Open Letter to All Super Delegates
Submitted by kaflinn on April 19, 2008 - 3:01pm.
Barack Obama | Super Delegates | Democratic politics | Endorsements | Hillary Clinton

I owe immense thanks to Stan & Tricia for helping me get this letter out to every Super Delegate we can find, no matter who they're for right now. I never intended to write one of these, but after this week's debate and fallout, I didn't feel like I had a choice. --Kelly
April 18th, 2008
Dear Super Delegates,
In a few months, you will be asked to make a final and immensely difficult choice that will likely decide the Democratic nominee for president. Unfortunately, that choice is not between Senator Obama or Senator Clinton – for everyone’s sake, I wish it were that simple. The choice you must make is really much more personal – it’s the type of choice all of us must make at some point in our lives, and it’s never easy. It’s the choice between what we personally want and hope will work vs. what we know is probably the greater good and best for others. OK, that’s the kindest way I can put it. The more blunt way is this: it’s the choice between doing what is best for yourself vs. doing what is best for everyone else, even and especially when it isn’t what you personally want.
Over the last several months, and right up until the day of the national convention, you will continue to be wooed from all sides; the candidates want you to do what’s best for them, the party wants you to do what’s best for it, and the voters of your area want your vote to reflect their preference. The pressure will only get worse, and no matter which way you go, you’re probably going to make someone unhappy. That’s OK. I’m guessing no where in the "Super Delegate Handbook" does it say one of your responsibilities is to make people happy. Hang on to that thought. It’s one of two you’re going to need to remember most when you make your final decision on the convention floor.
So – how are you to make this decision? Let’s be honest – many of you will never have so much power to shape history, nor your own personal future, as you will have with this vote. And it’s that last bit – the personal future part – where this starts to get complicated. At some point in this process, don’t be surprised if someone suggests to you something along the lines of "if you play your cards right and vote for so-and-so, you can write your own ticket," or "stick with me and I’ll make sure you have a seat at the table"’ or "so-and-so is who we want, and you don’t want to be on the wrong side of this when the day’s over"’ or, my personal favorite, the short and sweet, "you owe me"’ or some other version of a carrot or stick arm twist. The less power you currently enjoy, the greater the pressure you’re likely to feel to do what someone with more power wants you to do. This isn’t meant to be an indictment or condemnation of anyone. It’s just what happens, so there’s no point in telling ourselves it doesn’t.
I’m not sending this out in order to tell you who I think you should vote for. My state had its say on Super Tuesday. I’m here to give you slightly different advice – presumptuous of me, I know – but it’s advice I don’t hear anyone else out there giving you. So here goes…
Because you will cast the last votes in this contest, you have an incredible advantage over the general public voters; the advantage of time. You will have had at least two months’ more time to examine each candidate than every other voter – for the nearly half of the country who voted by Super Tuesday, that’s six and a half months’ more information you’ve gained than we had when we voted. That’s huge! Consider how much more we’ve learned about the candidates in the last few months than in the previous year. What more will we learn in the coming months? I don’t know, but the longer the battle goes on, the better the odds we’ll get a clearer picture of the true mettle of these two people and the more informed your vote can be.
A second advantage you have is that you’re party insiders. You are privy to information, gossip, rumor, history and facts most of us will never know. Those of you who are sitting politicians especially – you know how the game is played – you know the difference between sponsoring bills, co-sponsoring bills, and writing bills and what kind of leadership and talent is evidenced by each. You know the difference between sitting on committees and working on them. You know why these candidates have cast their senate votes as they have in detail we will never hear, which of the hundreds of votes were critical, which weren’t and who showed up for each. You know the kind of stress and pressure you and your colleagues face every day – and how much more intense it is for a president – and you’ve likely witnessed how each of these two candidates bears up under those stresses and pressures. You know, better than any of the rest of us, the full breadth and depth of the problems the next president will have to face. Rip through this information without mercy, but with every ounce of objectivity you can muster. Close your ears to the charismatic cadence of campaign speeches and promises. Ignore the polls – you know most of them are bullshit. Forget who you like or hate. Remember who gets the jobs done and who gets problems solved. Those of us general public voters have the luxury of ‘falling in love’ with a candidate – you don’t. You have to be smarter than us. And don’t seek the counsel of others in the party – you’re on your own this time and you’ve got to suck it up and trust your own instincts and brains. Let me repeat that: trust only your own instinct and brains. This time our future really does depend on your ability to do just that.
It is because of these two advantages, your votes carry the power to essentially save us from ourselves. In all likelihood, that’s precisely what you may have to do. You must not falter. Earlier, I told you it wasn’t your responsibility to make people happy, and to hold on to that thought as it was one of two you would most need to remember. Here’s the second one: in this vote, your responsibility isn’t to choose the best person for the party – but to choose the best, strongest, most capable person to lead the country. They may not be one and the same, and this is why Party must never come before Country. Forgetting this dooms us all.
I know what I’m asking of each of you is far from easy, and I’m sorry for that. I do understand the political risks you face should your choice go against the wishes of allies and friends.
Good luck, God speed, and thank you,
K.A. Flinn

56 years, they're really going to have to dig deep. I don't envy the position they're in, but, while I tried not to indicate I have a preference, I hope what I said left no doubt who the wise choice is.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

eom
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

(she fixes everything)
;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

As one of the oldest Democrats posting here, I would only add that "the best, strongest, most capable person to lead the country" is also "the best person for the party".
Hillary not only has the solutions, she is the solution.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
his "this is a defining moment" assertion--which I suppose is the same as the "it's our time" one. (Oddly, few seem to comment on the first woman Prez possiblility.) The only moment that seems defining to me is whether the Democratic Party will finally refuse to put up another elitist, egghead, sure loser.

"your votes carry the power to essentially save us from ourselves"
After what the Supreme court did to us in 2000. How on earth can good Democrats like yourselves suggest that Super Delegates should take the vote away from the people and undermind our democracy. Some people really are not thinking clearly. If Senator Clinton doesn't win....then she doesn't win, period.
A handful of elected officials don't get to change the will of the people......again!

Well, I'll repeat what my ex-brother-in law said: The primary/caucus season doesn't consist of "elections" in the classic sense. It's a process for the Democratic Party to select the Party's nominee to go up against the Republicans.
Frankly, I think it would be "undemocratic" to try to force the superdelegates to vote one way or another. It's not their fault they have a vote. Their prime and probably only concern should be who can win in November.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

a tie/deadlock/correct our stupidity specifically because they have the greatest length of time to examine the candidates before voting and far greater access to info we will never know about those candidates, before they cast their votes. The idea that a small group of people can over-write the will of thousands doesn't thrill me either, except that we don't exactly have a lengthy history of being a country that all votes with their brains. We can't even get every eligible person to vote yet, let alone do it intelligently.
If you don't want them to have that ability and power then there are some simple solutions:
1. don't have staged out primaries/caucuses. Treat the primary season the same way as the GE - start the season Jan 1st, and every state votes the same day, say June 1st. Then we'll all get to vote and have equal info.
2. get rid of the delegate system all together. Popular vote wins it. That at least really is democratic. Save a whole ton of money too, that could be better spent helping the congressional races that get short shrift during presidential primaries.
And just to be clear -
1st - I didn't advocate one candidte over the other, but if you assumed it was Clinton from the way the email was written, then I'll hope all the recipients are as smart as you.
2nd - The Supreme Court should never have gotten involved, in 2000, I agree, but let's not romance the stone here. Gore stunk as a candidate, and headed one of the worst run campaigns in recent memory. No one had an easier shot at the WH, running as the sitting VP, coming off the best economic record in decades with billions in surplus, record numbers of jobs created, and a war managed so well (thanks to Wes) that not only were there no US casualties, a majority of the US population didn't even know it was happening. So what lost it for him? His own ego lost it. Instead of capitalizing on being a successful WH team - Gore did everything possible to distance himself from Clinton. Had he done otherwise, he would have likely won in a landslide. And where was Gore and the DNC when it really came time to fight for his election? He won the damn thing and let the Supreme Court take it away. He tried a little then gave up - rather quickly. The upshot is - the Supreme Court did no more than they were allowed to do by inaction to stop them.
The best thing that ever happened to Gore was the day he stopped being a candidate - which, by the way, was the same day everyone fell in love with the guy.
3rd - Four years later, Kerry did the same thing: pledged to make sure every vote in Ohio was counted, then conceded before that happened. And to add insult to injury, he sent John Edwards out to tell those standing standing out in the cold this, instead of having the balls to do it himself. Gee, no wonder Edwards wasn't chomping at the bit to get kerry's endorsement this time around.
And - 4th - I don't belong to any party. My vote goes to the best person running - not to the party running him/her.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

So if your argument holds true, which it doesn't, than there really is no point in voting in the primary. We should just let the supers pick. What a country!
"I didn't advocate one candidte over the other, but if you assumed it was Clinton from the way the email was written, then I'll hope all the recipients are as smart as you."
You wouldn't be writing that letter at all if you weren't advocating for Hillary.....Duh..
P.S. You spelled candidate wrong.

;-)
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers

So if your argument holds true, which it doesn't, than there really is no point in voting in the primary.
The supers only make up about 20% of the delegates. Voting in the primaries and caucuses make up the other 80%, in case you haven't noticed.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!



I'm looking forward to helping get them out.
This is more or less the tack I took in my letters to the SuperDs. Although I mentioned my support of Hillary (and Wes, of course), I really just wanted to encourage them to exercise their own, independent, free-will choice. I said that merely parroting the local primary or caucuses undermines the whole idea behind the superdelegate system.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!