The Origin of SuperDelegates

The Origin of SuperDelegates

The peace movement in Massachusetts was determined to have a role in the 1972 presidential election by getting behind a single antiwar candidate early, as we had done in the Drinan race. We decided to let the activists choose the candidate and unite behind him.

The preparations were easy, since we already had rules and methods. For this caucus, unlike Drinan’s, we didn't care if the candidates made their pitches in person. We thought it might actually be better if they didn't show up and work their charisma on the participants. We were selecting the candidate behind whom we could unite. It was our party, not theirs. We added two more objectives: we wanted to persuade similar groups around the country to imitate our course of action, and we wanted to be the first such mini-convention, so our result would influence any others. If other groups shared our objective of choosing only one, there would be great pressure on liberals in other states to echo our choice.

We succeeded. We were first on line, in January 1972, and six other states held similar meetings.

Senator George McGovern had been extremely active since the 1968 election, reforming the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party so the rank-and-file had greater power, leading the debates in the Senate on Vietnam and other war and peace issues, and speaking around the country as he did to the Massachusetts Moratorium Rally. McGovern overcame the suspicion generated at the 1968 Democratic convention when he allowed Robert Kennedy delegates to nominate him while the McCarthy delegates were trying to combine the two groups.

When the Massachusetts Liberal Caucus selected McGovern, he had less than 1% voter support in the public opinion polls. That evening, McGovern called to thank the group through me as one of the prime organizers. He said that Ted Kennedy had phoned him and told him, “You're on your way now. That group is hard-working and effective. They will kill themselves for you.”

Nevertheless, everybody who was anybody in Massachusetts remain committed to the “sure” nominee, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, who’d been on the Democratic ticket with Humphrey in 1968. Virtually every Democratic officeholder and big contributor was working for Big Ed, from Tip O’Neill to Mike Dukakis to Barney Frank. As McGovern's man in Massachusetts, I put together the delegation to represent him on the Massachusetts primary ballot. It was the broadest delegation the party had ever assembled. It was 50% women and included black neighborhood leaders, Hispanics, radicals, liberals, professors like John Kenneth Galbraith, a few officeholders like Drinan, and people who had been handing out leaflets for years without ever receiving any goodies.

I was tickled at my handiwork, especially when McGovern shocked the party and swept the primary. When the time came for the convention, the idea that the political bosses of Massachusetts were home and a hundred “just folks” were in Miami deciding the fate of the party gave me the greatest kick.. And the “just folks” worked very hard. Every decision was carefully studied and discussed and voted on. When the McGovern whips came to instruct the delegation, sometimes we accepted their instructions and sometimes we didn't. For example, there were two delegations from Illinois competing for seating, one led by Mayor Richard Daley, the other by insurgents who claimed Daley had used unfair tactics. The McGovern organization begged us to seat Daley and his people because we needed him to carry Illinois but there was no way we were going to reward “His Honor” after the police riot at the Chicago convention. The delegation voted for the insurgents, who carried the day. But on the key California challenge that could have cost McGovern the nomination we voted solidly as recommended.

One convention day a rumor swept the delegation that Mayor Kevin white of Boston was about to be offered the nomination for Vice President. At first, nobody took it very seriously, but when we did, Galbraith, Drinan and I got word to McGovern that he should reconsider, reminding him of how White had attacked the moratorium arguing that such a hawk should not be on the ticket. The real damage was done by Ted Kennedy, who is reported to have said that, for other reasons, he would not campaign for the ticket if White was on it.

The professional politicians resented the new kind of delegates. Tip O’Neill, known for his tolerance and good humor and a self-styled liberal, did not contain himself: In his book “Man of the House,” published in 1987, he wrote, “Flying back from the 1972 convention I had a long talk with Bob Strauss the treasurer and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. All of us were bitter at what we had just witnessed. The convention was filled with first-time delegates, mostly women and minorities who spent the bulk of their time fighting over the various planks of the party platform.”

I thought the convention was an exhilarating experience. The delegates talked issues virtually 24 hours a day instead of drinking whiskey and buttering up big contributors. It was an authentic peoples convention that pushed aside the pros for a glorious week.

In six months, McGovern had gone from less than 1% in the polls to being a heavy favorite for Democratic nomination. It was a political revolution propelled by dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War abroad and domestic turmoil at home. McGovern's rise to power in the party came against the wishes of the party professionals and the big money givers. The McGovern campaign workers in the field were left- liberal amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly. And the money poured in in small contributions from all over the country. There were no financial angel's.

But as soon as nomination was assured, McGovern and his advisers began to eye the center to broaden the base of the movement. One day in June, 1972, a friend of mine overheard McGovern and his campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, discuss strategy in Massachusetts. The first thing they had to do they decided, was make sure Jerry Grossman didn't get on the DNC. I knew nothing about the DNC. I had to go to the library to learn about its duties and processes. It was certainly outside the range of my ambition. My role has always been to be an organizer for avant-garde ideas. I am a natural contrarian of the left.

However, the story made me angry, and I decided to run for the DNC just for the hell of it. The McGovern people spread the word that David Harrison, former chair of the Massachusetts Democratic State committee and now a lawyer lobbyist, was McGovern's choice. If they had taken up the matter with me and appealed to me on practical political grounds, I probably would have gone along, but they didn't.

For decades, DNC members in Massachusetts, one man and one woman, had been chosen by the convention delegation, a safe process because the delegation had always been dominated by professional officeholders, with a sprinkling of big contributors. In 1972, however, virtually every delegate had been asked on to the slate by me as chief organizer for McGovern and a few who hadn’t knew I was the soul of the McGovern effort in Massachusetts. I easily polished off Harrison on the first ballot, but I had more of a contest with my liberal friends.


Nixon won 49 states in November; McGovern carried Massachusetts. It wasn't long before Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and bumper stickers with the message: “Don't blame me,I'm from Massachusetts” appeared on cars throughout the state.

This anecdote is reprinted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman Vantage Press New York1996

Robert F. Drinan, S.J.was a Roman Catholic priest, Dean of the Boston College Law School, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 defeating an entrenched incumbent in a campaign organized by grassroots peace activists opposed to the Vietnam War. This election began the political process that transformed Massachusetts into the ultra liberal state. Father Drinan served in Congress for 10 years.

Thomas P. O'Neill (Tip) was a professional politician whose unbroken string of election victories culminated in his terms as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives He was the most powerful politician in Massachusetts with great national influence.

Race and Gender Matter

Race and Gender Matter
By Jerome Grossman

The Democrats have a number of core constituencies: women, organized labor, African-Americans, liberals and Hispanics. Ideally, to satisfy all power centers in the party, a Democratic president would like to have five vice-presidents to represent the interests of each group but the Constitution is in the way so they are usually placed in the president's cabinet.

In the talent pool for the current campaign, the Democrats have produced two superior candidates, an African-American and a woman, both trying to break the historic monopoly enjoyed by white men. Their rise to leadership seems to signal a change in American attitudes toward women and people of color. Have we transcended race and gender in America? Is that why the Democrats have brought twice as many voters to the polls as the GOP and raised far more money?

The Republicans will have a problem remaining competitive whether the Democrats nominate Obama or Clinton. They already have a 71-year-old white man, who looks the part, at the top of the ticket. The American fetish with youth and especially with the celebrity culture requires a stunningly original choice to confuse the opposition as well as the voters.

If a woman and a black are capturing all those primary votes in every state and raising so many millions of dollars, the GOP can get into the act by presenting to the nation a candidate for vice- president who is a twofer, both a woman and an African-American - Condoleezza Rice. As Secretary of State, the former national security adviser, professor and concert pianist has the experience and savoir faire to attract the celebrity conscious U.S. public. Her link with unpopular President Bush is a negative she already shares with John McCain. She would bring an unusual combination of youth and experience to the GOP ticket and could become a star if she told us what went wrong with U.S. foreign policy and how she would repair it. And from an insider’s perspective, it might be sensational and irresistible.

Lessons of Super Tuesday

Lessons of Super Tuesday
By Jerome Grossman

In the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, February 5, a mass of statistics was produced in the exit polls that weighed heavily on the basic forces colliding in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, forces that will also affect the November election.

In California, the Hispanic/Latino vote was Clinton 69, Obama 29; the Black vote was Obama 78, Clinton 19. In Massachusetts, the black vote was Obama 66, Clinton 29; the Hispanic vote was Clinton 56, Obama 36. In New Jersey the black vote was Obama 82, Clinton 14; the Hispanic vote, Clinton 68, Obama 30. Most of the other states had similar voting patterns.

Part of the reason for this pattern of voting can be ascribed to black loyalty to Obama, another part to the long relationship between Clinton and the Hispanic community. However, some believe that another powerful factor is the negative consequence of immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, on the employment rate and wages of the African- American community, creating a tension between the two constituencies as they compete for jobs, housing, etc.

Another important electoral statistic was gleaned from the following question asked in the exit polls: Which candidate has the right experience to be president? In all states, those won by Obama as well as those won by Clinton, the numbers overwhelmingly favored Clinton by margins of more than nine to one. On the other three questions about who can bring about change, who cares about people like me, who has the best chance in November, both candidates were competitive.

The lessons from the exit polls are clear. Obama is showing great political talent and is gaining popular acceptance. Clinton should invest more energy in the Latino community as the upside potential for her is large. Clinton should emphasize her experience as a prime qualification even more then she already has. That factor appears to be the main Obama political weakness and is likely to be a prime theme for the McCain campaign should Obama win the nomination. Lack of experience joined with concerns about national security and McCain’s military record is likely be the prime Republican theme in the November general election, not only against Obama but also against Hillary for her lack of military experience.

Do these factors translate into victory for McCain in November? Not necessarily, but they make him competitive. President Bush leaves office in a difficult financial year for most Americans. The incumbent party has lost in three of the four elections since 1904 that have coincided with recessions (1920, 1932, and 1960). 2008 is likely to be another.

Democratic Party Unity

Democratic Party Unity
By Jerome Grossman

In an interview with ABC Good Morning America on February 4, Michelle Obama, the wife of Barack Obama, was asked if she would work to support Hillary Rodham Clinton if she won the Democratic nomination for president. She replied," I have to think about that."

Wow! Get ready to attend the inauguration of President John McCain.

Without party unity after the primary voters have marked their ballots, after the delegates have made their choice at the convention, the Democrats will not have a chance in the November general election. Both Clinton and Obama have made mistakes and antagonized their opposition in a variety of ways. They will do so again repeatedly in the heat of political battle. But in my book, they are both superior politicians with strong intellects and sensitive consciences capable of handling the management of the nation.

I have not endorsed either candidate because the policies they offer the American people are not liberal enough for me, do not seriously address the need for change on foreign and military policy, taxation, labor rights and social welfare, to name only a few. However, either candidate will be a vast improvement over the disastrous and elite policies of the Republican Party in general and George W. Bush and John McCain in particular.

I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party, Clinton or Obama, disappointed that neither are New Dealers, but determined to push them in that direction. As a relentless liberal in a centrist period of U.S. history, that is the best I can do.

Liberty in America

Liberty in America
By Jerome Grossman

President Bush incessantly describes America's mission as promoting freedom and democracy all over the world. Right now he is doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan at the point of the gun. Tomorrow he might turn his attention and military power to Iran and Pakistan.

However, for the past seven years, the Bush administration has done serious damage to American freedom and democracy here at home, violating the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a number of ways. This must stop-and the presidential campaign should begin the process.

Many of the violations have been done in the name of fighting terrorism. When the president tells us that the struggle will last for generations, American citizens must ask themselves if we are spreading freedom when we surrender our own rights and whether that surrender is effective in promoting appropriate foreign and military policies.

We are engaged in a national election that will decide national policy for at least the next four years. Yet the candidates for the highest office in the land ignore these basic questions, preferring to campaign in generalities rather than rousing the voters to protect their heritage of liberty. Where is the candidate who will challenge government encroachment of constitutional rights by demanding a rollback of the following violations? That would be authentic leadership for change breaking through the banal clichés ordained by the media.

1. The government's assertion that it has the right to spy on Americans at will and without judicial oversight.

2. The government's policy of using torture while calling it harsh interrogation and later destroying the evidence.

3. The government's policy of kidnapping people and delivering them to “black site” prisons around the world where they are tortured and abused.

4. The government's policy on denying the right of habeas corpus to some individuals, locking them up for no reason and detaining them for an indefinite period without charges.

5. The government’s policy of funding religious institutions, violating the principle of separation of church and state.

6. The government's policy of going to war without a specific declaration as required by the Constitution, using instead an open-ended "authorization."

There are many other violations, some inherited from previous administrations, some thought up by the Bush administration to increase the powers of the president beyond those granted by the Constitution. We are in a crisis of our civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution but now threatened by semi-dictatorial powers put in place under the cover of a misbegotten war. As we impose our versions of freedom and democracy on other nations, we must protect them in America. The presidential candidates should take the lead but will do so only if the demand comes from the voters.

Revisiting John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Revisiting John Fitzgerald Kennedy
By Jerome Grossman

President John F. Kennedy has a special place in the hearts of Americans for many positive reasons but especially because he was assassinated in the middle of his term of office on November 22, 1963. A handsome and charismatic leader, he was a gifted orator whose speeches regularly focused on inspirational themes. He arrived at the White House with no executive experience, a factor that led him into serious difficulties early in his term.

In his campaign for election in 1960, Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower - Nixon administration from the right, accusing it of weakening American security by building too few planes, missiles and other military supplies. After taking power, Kennedy significantly increased U.S. military strength and began using it in Vietnam, increasing the number of US soldiers there from 665 to 16, 000, and sending them into combat in Vietnam for the first time.

Early in his term, Kennedy suffered a serious defeat when he allowed the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that failed. Then he met in Vienna with Soviet Premier Khrushchev to negotiate rights to Berlin. That also failed, brought the two countries to the brink of war, and inaugurated a period of great tension and confrontation marked by the Soviet erection of the Berlin Wall.

Kennedy did have some minor successes in foreign-policy: establishing the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, and the Treaty Banning Nuclear Testing in the Atmosphere. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 received mixed reviews: some praised the result that avoided nuclear war, others criticized Kennedy for "brinkmanship."

On domestic matters, Kennedy offered programs for significant reform in many areas, but he was unable to negotiate them through the Democratic Congress. They were either killed or not acted upon. On the civil rights crisis, Kennedy initially asked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to cancel the 1963 March on Washington but acquiesced when it became inevitable. The Kennedy agenda was adopted by Congress under the leadership of his successor, Lyndon Johnson, who was an experienced manager and negotiator, who knew how to promote, threaten, swap and deal.

Now the powerful Kennedy family has endorsed Barack Obama for president because of his similarity in person, style, and the level of experience to the martyred president. Caroline Kennedy has written that "Obama would be a president like my father." Edward M. Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, and Ted Sorensen agree with her.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then the presidency, we would hope for his success in managing this complicated country of 300 million people with so many competing interests and negotiating with other nations to protect U.S. interests. In so many ways, Obama does remind of Kennedy; appearance, charisma, eloquence, poise and the emphasis on inspiration, but especially in his lack of executive experience. There is no guarantee that any of the presidential candidates of either party will be able to inspire, lead and manage. Of these abilities the most important is to manage and the career of charismatic John F. Kennedy proves the point.

Revisiting Ronald Reagan

Revisiting Ronald Reagan
By Jerome Grossman

All of the current Republican candidates for president regularly and repeatedly invoke the name and the spirit of Ronald Reagan as the patron saint of the party, hoping to bless themselves by adoration of his life and work. Even one Democrat, Barack Obama has used the spirit of Reagan as an endorsement of change saying to a Nevada newspaper that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Reagan did change American politics by assembling a coalition composed of social conservatives, national security hawks, pro-business advocates, anti-tax activists, and religious fundamentalists. To the social conservatives, Reagan attacked the federal welfare system using manufactured stories of welfare mothers driving in pink Cadillacs to pick up their checks. To the national security hawks, he got tough with the Soviet Union, threatening the “evil empire” with nuclear annihilation. To the pro-business advocates, he relaxed antitrust enforcement and listened to corporate lobbyists. To anti-tax activists, he dramatically reduced the tax rate, demeaned the Internal Revenue Service; Eisenhower's top rate was 91%, Kennedy reduced it to 70%, Reagan and GOP successors cut it again by half.

But Reagan's unique contribution was to motivate the religious fundamentalists into serious political activity. At a political function in 1971, for example, he revealed a belief and familiarity in religious millennialism: “Everything is falling into place. It can't be too long now. Ezekiel says that fire and brimstone will be rained upon the enemies of God's people. That must mean they’ll be destroyed by nuclear weapons. They exist now and they never did in the past.” Then Reagan pointed out that Gog, the enemy of God and Israel is Russia, which “has set itself against God.” This echoes what the Rev Pat Robertson had been preaching and writing, that the invention of nuclear weapons should be welcomed as a sign of the immediacy of the Second Coming.

Reagan's notoriety and popularity increased as an icon of entertainment, bolstered by his acting career, his hosting of television programs, his work as spokesman for General Electric, and most importantly his electoral success in California. Some regarded him, however, as a washed up actor, an ignoramus and a tool of the rabid right. He suffered much of the same criticism of his intellectual capacity as George W. Bush.

Reagan did change America, as Bill Clinton said in 1991, while running for president,by exalting “private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family.” The great failure of the Clinton administration was that it failed to change the Reagan scenario. Now, the Democrats will have another opportunity but the campaigns so far have not spelled out the changes in foreign and domestic policy that will steer the nation away from Reaganism.

The Recession and the Election

The Recession and the Election
By Jerome Grossman

The dominant issue in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president in 2007 was the war in Iraq: illegal, fraudulent and imperial that wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, all candidates for president, voted in October 2002 to authorize this unnecessary and brutal travesty. Barack Obama, then an obscure State Senator in Illinois opposed the war, achieving special distinction in the presidential field. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, the party nominee, John Kerry, who also voted for the war, gave Obama the opportunity to express his opposition to the war, something that Kerry was afraid to do himself. The Iraq war plus Obama’s remarkable rhetorical gifts and personality propelled him to front runner status.

In 2008, Iraq is no longer the dominant issue for Democrats or the nation. The war continues with obscene death and destruction, Americans want it ended, but Iraq is now on the inside pages, part of the daily news, intensity of feeling diminished, the occupation likely to continue for a generation. Bread and butter issues affecting many more Americans are challenging the confidence of the country in a way that Saddam Hussein could not.

Recession, economic decline and even a depression are confronting the United States and the voters of New Hampshire were the first to sense the dangers. Perhaps that is why the voters defied the polls and gave Hillary the victory. The political effects of this new round of voter concern are fairly obvious. Hillary’s wrong vote on the Iraq war has become less important. Her experience in government becomes more important. She can cite the prosperity of the nation under the Bill Clinton presidency and promise to install the same economic team that brought full employment. Hillary can offer an economic package with a degree of credibility. Her age and experience become an advantage over Obama’s attractiveness and inexperience.

In this new situation, Obama’s inspiring call for hope, unity and change may appear less relevant and lacking in specificity. The voters will want to know what the candidates will do to save their jobs, their homes, their financial futures. Worrying voters will have little patience with rhetoric no matter how brilliant. Even charisma and personality will be downgraded as assets. Abraham Lincoln and FDR became icons only after they solved the problems of their eras, not before.

There will be, indeed there are now different and strongly held views about solving the current economic crisis. The Republicans, led by President Bush, will want to extend the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that favor the investors, eliminate estate taxes, cut capital gains tax, lower corporate tax, install investment tax credits, etc. The Democrats will suggest a stimulus package putting money in the hands of lower income people who will spend it quickly: extending unemployment benefits, grants for home heating, suspension of the gas tax, tax rebates to people with low income, etc.

The next president cannot leave the difficult decisions to the experts. They are notoriously divided in their recommendations and affected by their political orientation. Herbert Hoover had plenty of experts. So did George Bush the Father. Both were slow and indecisive in making economic decisions and paid the price in the next election.

The political question in this time of economic malaise is -- which Democratic candidate can best address the problems, which party can end the recession quickly and effectively. The voters of New Hampshire sensed the problem while the pundits were analyzing nuances. Maybe that is why their answers were Hillary and the Democrats, Hillary because of experience and the Democrats because of their historic attention to the masses. These questions will dominate American politics for the rest of 2008. Once again, it’s the economy, stupid.

Everybody Won in New Hampshire

Everybody Won in New Hampshire
By Jerome Grossman

In the eye of the entire nation, the citizens of the state enjoyed a singular performance equivalent to a Broadway show, tapped their feet, sang the songs, felt the uplift, rocked to the cadences, adored the star, cheered and cheered, gave repeated standing ovations, were inspired and mesmerized - then went home to mother.

New Hampshire can never repay Barack Obama for transforming another boring election into a party, open to all, that moved them from a drab New England Winter into the neverland of an idealistic future without details, someday, somewhere.

Voting for Hillary was like leaving the darkened theater with its illusions of the past and the future, then stumbling and blinking into the real world, walking through the slush, finding your car, starting the windshield wipers, thinking about going to work tomorrow, lining up in your mind the problems and the duties of the real world, the here and now.

They saw the future. Their hearts beat to the rhythm of what might be in the best of all possible worlds, and deferred the prospect of political heaven to enjoy another day of precious life in this vale of tears and promise. It was an uplifting experience that kept quotidian life in control of the most experienced, the likely model for the other states – and everybody will win.

Change

Change
By Jerome Grossman

It is hard to say what this political campaign is really about except that ambition has propelled some admirable and some not so admirable people to run for president. And, as though they all drank the same magical elixir simultaneously, to begin to utter the mystical word, “change.”

As a verb, change is transitive, must have an object; for most speakers it is America, but one candidate said, “We can change America, then we can change the world.” Where have I heard that before?

Change has become a cliché, somehow signifying that we are on the right track. It sounds dynamic without committing to anything in particular. Candidates and voters can give it any meaning they wish: to the right, to the left, or simply to install new people to pursue the same old policies.

The presidential candidates of real, serious change are Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Ron Paul, not taken seriously by their fellow candidates or many voters. In the ABC television Republican debate in New Hampshire on January 5, the GOP candidates were actually laughing at Ron Paul’s exposition of a needed change in U.S. foreign and military policy. No discussion, no rebuttal, simply disrespect. And Kucinich wasn't even invited to the Democratic debate. On issue after issue the candidates of both parties give the problems a little tweak or a few new words and call it change.

But the exercise makes everyone feel good. Mission accomplished. We have talked about change. Do Americans really want their politicians to change public affairs significantly? The average American, like people everywhere, are accustomed to the status quo and will not accept change until forced by events and we are far from that point. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are far from perfect, but politicians had better keep their hands off if they wish to stay in power. Furthermore, only about 50% of eligible voters actually go to polls and they are usually richer and older, heavily representative of the most satisfied, therefore the least likely to vote for change.

Besides, significant change never comes from voting. Almost always It is the result of deep and difficult organizing in the community of people who are being hurt by current policies, who become angry, who threaten, who don’t put their cause in the hands of politicians. The most important changes in U. S. history were forced upon our greatest presidents. Abraham Lincoln was pressured to issue the Emancipation Proclamation by the Abolitionists and the need for African - American soldiers in the civil war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt expanded the humanitarian role of the federal government in response to the threats of organized labor and the unemployed. Real change is forced on the politicians, always has been, always will be.