Gore Still On The Sidelines

Every so often, about three or days, a Democratic consultant or activist e-mails or calls with a tip about Al Gore's imminent endorsement of Barack Obama.

The noise level of the chatter has increased, but really, outside of Gore's inner inner circle -- and that is a circle of about three people, none of whom has any inclination to step on their boss -- no one is qualified to say one way or another.

Gore hasn't ruled anything out, and it's certainly the case that he's been lobbied by Clinton allies to keep his carbon neutral powder dry, and lobbied by Obama allies to wade in.

My best guess, based on reporting and just a hunch, is that Gore will not endorse a candidate in the primaries. It's no secret that he has some issues with the Clinton family, and it's very easy to link his liberated post-White House persona with Barack Obama's campaign mien, but beyond these two givens, we forget that Gore has very little to gain from making an endorsement, and the downside risk of doing so, even if his candidate were to win, are fairly large.

Gore is the king; he is the senior statesman of his party; he does not need to be a kingmaker. He will almost certainly play a preeminent policy role in the next Democratic administration, possibly as some UN commissar of climate change. He also knows he might have to work with a President McCain as well.

Comments

Gore should simultaneously endorse Obama AND come out for Florida's and Michigan's votes to count.

If Gore, as a senior statesman, doesn't support the vote in Florida (at very least), he loses all legitimacy in my eyes. And weighting that with an Obama endorsement would even things out.

Posted by anon | February 8, 2008 4:29 PM

Now is the time for Gore to endorse Barack Obama. Obama needs to pull ahead quickly so as to speed up the Democratic nomination process. republicans are almost there. If Gore intends to help, now is the time.

PS: I have added your blog to my blogroll, I hope you will return the favor.

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 8, 2008 4:30 PM

"He also knows he might have to work with a President McCain as well."

I don't see how this would affect Gore's endorsement at all. Does McCain think Gore is going to endorse HIM in the general election? Obviously Gore is going to endorse whichever Dem gets the nomination, but I don't see how endorsing either Hillary or Obama now makes one whit of difference if McCain wins in November.

"Wait, you mean Gore endorsed the co-President he served as VP under in the primary? Or the hot young rising star of the party? How DARE he! If he'd just stayed out of it, we would love him and give him a Cabinet position, but now he's going to the Gulags."

Serial?

Posted by doofman | February 8, 2008 4:32 PM

anon,

Nobody campaigned in Florida. Michigan was even worse, as Hillary was alone on the ballot. Neither one of those states is going to count. If the DNC tried to seat them, the Democratic Party would come undone. It would be a godawful mess. Florida and Michigan knew what the rules were when they decided to move their primary schedule up. They have no cause to piss and moan after the fact. They marginalized themselves.

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 8, 2008 4:45 PM

Marc: and as your colleague Ross Douthat pointed out, there's that little matter of Gore's own political aspirations. Sure, he's not very likely to ever become president. But crazier things have happened, and it is starting to look fairly likely that neither candidate will arrive in Denver with a majority of pledged delegates. Why throw away your 1% shot at history?

Posted by Jasper | February 8, 2008 4:56 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

I agree w/ Marc's premise that Gore has little to gain and everything to lose. We've seen the pounding that the former president has taken for his descent into the fray. There is no reason for Gore to do the same thing.

One point: Gore, I presume, is a superdelegate, and would be courted considerably if it gets that far.

I don't think that Gore's dealings w/ a potential McCain presidency are likely to have a material factor in the decision. Gore and McCain were in the Senate together for several years, and I would speculate that they must have worked together on something....

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 8, 2008 5:03 PM

Actually...he has nothing to lose.

If he endorses Obama and Hillary gets the nomination, Hillary probably loses to McCain anyway.

McCain won't fault Gore for endorsing Obama!

Posted by Paul | February 8, 2008 5:07 PM

Mark,

Isn't Gore a superdelegate? Won't he HAVE TO endorse at the convention, as a superdelegate?

Posted by Alex Roberts | February 8, 2008 5:09 PM

"If Gore, as a senior statesman, doesn't support the vote in Florida (at very least), he loses all legitimacy in my eyes."
Why should he support the vote? The DNC made sure that every state was aware of the rules. Florida and Michigan knowingly went against the rules that every other state had to abide by, so they were justifiably punished.

If the DNC caves and allows the FL and MI delegates to be seated, it would demonstrate a lack of enforcement and lead to a loss of credibility on their end. Residents of other states (myself included) would be unhappy if these two states are rewarded for breaking the rules.

Current word is that the DNC is hoping to hold a new sanctioned caucus in both states. This seems like the best solution to me -- anything else would lead to a lot of people becoming dissatisfied with the party.

Posted by Jason | February 8, 2008 5:29 PM

More than 3,000 people were turned away from an Obama rally at Key Arena today in Seattle, and more than 20,000 people were packed into the stadium to hear him.

With numbers like that, I don't think Obama needs Gore or any other senior endorsement at this point.

Posted by Trent | February 8, 2008 5:45 PM

Being aware of the rules is not an argument for disenfranchising entire states worth of people. The truth is that it's not the fault of the people of Florida or Michigan that their party functionaries screwed up like this. They deserve a voice. I agree Michigan would have to be redone, but Florida had everyone on the ballot and Obama had ads in the state, so it seems pretty reasonable.

As for Al Gore, does anyone else get the impression that he is loving this? Truth is that he probably doesn't have a very large preference either way in this race, as both candidates general support the same issues as he has. By picking a horse he risks losing his senior statesman status.

Posted by Jonathan | February 8, 2008 5:45 PM

Gore endorsing Obama would mean that his issues with the Clintons outweigh his dedication to his main issue.

Climate change and environment is my number one issue, and I am not impressed with Obama.

Witness an editorial in the Washington Post favoring Obama's stimulus package over Hillary's and Edwards. Seems Obama won high marks, because unlike Hillary and Edwards, Obama didn't emphasize green jobs.

And you think Gore's rep would survive endorsing him? Maybe. Greenies have issues with the Clintons too, but Hillary has come out swinging. Obama has taken money from nuke power companies.

Some of us are paying attention.

Posted by Elizabeth | February 8, 2008 6:05 PM

If the nomination is decided by seating delegates chosen in violation of DNC rules, there will be a massive revolt against the nominee and the party, and they will be doomed in November. If Florida and Michigan want delegates to be seated, they need to submit plans that comply with DNC rules, and go have a primary or a caucus in time to send valid delegates. The ones chosen in the illegal primaries are bogus.

I wish Gore would endorse Obama, because there are a lot of people who don't pay close attention to politics who would notice. For people who pay close attention to politics, not endorsing somebody you worked with for 8 years in the White House kind of speaks loudly for itself. But there are plenty of people who won't notice unless he speaks up.

Posted by dave | February 8, 2008 6:06 PM

"Being aware of the rules is not an argument for disenfranchising entire states worth of people. The truth is that it's not the fault of the people of Florida or Michigan that their party functionaries screwed up like this."

Which is why I believe that if we're going to blame anyone, it should be the state parties themselves. The people should not be ridiculed for something beyond their control, and the DNC is merely standing by their word. If the residents are unhappy with this outcome, they should take it up with their respective state Democratic parties.

Don't get me wrong -- I do not want to disenfranchise anyone's vote. However, the DNC must enforce the rules that were set out. They've also publicly come out with a viable solution that would allow residents the opportunity to have their vote count.

If Michigan and Florida reject this proposal, who's at fault?

Posted by Jason | February 8, 2008 6:10 PM

I don't see how Gore can make any endorsement. He's no Clinton fan, but he'll probably want to keep his status in the party no matter who gets the nom.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 8, 2008 6:19 PM

Jason,

The problem is that it is far too late to run more primaries(as they take a long time to prepare for and are expensive) and caucuses are amongst the least democratic ways of choosing a president available.

I guess the most judicious compromise would be accept Florida results, because despite cries of "we had rules" this was pretty legitimate, most members of the state knew who these candidates were and Obama had many more commercials appear there as a result of a national ad buy. In Michigan, I suppose a caucus could be held as it is unfair that Obama was not on the ballot.

Posted by Jonathan | February 8, 2008 6:23 PM

(1) To the commenter who used the Seattle crowd size to argue for Obama's triumph: If there is one thing we learned over the past few weeks, it's that Obama's huge crowds don't always translate into momentum. They didn't at all in New Hampshire, nor did they in California.

(2) Obama is way ahead in Virginia and in Maryland (both vote next Tuesday) according to two new polls released this afternoon; but in what is somewhat of a surprise Clinton leads in a Wisconsin survey.

Posted by Daniel | February 8, 2008 6:28 PM

cousin vinnie, I don't think either Clinton or Obama have campaigned in every state so far. Obama has run ads in most, but I think he hasn't run ads in a couple. Clinton, too, didn't run ads in several states. Neither have campaigned in every primary and caucus state so far. It's disingenuous to discredit FL for that reason alone.

As for Michigan, Obama withdrew his name from the ballot on his own.

Admittedly, there are some issues about "counting" FL and MI, but I wouldn't say that those are among them.

Posted by dt | February 8, 2008 6:29 PM

I wouldn't worry too much about the ARG poll showing Hillary ahead in Wisconsin. ARG is the pollster that showed Barack losing by nine in Iowa and only winning by three in South Carolina. ARG is a notoriously awful polling organization.

Posted by Brad | February 8, 2008 6:46 PM

if he doesnt take a stand he will become irrelevant. if he believes global warming is a moral issue he should stand with the candidate who has the best platform to achieve those ends. i suspect instead that he is holding out because obama will ask him to be vp to unify the party and to lend seniority to the ticket.

Posted by obama/gore | February 8, 2008 6:47 PM

Obama is a gamble and not worth it at all in my eyes. He would be a mistake for the country and the only one that is good is Gore. McCain us better than Obama and Clinton is better than either of them. Let's be real here, Obama is inexperienced and only gather populist backing. He is one of the worst things to ever hit the Presidential campaign.

Posted by adringuti | February 8, 2008 6:52 PM

adringuti--

what makes clinton more experienced? obama has been in elected office longer. hillary backers ignore her years as a lawyer because they were unremarkable and awfully conservative. hillary worked for the children's defense fund for less than one year. Obama organized labor groups and neighborhoods to stand up for themselves and learn self-dependence.

what makes populist backing a bad thing? we live in a democracy. hillary has the backing of reactionary democrats who liked the 1990s. what lasting accomplishment did Bill Clinton bring? especially for the Democratic Party?

how is hillary clinton not a gamble? every president is a gamble. we have no clue what kind of president hillary will be.

hillary is a cynical pimp. you read it here.

Posted by Master Pimp | February 8, 2008 7:12 PM

If Gore says anything before the general election it will probably be at the convention if this goes that far.
My guess is he will play kingmaker there if he does at anytime.
If the democrats cannot get a nominee in time then maybe he will be called in to help in this area by suggesting to superdelegates which way they should throw their support.

Posted by vwcat | February 8, 2008 7:56 PM

Allright!!! Marc says that Gore won't endorse! Seeing as he said the same thing about Ted Kennedy a few days before he endorsed, maybe this means an endorsement is imminent!

Posted by RKA | February 8, 2008 8:46 PM

I totally disagree that Gore will not endorse. He has the chance to help make history and he is going to turn it down. I don't believe it.

Posted by rosie | February 8, 2008 8:48 PM

It is fun to read the fevered posts that florida and michigan do not count because of the rules rules rules that people acquiesced to and yet super delegates shouldn't be allowed to devcide anything even though the rules rules rules allow them to if it should come to that.
if the rules matter sometimes don't they always matter? Or do obama supporters only like rules that help their candidate?
The coolest thing about obama's silly superdelegate threat is that it might require Kennedy to vote for hillary because his state went for hillary. Or do obama supporters see a way not to follow the rules and threats they are making?

Posted by Michael C. | February 8, 2008 10:30 PM

It is fun to read the fevered posts that florida and michigan do not count because of the rules rules rules that people acquiesced to and yet super delegates shouldn't be allowed to decide anything even though the rules rules rules allow them to if it should come to that.
if the rules matter sometimes don't they always matter? Or do obama supporters only like rules that help their candidate?
The coolest thing about obama's silly superdelegate threat is that it might require Kennedy to vote for hillary because his state went for hillary. Or do obama supporters see a way not to follow the rules and threats they are making?

Posted by Michael C. | February 8, 2008 10:31 PM

Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:31:40 AM PST
This is an interesting tidbit.

CNN aired the Gore clip on super Tuesday. After he voted, he was asked about endorsing, he stated "I’m trying to stay out of it but I hope "she" wins". Further, he stated that "she " is the only candidate who will implement a renewable energy/environmental plan. He will put aside his differences to help the environment and he can help HRC.

February 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Did anyone see the clip on CNN of Al Gore voting on super Tuesday? Said he hoped "she" would win as she is the only one who will implement a green energy plan. Further he said he would put his differences (with Clintons) aside for the sake of the environment and that he would help HRC.

Posted by Lisa | February 8, 2008 10:45 PM

Still it was interesting, Daniel, that Clinton's people booked her into a 5,000 seat venue yesterday in Seattle, with only "hundreds" turned away. A 4:1 difference. Both events were highly-publicized, and Clinton had a bunch of state and local politicians.

We'll see what happens tomorrow. It'll be especially interesting to see if Eastern WA turns out anything like next-door Idaho: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/obama-the-shock-of-the-red/

--

You got a url for that claim, Lisa?

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 11:19 PM

Why are endorsements in general more important than issues? Al Gore is working on launching a very important campaign through his organization The Alliance for Climate Protection this month, but is that what is the talk of the blogs? Hell no, because it just isn't exciting enough. He is far above this fray, and none of them actually have a climate plan worth endorsing, so why would he compromise all he has worked for to do that? Neither Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's plan on the climate crisis is actually in line with what Al Gore has been talking about. Not for a carbon tax... Both are for nuclear power (though Clinton claims to be agnostic on it whatever that means)... Obama is for liquid coal... Neither have called for NO new coal plants to be built. And all of their plans which discuss reducing Co2 emissions by 2050 are no longer good enough. 2050 right now in line with scientist's predictions regarding glacier melt in the Arctic with summer ice being gone by 2013 which does not even include melting happening in Greenland and Antarctica is no longer feasible.

And also, Mr. Gore is now an international environmental ambassador regarding the climate crisis and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He will then I am sure be hoping to work with anyone who becomes president on this, even a Republican should that happen, which it just may now. Therefore, in order to not make the climate crisis a partisan issue which Mr. Gore has stated correctly it is not I doubt he will endorse anyone in this primary season and I actually hope he does not. The media would also have a field day with it and use it to discredit him, and like other "endorsements" it would only take away from the issue.

Posted by Jan | February 8, 2008 11:38 PM

re the posting by Lisa:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Al_Gores_vote.html

"He early voted," said Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider. "As a private citizens, neither of the Gores are releasing who they voted for."

So there would be no clip of Gore "voting on super Tuesday" because that's not when he voted.

It gets fishier: the ultimate source appears to be a Clinton fansite: http://www.ironmyvote.com/ which claims "February 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
... on CNN" but offers no url. Somebody is then putting this claim into the comment sections of multiple blogs.

Posted by Colin | February 8, 2008 11:40 PM

I think that Gore may have another reason to refrain from endorsing at this point. If after the Puerto Rico caucus no one has the delegates to capture the nomination, Gore may be able to weigh in and encourage the candidate who trails in pledged delegates to concede for the good of the party. That is just the sort of elder statesman role Gore would appreciate. And his voice at that point would carry more weight if he has not endorsed one of the candidates.

On the issue of seating Michigan delegates, should we consider the fact that it was Clinton's supporters who moved Michigan up, knowing the state's voters would likely be disenfranchised? Is it not clear they did that so she could claim a symbolic victory in case she lost both Iowa and NH?

Posted by LAC | February 9, 2008 1:34 AM

Obama is in the deep pocket of Exelon. Why would Gore endorse him? If he would do so, Gore would loose a lot of credibility as a green thumb.

Posted by MN | February 9, 2008 3:43 AM

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS (IRAQ): 3952
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED (IRAQ): 28711
IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS (Rprtd-Estd): 71259 - 655000

Posted by Yiannis | February 9, 2008 3:45 AM

Obama is solidifying the democratic male supporters. In my home state of Ohio, I like to say the male voters here are more sexist than racist, but what I really mean is that all they want and need is an alternative to Hillary. Obama hasn't closed the deal yet.

http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/02/why-is-white-male-vote-going-to-obama.html

Posted by Brian | February 9, 2008 4:41 AM

Speaking of endorsements, how about Colin Powell's interview with Wolf Blitzer ( http://thepage.time.com/colin-powells-interview-with-cnns-situation-room/ ) Isn't that a less than subtle hint that he'd back Obama if the Democrats nominate the senator from Illinois?

Posted by Keith Hood | February 9, 2008 6:58 AM

If Gore endorses Obama it shows that Gore has been nothing but a poll-monger who backstabs even his former boss. Gore was VP for Clinton and Clinton even stumped for him in 2000, now Gore should stab the Clintons in the back saying Obama is better? Show some loyality, or at the very least, if Gore backs Obama, he should say he is doing so because he knows the Clintons are wrong.

Posted by John Boom | February 9, 2008 7:05 AM

The only person Gore will endorse is himself as a candidate who will seek to unite the Party. I believe that this is the "arrangement" Howard Dean, whom Gore endorsed in '04, is hinting at. A little-reported note: When asked in Oslo whether he would be part of a Democratic Administration should his Party win the White House in '08, Gore replied: "Only in my own."

And has anyone seen him lately?

--Bill Arnone
New York, NY

Posted by William Arnone | February 9, 2008 10:19 AM

"Gore is the king; he is the senior statesman of his party; he does not need to be a kingmaker."

That's right. Gore needs to be president. Nothing less. Rather than argue about whether Hillary or Obama is better positioned to win a race against McCain, why not push for a Gore/Obama ticket -- a ticket that would trounce any and all competitors.

And here's the campaign song for that Gore ticket --
from Duncan Christy's song cycle "The Blue State Blues" (www.thebluestateblues.com):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXUyoBl65R0

Posted by forrest | February 9, 2008 10:41 AM

There does indeed need to be a sanctioned caucus (or primary) for Florida and Michigan. Despite FL and MI's poorly thought out decision to break DNC rules by holding pre-Feb 5th primaries, the Dems in those states deserve an official state primary (or caucus) for their voices to be heard. Maybe it can be in mid-March?

Posted by Alan | February 9, 2008 10:44 AM

I agree that seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida would be a travesty. The American way is not to set the rules, have someone snub their nose at them, and rewarding them. Florida and Michigan should set caucuses, have the candidates campaign in their states, and then go to caucus. This is the only fair way to do this. I am a Barack Obama supporter, but I would feel this way if I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. But if the DNC allows these previous delegates to be seated, it will color my experience of this extraordinary race with the same feeling that I had about Florida when Bush received the presidency. Remember hanging chads??? That is still relevant and painful all of these years later....

Posted by Cindy | February 9, 2008 11:05 AM

Al Gore should understand that the only way to have our country truly make a difference in global warming is the change in political dialogue that Barack Obama represents. As this is the issue that is highest on my priorities for the future of my child (a teen at this time)....I have dug into my savings and sent money to Obama's campaign. I consider it an investment in my daughter's future. I believe that Al Gore should stop playing politics as far as who will be able to "help" his cause in the future, and realize that without this major change in political discourse, we will never get anywhere. I hope that he has this clarity soon, and support this very important movement. I do not believe that Obama can wave a magic wand and make things better....but he has the power to inspire all of us to make the changes necessary to make changes to global warming, and the ability to hear his adversaries and work on what they have in common, moving closer to solutions then the Clinton or McCain demonization of the "other" will bring. We desparately need solutions! Please Al Gore....endorse Barack....our world needs him.

Posted by Cindy | February 9, 2008 11:12 AM

How is Hillary Clinton a gamble? She's a gamble because six consecutive national polls have shown her as the weaker general election candidate against McCain. All six showed Obama beating McCain, and only 1 of the 6 showed Hillary beating McCain (by a much lower margin). Wake up, Democrats! Nominate the candidate who will win!

If Gore comes to see that his endorsement will make the difference in preventing a chaotic convention that bitterly divides between Obama and Clinton, I think he might do it.

Posted by David | February 9, 2008 11:32 AM

The thing is, at a certain point Gore's new standing as Nobel-prize-winning Democratic poobah is diminished by NOT endorsing. If he sits this very close race out, a lot of folks out there will never forgive him.

So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He might as well follow his bliss.

Posted by Kevin | February 9, 2008 12:52 PM

On second thoughts Obama does not need an endorsement from Gore. Gore may have won a Nobel and an Oscar, he is still quite controversial in some quarters. The more Obama stays on his own track the better. His message is resonating well, so why have a diversion?

Posted by Ajaz Haque | February 9, 2008 1:48 PM

The coolest thing about obama's silly superdelegate threat is that it might require Kennedy to vote for hillary because his state went for hillary.

You need to read up on the rules you're so hip on, if you think that's how superdelegate votes work.

Posted by justinb | February 9, 2008 2:09 PM

Maybe Fat Albert II, patron saint of all things environmental (even though he stomps on Mother Nature with one of the world's largest ecological footprints), thinks there is only room for one QUASI RELIGIOUS CULT FIGURE in the Party. He doesn't want to wash the feet of Black Baby Jesus quite yet.

Washing those feet would be a gargatuan task come to think of it, considering the muck they have been stepping in during all those SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO years. Not an enviable task, to say the least.

Posted by robert ethan | February 9, 2008 3:40 PM

What a wasted prompt! Endorsements do not matter to the voters. If anything, they seem to backfire, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are good examples of that.

Hillary and Obama have to make their own case to the public. For the last several weeks, Marc and Matt have been beating the drumroll about these endorsements. Although Al Gore is revered by the Democrats, he will always be associated with losing the 2000 election.

Posted by EWard | February 9, 2008 5:31 PM

I'll just report in real quickly here. I'm in North Seattle, home of the Latte Democrat, so I make zero claims to represent anything else (when returns come in, look to Eastern WA and areas N. and S. of Seattle to gauge breadth).

Precincts here are small -- mine is 6 blocks, mainly single-family houses. The record turnout, according to old-timers, was 17 people, four years ago. Five attendees was more typical. Today we had 68.

First round: Obama 51, uncommitted 9, Clinton 8.

We had 4 delegates to allocate.

Then about ten minutes to discuss (if you could make yourself heard over the din in the school auditorium where 6 other precincts were caucusing). A couple people for each candidate climbed on chairs and made pitches. Everyone who spoke emphasized that they admired both candidates and spoke in positive terms. Everyone applauded everyone. I have to say, given the charge that caucuses are socially coercive, that this was a happy, festive occasion. No cross words, no unhappy expressions.

Our uncommitted folks divided and Clinton ended up with one delegate and Obama 3. Other precincts in the auditorium were producing similar results.

The crowd skewed young but there were plenty of older people, most of them Obama backers.

My Obama group then had to come up with 3 delegates and 3 alternates for the district convention, and I expected one of those awkward moments looking around for people willing to give up a day in April to attend a meeting. But no, folks were eager to do it. The younger Obama people were absolutely on fire.

Posted by Colin | February 9, 2008 6:09 PM

Hey Marc,
I hope everything is ok and that u r alright. You have been given some stick by some readers over the past 2-3 weeks or so.
I hope you know that most readers think you have done (and are) doing a great job. Keep it up.
See a lot of people are adding comments even though you haven't posted anything today. I keep asking myself why do I keep clicking "MarkBinder" in the favorites section of my browser when I know there has been no update. But alas, 5 minutes later, I am doing the same thing.
Easy now.

Posted by Hello Marc | February 9, 2008 7:59 PM

Florida and Michigan should set caucuses, have the candidates campaign in their states, and then go to caucus. This is the only fair way to do this. I am a Barack Obama supporter, but I would feel this way if I was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

No you wouldn't "feel this way." I am a Clinton supporter, and every other Clinton supporter I know is dead set against the idea of scheduling caucuses in Michigan and Florida. We've urged the campaign to remain tough on this issue. We feel Hillary is stronger in that much more democratic contest known as a primary, because working class people -- most of whom have less control over their working schedules than the upper income Obama-supporting professionals who mob caucuses en masse -- find it much easier to make it to primaries (the polls are typically open at least twelve hours or so). If Obama supporters were serious about a fair contest, they would agree to push for primaries. Turnout is higher in primaries, after all, and so more voters have an opportunity to be heard.

Of course, rescheduling primaries is very difficult and expensive -- and probably won't happen. I'm not too worried about Michigan, to be frank, and I don't particularly care what happens there (I simply can't envision that economically ravaged state going for the GOP this year). But Florida is a different can of worms. Florida will be competitive in November, because McCain is a moderate, and Florida is that purplest of purple states.

Both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot in the Sunshine State, and both Obama and Clinton had active campaigning being done by their surrogates. And Obama, at least, had TV spots running in Florida via a national ad by on CNN. As far as I'm concerned, Florida's delegates should be seated, because it was a fair fight.

Now, I'll doubt I'll get my wish unless Hillary winds up in May after all's said and done with the most pledged delegates. But if she does end up in May with the most pledged delegates, I don't see what the objection would be to seating the Florida delegation (again, Michigan is a different case, as Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot). She wins anyway in the scenario, as far as I can tell (I mean, she's running pretty strong in superdelegates as it stands, and I can't see them bolting to Obama if Obama has won fewer pledged delegates).

I think a problem occurs only if: A) It is Obama who finishes with a pledged delegate lead; and, B) That pledged delegate lead is very small. Clinton in this scenario would have at least some justification in claiming a right to seat Florida (again, both names were on the ballot, neither candidate actively campaigned except for Obama's TV buy, and both Obama and Clinton had surrogates running vigorous independent campaigns on their behalfs). Also, if Obama finishes with a very sight lead in pledged delegates (say, just four or five) it's entirely possible he will have done so while narrowly losing the aggregate popular vote in the primaries/caucuses (it's quite possible to lose the popular vote and come out ahead in delegates, as Super Tuesday's results clearly demonstrated).

It should be interesting. Again, if Clinton has won the pledged delegate contest after the last primary is held, it should be academic. If Obama wins the pledged delegate contest by a big enough margin to make Florida/Michigan's delegates irrelevant, it will be academic.

But if Obama winds up with a small pledged delegate lead (especially if he narrowly loses the popular vote), the Democrats will have trouble on their hands.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 8:42 PM