I'd Like To Start A Flame War

I think (0.00 / 0)

for me at least, not having been cut or even trying in the first place, that the issue is more about removing people from consideration without a vote. On its face that fails the smell test of democracy.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:32:59 PM CDT

But it's (0.00 / 0)

allowed and it's probably allowed for a reason.

OC Progressive
Progress, not perfection!

---

by: Ellinorianne @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:56:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Grassroots 101 (6.00 / 2)

It is allowed for a reason. And most reasonable people agree that pruning the list of candidates who have no legitimate, documented record of support for Obama is a good thing.

The problem is: The Obama campaign, probably the most innovative presidential campaign ever, just nuked their CA grassroots supporters by failing to find a solution that would have maintained inclusivity of hundreds of deserving candidates.

This situation is unprecedented, to be sure. But the campaign could have found a smart, effective method of dealing with it.

As I said elsewhere, campaigns of all kinds are watching this mess unfold. And the lesson, as documented by the many deserving delegates disenfranchised, should be abundantly clear:

Don't tread on the grass(roots).

Or, to put a positive frame on it: treat your volunteers like gold.

In "Tipping Point"-speak, these are the mavens and connectors -- the trusted sources and opinion leaders -- that are using social networking and online and community organizing to change politics from the outside in.

These are the people who have catalyzed their communities to invest millions of dollars and thousands of hours into the campaign. They deserve the opportunity to run to be a delegate -- and they deserve a campaign that values their participation enough to come up with a creative solution to a difficult process.

The Obama campaign, up to this point, has been on the right side of history. Let's hope they learn from this mistake and make it up to the kick-ass activists that were kicked to the curb.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eden is correct (4.00 / 1)

There is a reason, just not applied as well as it could/should have been.

Though in a broader sense I'd take issue that because something is done a certain way, there's probably a [good] reason. I add good since that seemed to be your implication.  The whole netroots/progressive/grassroots surge since 03/04 is predicated on the notion that probably there ISN'T a good reason for a lot of this sort of thing.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:14:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps hindsight is 20/20 (0.00 / 0)

but I am most disappointed that they didn't find a way to do this in a more fair manner.  Making cuts is a high risk activity.  I do believe that they made the right strategic decision to cull the list, if only for logistical reasons.  Having 90 people give one minute speeches and then have probably thousands of people vote, just is not practical.

Here is what I would have done instead.  I would have put up a webform on the Obama site and sent an email to every single person who applied to be a delegate.  The form would have check off boxes, allowing people to indicate their role assisting the campaign, things like number of days volunteered, states they traveled to etc.  There would also be a text box for further explanation of the work they did on Obama's behalf.  From there the campaign could have their volunteers/staff go through and evaluate the candidates.  They could cross-reference that with the donation records and other basic research.

The basic issue is that it does not appear as if the campaign had enough information on the candidates to make the cuts and many errors were made.

They are usually very good about these things, which is why this is so disappointing.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:33:16 PM CDT

That's not the way it works, Juls. (0.00 / 0)

In a typical CD, you'll have a couple of dozen people who run as delegates, and quickly, popular names rise to the top, and casual candidates drop off. In most cases, casual candidates do not bring supporters, so there are perhaps a hundred people voting for 20 candidates.

But even using the hypothetical 90 candidates, it doesn't matter.

Conventions in TX and WA are huge, all day affairs. In TX, every state SD, about the size of a CD, had a multi-thousand person county convention, typically taking 12 hours.

Also in TX, where I effectively ran a large precinct convention, every single polling place had caucuses that took around four hours. At 8000 polling places!

It's a wimpy excuse that will not fool old timers that there are too many people who applied to run as delegates.

It is CA tradition that national delegate selection is democratic, and this situation sends a signal that the campaign does not trust its base.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:47:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The issue (0.00 / 0)

is that we have never done this before.  The caucuses in CA are managed by the campaigns, not the Party.  The rooms they have managed to get were not going to be big enough to accommodate the masses that were expected to attend.

The argument that things are not done that way does not hold a lot of water with me.  They can be better and there are ways that existing technology can help with the process.

What has been done in the past does not really matter.  Things are a much different scale this year and the uncertain state of the race is pretty much unprecedented.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:54:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh (0.00 / 0)

Juls, I don't buy it for a minute.

Are you trying to tell me that the field campaign whose primary expertise is running large caucuses can't find large enough halls for CA delegate selection process?

If so, this is their first major failing, and it's hard to believe it would occur with the CA delegation to the national convention.

Juls, the Obama campaign runs thousand person caucuses without breaking a sweat. In TX, county conventions had around 2000 delegates each for 200 slots to Austin. We have similar numbers last weekend and this weekend at the WA legislative district caucuses. In TX, 8000 polling places had four hour caucuses with about 200 people each.

There can be only one reason why the Obama campaign purged the list: they didn't want the regular activists they purged to show up in Denver.  

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:12:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You make some fair points... (0.00 / 0)

... but your last point is a bit obtuse.

There can be only one reason why the Obama campaign purged the list: they didn't want the regular activists they purged to show up in Denver.  

That is not the ONLY reason.

Yes, it's quite possible that an "in" group/"out" group dynamic governed the conduct of those pruning the list.

But, until someone comes up with a systematic way of analyzing who got cut and why, I think Dave nailed it:

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.

The upshot?

More often than not, especially in politics, "incompetence trumps conspiracy."

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:28:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One flaw (0.00 / 0)

as you seem to agree, Obama is not incompetent at caucuses. The chances of this being a screw-up are close to zero.

This has to be about convention discipline.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:05:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's much more complex than that... (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaign is not incompetent at organizing voters to vote in caucuses that have exponentially higher stakes -- Iowa, etc.

In this case, however, the stakes are not perceived (justifiably) to be as high as in a competitive caucus event that would actually determine the quantity of delegates, as opposed to the quality of delegates.

There is also relatively little mass public attention paid to the outcome of these events. CNN and MSNBC are not devoting entire news cycles to coverage of these caucuses. If this event had the same level of scrutiny (and transparency), I suspect the campaign would have been a little more mindful about the process and the outcome.

Bottom line: The Obama campaign did not game out the consequences of this action and recognize the collateral damage that would occur by disenfranchising some of the most passionate and dedicated activists in the country. Had they done so, I'm quite sure they would have invested the time and attention necessary to avoid this grassroots disaster.

Disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign. These opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer.  

---

by: Eden James @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:24:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

The stakes are quite high here. If, as many here claim, the worry is about delegates flipping, a single flip is subtracted from one column and added to the other. A flip is worth two new delegates. At this point, one flip is worth perhaps a million dollars of campaign funds.

But there is much more. IMO, the flip thing, although also about trust, is just a cover story for the real concern: trusting delegates to be under control and businesslike in Denver and not do the sorts of overly energetic, sometimes illegal, things I saw from out of state organizers in Texas.

Marcy says this is about rewarding contributors, but I think that's a somewhat superficial analysis. People who drop big bucks are a lot more sober than many of the gate crashers. Obama does not need true believers in Denver. He needs professionals.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:04:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was thinking somethis close to this (0.00 / 0)

We are all speculating here, but maybe they are looking for not only people they can trust to be loyal, but also those that have other skills, like knowledge of parliamentary procedures, negotiating skills, professional, etc.
I have gone to the previous 2 DNC conventions, not as a delegate, as a volunteer, and they were mainly big party events, fundraisers and junkets.
This year I think we are looking at a working convention, possibly brokered, and with lots of opportunity for mischief.

---

by: dan in sd @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:48:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For the record (0.00 / 0)

this is unusual. On other campaigns, and in other elections, delegates are chosen in a democratic process, by people who attend the caucus.

That's why the CA delegation is always full of CTA members and congressional candidates, they get elected.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:37:55 PM CDT

Thank you for this (0.00 / 0)

I can understand the disappoinment.  My original candidate was Edwards and I did as much as I could for him, but it it when he dropped out and I was a bit angry for a little bit but it ultimately isn't about me and there was nothing to be angry about.

I think the campaign deserves the benefit of the doubt and it troubles me that Democrats want to go down this road with one of the best candidates we've had since I've been breathing.  I believe that whole heartedly.

I'm sorry you were cut but I'm impressed by this, it is so very important and I think it makes a lot more sense coming from you than coming from me.

Thanks.

OC Progressive
Progress, not perfection!

---

by: Ellinorianne @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 13:54:43 PM CDT

I think they should be allowed to purge (0.00 / 0)

I just don't think it came off well. Not planning for there to be record interest forced them to cramp down, with the site capacity fixed. That was the first problem. The second is how they went about it in a backward manner of resource values. For me, this means I can't vote for User ID 2. So I'm voting for UID 125. The front runner is UID 1,635. It will be difficult for him not to lose. And in Denver, he's not going to be following directions, he's going to be doing his own thing. He's famous for it. And I can't vote for Brian.

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:04:52 PM CDT

that was a good and prescient letter (8.00 / 2)

thanks for including it.

I was a "final 48 hours" precinct organizer for Obama in West Oakland, part of a game plan reaching out to under-served neighborhoods. It was a great experience that I would not trade for anything.

I did it to help. Period.

It's clear to me that people put their names up for delegate because of how invested they feel in the campaign.

2008 has created an intensity of commitment unlike previous years and I'm sure the chance to give a one-minute speech that could express that commitment was given a lot of thought by those involved.

I think what's missing is a forum to recognize all those volunteers who moved mountains in so many states.  Many hundreds of thousands of people who can't and won't and never had a shot of going to Denver. People want a chance to speak to their level of commitment and their experience.

Personally, I always thought the pay off was electing Obama President.

But what do I know?

k/o

---

by: kid oakland @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 14:26:02 PM CDT

Clever, but misleading (0.00 / 0)

Traditionally, most Dems with the inclination are given a shot at being a national delegate.

In CA, we typically allow any registered Dem to run.
In other states like Texas, their entire caucus process includes every able-bodied person with enough time to run as a delegate in the precinct convention, county convention, and state convention. Roughly 1.2 million Texans "had a shot."

Delegate selection, with the obvious exception of the Obama campaign in CA, is designed to give almost anyone a shot at going to Denver. The CA process itself is designed to reward volunteers, selected by their peers, not to be campaign patronage. Arcane "rules" notwithstanding.

So much for people-powered politics and rewarding grounds-up activism. Yet another alleged principle of the blogosphere falls victim to the 2008 election.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:18:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

only (5.00 / 1)

a lot of these people didn't engage in anything people-powered or ground-up with respect to Obama, and just want to go to a party.

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:55:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sadly (0.00 / 0)

many of the people who were culled were activists who worked very hard for the campaign.

I think that it would be in the Obama campaign's best interest to clarify how they made the selections. I think that would clear up a lot of the hurt feelings.

---

by: VickyK @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:02:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

David: (0.00 / 0)

As you may know, this is the first thing that comes out in the process. A major thing people do in their short speech is to list their help to the campaign. The buzz they try to create is that they earned the position. A good campaign for national delegate will have supporters work the room selling this very point.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing unusual about Marcy and the 900 that marks them as unqualified slackers.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:10:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you write (8.00 / 1)

So much for people-powered politics and rewarding grounds-up activism. Yet another alleged principle of the blogosphere falls victim to the 2008 election.

It's pretty clear that your goal here is to be as negative and destructive as possible.

That's not my politics.

Your m.o. in this thread is to be negative and tear things down in a self-righteous manner.

Why? Where does that get us?

"Alleged" principle?  "Clever???"

I don't see how your approach helps the situation at all. You clearly are only interested in throwing fuel of the fire for your own reasons.

k/o

---

by: kid oakland @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:04:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, Paul (0.00 / 0)

My intention is to expose hypocrisy. A new kind of politics is central to the campaign. If the campaign will not live up to its own principles of change, it is very unlikely that it will stand for lesser policy issues like health care.

Our exchange is along those exact lines. Your position...

Many hundreds of thousands of people who can't and won't and never had a shot of going to Denver.

... is false and misleading. Virtually every campaign volunteer has a "shot" at going to Denver in a normal campaign. What Obama is doing in CA is not normal, and not a good sign to the rest of us who are trying to figure out what he actually stands for.

You are cleaver, and I understand your desire to put a positive spin on this. But your position is not correct.

John

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:25:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This Isn't a Normal Campaign, Though (0.00 / 0)

There are far more people involved than in any other campaign where anyone could have a decent chance of becoming a delegate.

My Blog, The Watchtower

---

by: msrpotus @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:34:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a very strange excuse (0.00 / 0)

People in caucus states had to sacrifice a lot more time than anyone associated with this particular debate.

And no, they did not have normal turnout either. By my reckoning, total turnout to be either a CA Obama or Hillary delegates is two or three times normal. But in Texas, we had 200 people show up to precincts that previously had zero turnout. We moved a county convention from a high school to a UT arena

There is a lot of justification and rationalization going on here, but it dodges the point.

If Obama will not stand up for people powered politics in his own campaign, just what will he stand for? This is not so much an issue of internal campaign process and loyalty as it is a window into how central words and central actions meet.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:59:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't buy it. (0.00 / 0)

You clearly have your own agenda. And your negative cynicism is really off-putting to me.

I'm not saying this is a perfect situation.

But your "pursuit of hypocrisy" seems willfully ignorant of the realities of doing activism in the grassroots.

This is a process run by real people. You seem mostly interested as sitting as judge and jury.

I don't find that all that productive.

k/o

---

by: kid oakland @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 18:09:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

Paul, I'm not sure if you know this, but folks in the Obama campaign specifically told people (including some I know personally) that they wouldn't reject the candidacy of real, hard-core activists (as other campaigns have done to ensure their hand-picked delegates were elected) because the Obama campaign is about a new type of politics.  I can imagine legitimate reasons for the campaign to made the decisions they made, but I can also see how someone could see a disconnect between the campaign's words and actions.  

Note: I work for the California Democratic Party but nothing in I write in this comment thread should be taken as anything other than my personal opinion at the time of posting.  

---

by: Matt Lockshin @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 18:26:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While the pay off is the election of Obama (0.00 / 0)

these delegate candidates have been organizing people to come to local caucuses, attended political meetings, put up websites, created facebook groups, done all sorts of things to support the possibility of being considered to go to Denver to support a man that they really believe in and made sacrifices to support, and the campaign staff eliminated them while giving no reason for why each individual was removed.

It is no surprise that some people feel hurt, because the Obama campaign has been about hope and opportunity and this seems so inconsistent with that theme.

---

by: VickyK @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:10:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Paul, I take issue with this type of reasoning (8.00 / 3)

Paul,

I remember having discussions about the need to pay progressive organizers something approaching a living wage and getting the response from some volunteers that they work for free and they don't understand why others should get money for the same type of work they do for free.  

I see this type of thinking in other contexts as well.  For example, I have spoken to my father (who's a lawyer) about a juror in a personal injury case who refused to award damages, despite acknowledging that there was evidence of negligence, because the juror was hurt in a similar way and didn't choose to sue.

The problem with this type of reasoning, however, is that it suggests that because someone doesn't stand upon their rights (to get paid for work or to sue or what have you) then it's illegitimate for others to expect those rights to be respected.

When you say, "Personally, I always thought the pay off was electing Obama President," I think you're engaging in similar type of reasoning.  

Paul, you were allowed to run to be a delegate but you chose not to.  But in making the choice, you can only make it for yourself.  I think it's myopic to generalize your motivation and to naturalize it as though it were the only legitimate motivation.  This is true notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of Obama volunteers who made the same choice as you.    

People aren't mad or disappointed because they wanted to give a speech.  People are upset because they had an expectation that they would be allowed a shot at going to Denver -- they wanted the opportunity to put their name forward and have a caucus of their peers vote on it.    

I acknowledge that the Obama campaign is fully within its rights to strike delegate candidates from the final list.  But a lot of folks had a reasonable expectation that they would be given a chance to run for a delegate slot.  As long you recognize the reasonableness of their expectations, I think you understand the legitimate source of their unhappiness.

Note: I work for the California Democratic Party but nothing I say in this comment thread should be taken as anything other than my personal opinion at the time of posting    

 

---

by: Matt Lockshin @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 18:18:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Susie Shannons prescience (0.00 / 0)

She said"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. "

Eric and Thom O"Shaugnessy (So.Cal. Grassroots)brought this to the Rules
Committee and then to the E Board. We couldn't do better than the current compromise to start the filing early and continue post-Primary. Some of the dates mandated in CDP and DNC Rules just didn't permit the proposal to work. We knew it would caise problems. Just couldn't avoid it. I'm surprised. I thought the Obama Campaign was "a new kind of politics". The way this was handled looks pretty old politics to me.

Judy Cohen Hotchkiss
"It does not take a majority to prevail. Just an irate, tireless minority,setting brushfires in peoples minds." Samuel Adams

---

by: jhotchkiss2 @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:12:27 PM CDT

I wonder if there really were any good solutions (0.00 / 0)

In my CD (33), I believe somewhere around 80 people signed up to run for 3 delegate slots.  Even if each candidate had only 30 seconds or so, that's still a while for just speeches, especially since these things never start on time.  And if you cut out speeches altogether, that makes it even harder (if not impossible) for newer candidates to beat out more known figures, like the campaign's California Director for African-American Outreach who is running in my district.

On the other hand, cutting all these candidates is definitely heartbreaking for anyone running.  I know that the people doing delegate selection did not want to cut anyone, but I'm not sure that any solution would work.

Maybe changing the system in the future, but how much can they do for now?

My Blog, The Watchtower

---

by: msrpotus @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:18:45 PM CDT

There is no reason to change this system (0.00 / 0)

Every single caucus goer in TX, all 1.2 million of them, could expect to be there for 240 minutes. If they went county convention, they could expect another 720 minutes.

If Obama campaign delegate candidates can't tough it out for a coupe of hours, how demeaning is that to regular voters who we ask to caucus for hours on end?

This is simple: by CA tradition, and with no compelling argument to the contrary, every legal Democrat should be allowed to run to be a national convention delegate.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:33:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's Not Just About the Delegates (0.00 / 0)

Of course the delegates should be expected to endure it.

But delegates aren't the only people who will be there.  Normal voters will be there, whether thanks to a delegate bringing them or their own desire to get involved.  And ultimately, we have caucuses (as opposed to having the party or campaign directly choose the delegates) so that those voters do have a voice.

My Blog, The Watchtower

---

by: msrpotus @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 16:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is no different than (0.00 / 0)

the WA LD conventions this weekend, except that CA delegate election is a lot less time consuming.

Again, why does this campaign think that a process that is easier than what many voters in other states go through is excessive?

The answer has to be, it doesn't, and that Marcy is largely right that the campaign is taking the extraordinary step of hand picking delegates, and crossing many progressive believers off the list.

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was a state delegate in TX (0.00 / 0)

back in 2000, and went through the process. I think the drama is overrated. I also worked the election protection phones for Sen. Obama in Texas this year. And I assure you very few of those 1.2 million caucus goers were there for more than a few minutes. Most just signed up and left. I really don't think Texas is a fair comparison, and frankly, it's not a model that we should be emulating.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:13:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh (0.00 / 0)

You're right that we should not emulate it.

As an aside, I was there, and oversaw a large number of precincts. No one was there for a few minutes. The lines were typically a block long. They started at around 6:30 and usually didn't start to move until 7:30, frequently later when there were still lines at the polling machines. Since we ID'd every caucus goer, even smart precincts that broke the precinct roll into four took anther hour to sign-in everyone. I was one of the first people back to HQ, and I wasn't done until 9. Almost all of those 1.2 million Texans were there for hours.

But back on topic, the CA process is easy. It bothers me a lot that a campaign based on people powered politics threw it under the bus. This is a serious question, if something so central as including the campaign's own supporters in the process has been undermined, what faith should I have in lower priority promises on specific issues like health care?

---

by: Pacific John @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:41:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

never even made the ballot (0.00 / 0)

I filed in CA-33 and was struck from the ballot.  I was quite aware this was a possibility. It's clearly spelled out on page 28 of 30 in the Delegate Selection Rules; the campaigns reserve the right to review the people that seek to be a delegate in its name.  

This rule was agreed to nearly a year ago and it seems especially prescient given the media stir over one of Obama's Illinois Delegates.

At this stage, this race is soley about delegates.  Each and every last delegate.  As to swaying more of the uncommitted Super Delegates, I think it's better for Barack to continue forging the impression of Party Player - cause he his - by awarding their minions with ballot access along side his concentrated mix of office-level volunteers & PC's then say, to be perceived as a Candidate who enabled Party acrimony by allowing the empowerment of a few disputatious grassroots activists.

Certainly this is only one of many issues that must have been considered.   This is my perception. I concede it may be somewhat cynical.  It's shaped by a previous Obama campaign action whereby they deleted a "blog" post of mine - within the Obama site - that gave supporters contact information for uncommitted California Super Delegates.   They contacted me by phone thanking me for my efforts - and here it comes - However, they had a different strategy; much quieter you might say.  Hey, I'm just a volunteer - it's your candidacy - do as you wish.

Irrespective of this, I'm still a committed Barack Obama Supporter.

Lastly, this also means I'm having a sale on my caucus finery:

http://www.obamadelegate.com

These things aren't selling themselves.

MM

---

by: mmaheras @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 17:23:54 PM CDT

Delegate Race Back On to All That Applied (0.00 / 0)

Looks like we just made a U-Turn.  This comes from David Plouffe a few minutes ago....

"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."

Having said that, I could really use your support in CA-33.

http://www.obamadelegate.com

Michael Maheras

---

by: mmaheras @ Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 20:52:34 PM CDT

I got your flame war right here (0.00 / 0)

The Obama campaign was right the first time, even if it (I'll take your collective word for it) botched the execution.

For one thing, these "caucuses" are not like the caucuses in other states.  They do not exist to determine the proportion of pledged delegates going to each candidate.  They exist solely to determine the identity of those delegates.

Normally, I would not care that much about who went to the party.  But, Hillary has locked her jaw onto the pursuit of the nomination like a pit bull, and she has stated that pledged Obama delegates are fair game.  That means that my #1, #2, and #3 priorities are making sure that whoever is elected delegate to effectuate my primary vote for Obama should be someone who will be able to resist even the strongest blandishments of the Clintons to change their votes, who can do the strongest job of encouraging other delegates there to do the same, and who can do the best job of following the lead of people in the campaign as to how to proceed should something untoward happen to Obama between now and August.

Sorry, but as an Obama Precinct Captain (two precincts), I tend to trust people who have shown that they were committed to the Obama campaign, not to their own personal interests and ambitions, to do these things -- pretty much no matter which sentimental favorites that leaves out.

I wish that the campaign were making it easier to ensure an incorruptible delegate slate.

---

by: Seneca Doane @ Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:37:44 AM CDT