. Nope. Not ever. n/t

[surfermaw]

35. If this race gets tied up, then a brokered convention

A brokered Convention with Gore the nominee should please everyone, that is if it is a tied up thing. with Obama as the V.P., he doesn't have the experience but 4 years backing up Gore would put him where he need to be to win the election 8 years from now.

[Honeycombe8]

2. "Party elders" are not needed. Let the voters decide. Very simple.

If the superdelegates echo who the voters pick - and the voters WILL pick someone - then there is no problem.

There is ONLY a problem if the Clintons and their superdelegates try to usurp the will of the voters. The Obama camp doesn't seem to be inclined to do so similarly, so the problem is only coming from the Clintons.

Proof positive as to how divisive the Clintons are. They are tearing apart their own party before they even get to the general election.

A change is needed.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. what if Hillary wins the popular and Obama wins the delegate count?

Is it possible to win the delegate race and lose the popular, like in the ge?

If, not counting superdelegates, this is how the race works out it's going to cause big problems in the democratic party regardless of which candidate has which.
The aggrieved group will spend the duration of the next presidency claiming it's not legitimate.

[Sulawesi]

7. That would be bad...and it possible...

though it seems like the proportionate delegate system makes it less likely than "winner take all"

[IndianaGreen]

10. Obama has the lead in the popular vote, even with MI ad FL factored in

He will be the popular vote leader in Denver, regardless of what happens.

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. which one has the popular wasn't the point

but thanks

[Honeycombe8]

15. What counts? Delegates. I have never taken the position that popular vote supercedes...

the LEGAL way of determining winners.

If the legal way needs to be changed, it should be changed. But I was never one of those who insisted that Gore should win because he won the popular vote. To me, that was a reflection on the bad electoral college system.

So....whoever gets the required # of delegates is the winner. If neither gets the required #...then whatever the law says as to the winner is what rules. If there is no rule for that, then the one w/most delegates is the presumed winner at that point...and the superdelegates then weigh in, giving one of the them the required # of total delegates.

Popular vote doesn't mean anything. If it did, the system would reflect that, right? It doesn't.

[Clovis Sangrail]

18. whether popular vote is more important is really the issue

delegates and electors are, ostensibly, ways to reflect the will of the people.
Situations where somebody wins the popular vote and not the election point out the flaws of those abstractions.
Those types of wins may be legal, but they clearly don't reflect the will of the people.

It's perfectly valid for people to protest that, in those cases, the result is not democratic.

[4themind]

32. Edited

-nt

[JamesA1102]

14. Typical Clinton-hater rant

This problem is coming from both sides. If Obama is so pure why doesn't he release Senators Kerry and Kennedy from their endorsments so they can reflect the will of the voters of Mass. and vote for Hillary.

[Honeycombe8]

16. To the contrary, I don't hate the Clintons at all. I merely stated facts. You got something

against facts, I guess, when they reflect poorly on the person you support.

Fact: It is ONLY the Clintons and their supporters who are espousing the views toward superdelegates and Michigan and FL delegates that are splitting the party apart. If you don't like that fact, take it up with your co-supporters and the Clintons.

[Cha]

40. What the poster says is all true..

so that makes me conclude that all you can do is sling out "clinton-haters" and then think you've contributed something intelligent.

Maybe Obama will let Senators Kerry and Kennedy do their own thinking unlike hilaryland.

[Clovis Sangrail]

42. "release ... from their endorsments" ? 0.o

I didn't realize once a super endorsed somebody they were somehow contractually bound to that endorsement until they were 'released' from it.
As far as I know the supers can change their minds up to the time they actually cast their vote.

[totodeinhere]

46. I'm getting sick and tired of...

seeing anyone who dares disagree with Clinton supports being called a "Clinton hater."

[Sulawesi]

3. The non-subtle subtext of this article is that things don't look good for HRC

[jefferson_dem]

4. Yep. I'm glad Gore has remained on the sidelines and not endorsed.

This way he will have more credibility in helping put a lid on any ClintonInc bullshit shenanigans come convention time.

[Sulawesi]

5. I agree with this, but Gore is not the saviour so many think. Obama is actually a better politician

Gore is poised to make a real difference if needed, but I don't think he will be needed. It is also clear that he and others are influencing things, in a positive way (toward the voters) behind closed doors.

Not everything that happens in the corridors of power are wrong...some people can defence democracy in a principled way.

[tyne]

8. I sure hope

Obama names Gore our energy Czar.

We do indeed have an embarrassment of riches.

[chimpymustgo]

20. I don't want a politician. I want a President. Gore is lightyears more knowledgeable than Obama.

Gore knows the extent of the problems, and how to fix them. You'd be crazy is you'd opt for an unproven, untested, bought and paid-for rookie.

We can have the real thing - President Al Gore.

[ChiciB1]

26. Obama Can't Hold A Candle To Gore.... AND I Do Believe Had John Edwards

not been given the "heave-ho" Gore would have endorsed him! I'm so very happy that NEITHER ONE OF THEM have endorsed the two left! And neither one of the two... ARE LEFT!

[catgirl]

44. I don't think so

The war vote nixed that idea.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. put the cup down and back away from the pitcher

[Barack_America]

12. Okay. It's not just me.

I somehow originally missed this post. ;)

[IndianaGreen]

9. Gore was always the honest side of the Clinton/Gore coin

and he is highly respected by everyone, except by Al From and his crypto-nazis in the DLC.

[Barack_America]

11. Is it just me, or does it seem like...

Gore, Pelosi, etc. are preparing for a full Clinton assault on the Convention?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

17. IF the party elders wish for all hell to break loose, they'll ignore THE PEOPLE and BROKER

the Democratic Nominee Convention. :evilgrin:

It. Won't. Happen.

[BeyondGeography]

19. You can bet most of them are praying that Obama pulls away with this thing

for two reasons:

a) They don't want to get their hands dirty.

b) There's no future in the Clintons.

[LisaL]

23. Well, I don't think it can happen.

Can Obama mathematically get the number of votes to win the nomination?
Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough votes, ain't that so?

[BeyondGeography]

27. No, but if Obama adds substantially to his current lead in pledged delegates

and the popular vote, they'll have enough cover to encourage the supers to go with him.

[jackson_dem]

21. Gore, once again, is putting country and party before his self-interest

He is keeping a poker face even privately. He is doing the right thing. We have three elder statesmen of national stature. Gore, Clinton, and Carter. Clinton is obviously a partisan so he can't help in this. I think we will need Gore, and Carter who folks tend to forget, to help broke a peaceful resolution should this go to the convention. Gore has the special ability to be able to speak with the highest credibility possible about accepting the result of the political process even if you vigorously disagree with it. Carter has a long record of negotiating peace.

President Gore, I salute you. Regardless of if you ever become president you will go down in history as one of the greatest Americans. :patriot:

[NastyRiffraff]

22. President Gore!

If only!

However, we have the present trainwreck. I think Gore and Carter are excellent honest brokers. There's no one good solution to the MI and FL mess, but I think those two, along with the neutral (at least publicly) Dean can work out a solution. It'll be imperfect; it won't make everyone happy; but I think it can be as fair as possible, given that the MI and FL parties blatantly violated the rules.

[jackson_dem]

25. A fair solution I think would be to seat them but to reduce their delegation by 50%

To disenfranchise would basically be surrendering the general election because we can't win if we surrender Florida and Michigan.

[Clovis Sangrail]

28. If the DNC really wants Fl and Mi in the general

they should pillory the Fl (and especially Mi) dem leadership who voted for pushing their primary up.

It needs to be made very very clear to Fl/Mi dems that the local dem leadership did this to their own constituents.

[jackson_dem]

29. No amount of excuses can make up for stripping 10% of Democrats of their voices

It was the DNC, in their obsession with Iowa and New Hampshire (now there are two vital general election states! :sarcasm: ), that in the end did. The buck stops at the DNC's door. They should have penalized but not disenfranchised.

[Johnny__Motown]

33. I live in Michigan, I voted and I don't want the delegates seated. it isn't fair to

change the rules after the vote has taken place.

I am not saying the DNC handled it correctly, just that those were the rules that were in place when the vote took place, we need to abide by the rules that were in place at the time.

If you want to argue for a re-vote, either primary or caucus, that is fine I am willing to debate that.
I'm sure you don't want to discuss that, you just want Hillary to win and you are using disenfranchisement as a wedge. If you, or Hillary cared about disenfranchisement this would have been raised before the vote, not afterwords. Kinda like what happened in Nevada. No problem with the caucuses on "the strip" until she lost the union endorsement she wanted. As soon as that happened we had a lawsuit about the unfair caucuses. Again "Disenfranchisement" was the battle cry .

Simply changing things now isn't right, it is unfair to everyone who voted, and everyone who did not vote, with the understanding that there were no delegates at stake.

[Clovis Sangrail]

41. you're right!

the elected dems in Fl should be thrown out of the party and chased out of office.

After being told, in no uncertain terms, they could lose all of their delegates if they move their primary up to Jan 29... ALL except 1 Fl dem voted to do it anyways.
After they were told again that they were going to lose all of their delegates if they had their primary on Jan 29... they decided to keep that date anyways.
They even fought lawsuits intended to roll the date back to march so their constituents would be able to take part in the primaries.

The Fl dem leadership beligerantly gambled with the rights of their constituents to take part in the primaries.
It was a stupid gamble from just about any perspective I can think of and they should be held accountable.

The Mi leadership was even worse because they saw what was happening with the DNC and Fl and took the same (obviously losing) gamble anyways.

[Kahuna]

34. I hope that Gore gets to deliver the news to Billary. "Pack your bags ..

and book a flight with Buh-Bye Airlines, because it's O-V-E-R.

[milkyway]

36. Gore to Clinton: If you want the nomination, you have to win it with pledged delegates.

It's pretty clear from this article that Gore, Pelosi, the past candidates, and others will wait until a winner of the pledged delegates has an insurmountable lead, at which time they will step forward and crown that candidate the winner. Many other superdelegates will follow their lead, and the losing candidate will be asked to drop out of the race and support the winner.

This could happen after March 4 if Obama has a good night. It will not go past April 22. The Dem party will not want images of its candidates in San Juan, Puerto Rico asking Puerto Ricans to give them the nomination. The rightwing media would have a field day with this.

[loveangelc]

37. i agree

[GoldieAZ49]

48. I agree, we have to have our candidate campaigning for the GE long before

the convention in August. The Dem party cannot win if we spend all summer with the candidates going back and forth arguing over petty differences while 'back room deals' are being discussed and rumors of votes being bought.

We need a candidate for the GE that can start taking on McCain in March.

[cloudythescribbler]

45. Most likely, by Mid-March the picture should begin to become clearer -- and a talks toward a ...

solution would start then at the latest; although it is POSSIBLE that no resolution will be found before the convention, it is less than likely.

Avoiding this problem is one reason it is ESPECIALLY important that Obama build up a COMMANDING lead ASAP, and that people like us see the importance of that. Then the question will be the SDs who we should feel the obligation to speak out (saying no way SD's should override whoever gets majority of raw votes AND pledged delegates).