Thinking along the same lines! I posted this earlier on my FB profile: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=21271235586&ref=nf

That's too funny. We may be hanging out too much. ;)

"they would like you to stalk and intimidate these people on their behalf, because the only sort of activism they are capable of inspiring is the kind where you further their agenda."

Melanie, I call bullshit. What you are now calling "stalking and intimidation," i.e. (calling your representative, finding out their position, and making sure that your representative is aware of your position) is what you used to call "grassroots activism" back when it supported your candidates or your policies.

A quick review of the archives reveals numerous occasions where you have advised readers to call or write their representatives at all levels of government, and in several cases purely Democratic politics...but I guess "the people" were on your side back then?

This primary thing makes us all look like retards in a variety of ways. I'm tired of a lot of this crap now.
Progressive organizations are all our friends ... let's not circular firing squad here. Personally, I thought the MoveOn censure was the most spineless and callow action of Democratic Senate "Leadership" I have seen in quite some time.

It's no secret that DFA is pro-Obama by process of elimination. I gave them $$ when they endorsed Obama, Edwards and Kucinich early in the race.

I second Richard's "bullshit." If Obama and Clinton can both buy themselves supers (out and out via campaign contributions), then it is totally appropriate for their constituents (for the electeds) to also voice their opinion.

"If he doesn't take action soon, his tenure as DNC Chair will end with the same humiliation and disappointment as his presidential campaign."

Further bullshit. If not for Dean, the Mark Penn/McAuliffe "Kerry states plus one" strategy would still be in effect, and Georgia would be relegated to even more of a conservative backwater than it already is.

There are rational, principled reasons in the activist base for going after the Clintons (although I question any tactics that go after the ground rules mid-contest - they are only effective insofar as the softheadedness of their targets). And if we get an Obama presidency, I'm sure he'll piss off some element of the progressive base as well.

But, all in all ... GET OVER IT. It's a dirty scrap because we have two excellent candidates with their own strengths and weaknesses.

And we'll need the full strength of the party to beat the crap out of the senile McCain and kick as many Republicans (and possibly curb-kick a couple of the way out?) to the curb as possible.

I'm pretty well all-in-all pissed off on this particular kind of infighting after I just got back yesterday from arguing with people that don't even believe in basic science, e.g. the knuckle-walkers of Georgians for Life (gag).

I can't think of anything more democratic than telling the people of this country exactly what individuals have the power to decide their election. And frankly if those people want perfect privacy, they should not be running for such public and potentially powerful positions.

I'm not saying true harassment, if it goes that far, is appropriate. But I see nothing harassing about the public contacting people elected to positions of power either in government or in the party and seeking to persuade them to vote a certain way. It is part and parcel of what they signed up for when they took on such a serious responsibility.

Yesterday I happened to be the recipient of a e-mail blast to folks on the state committee, again confirming my worst nightmare, that we can't get our shit together, but have ample time to point fingers and bicker.

I'm over it, I've been unsubscribing to lots and lots of groups in the past month, the first to go NARAL who wanted me to give them money ( yeah no, since you closed the GA office) because Huckabee won Iowa..ok huh?

DFA who instead of just saying why you support Obama couched it all as a "progressive thing".

MoveOn, well just cause they are constantly pimping something.

I do agree with Mel about this:
"Since none of them can be bothered to actually participate in the Democratic Party, it's now your job to remediate and (oh if you wouldn't mind), finance them."

Oh and we wonder why folks don't get involved, the politics of politics is a nasty game. No two ways around that.

While I have no idea (or care) what somebody at Huffington Post said, I have received the Moveon and DFA emails. I also heard Jim Dean discuss this on a conference call for an unrelated event last week. I have not seen anything about intimidation; they seem to have the same concern that I do.

If you believe the current predictions, it looks like neither Hillary or Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination after the primaries are over, and the superdelegates will probably decide it. It would be a horrible thing for all Dems if despite getting the most pledged delegates and most votes, the other candidate wins because they made better backroom deals with superdelegates.

Moveon and DFA are just trying to stop this before it starts, which is a good idea, in my opinion.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/19/102044/454/78/459624

Am sure Melanie can defend herself but I thought I'd chime in with what I think she was meaning-- I know her well, and she is not opposed to grassroots activism and having voters exercise their freedom to call or write folks to express their wishes, etc. I think what she was trying to relate was a frustration with these HUGE organizations with HUGE sway and HUGE mailing lists using this power to sway the election to their candidate of choice and breaking the rules mid-game while they're at it. Whether or not their call to action will work or backfire is still to be seen (will their followers follow lock-step or balk?). I know I unsubscribed to MoveOn over a year ago due to their inability to move-on with anything but their own agenda. DFA had grown irrelevant to me as well long before this race and had not unsubscribed due to lazyness but am staying subscribed now so I can keep tabs on what they're up to....

where is the outrage? My predictions for the next two weeks: Obama takes all but OH.

IRE, if you mean with your link to DKos, you posted that while I was typing mine, hence why there was no reference to it (as I hadn't seen it).

This is precisely why we need to have Howard Dean do what he promised, which is to sit down with the 2 before the convention and work it out before we ever get to convention. No one wants a floor fight, and technically what that link is saying isn't breaking the rules. Do I want them to do it? no. Has it happened in the past? yes. That's why we're all shuddering at the idea of a brokered convention. We have to avoid it or the Republicans will have another 4 years, it's that simple folks.

I would have no objection to these emails, online petitions, and other activities IF these organizations were not actively and aggressively supporting a specific candidate.

And again, this is NOT democracy at work, even if we want it to be. It is party politics. That said, I do have confidence that all Democrats will be satisfied with the outcome.

Richard, I support grassroots activism, not mercenary guerilla tactics. And I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this.

By OH i mean PA.

That said, I do have confidence that all Democrats will be satisfied with the outcome.

I can envision many scenarios that would cause me to vote Mcain.

"I suspect if not for 2 votes, your family would have a very different perspective on this."

1) While I vaguely appreciate the quaint patriarchial notion that whenever I speak I speak for "my family," I do not.

2) I am confused as to what exactly you are referring to. Please send email.

3) Sending petitions, calling, writing letters, etc. is not "mercenary guerrilla tactics." Or was it a "mercenary guerrilla tactic" to call in to representatives and senators regarding the state water plan?

IRE, it appears that the whole thing on politico claiming Hillary was going after pledged delegates was based on this quote:

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.” [...]

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

It does not say that Clinton had such a plan...

Richard, took me a sec to figure out what she meant too, but am assuming Mel meant that Page was only 2 (actually 3 I recall) votes away from being a super delegate this past fall....

*shrug* I don't answer my home phone now anyway.

You forgot Hitler. This insistence that the winner of the Democratic Primary be the one with the most votes is like stalking, intimidation, humiliation, big brother - and Hitler.

I mean, if you're gonna accuse someone of cartoonish villiany, why not go with cartoonish super-villiany?

Whatever MoveOn *really* wants - and having left my psychic powers in my other pants, I don't know what that is - what they *say* they want is a nominee who wins the most votes, which at this point, could be either Clinton or Obama.

That seems uncontroversial to me.

I'll save my outrage for when someone outrageous happens.

I think this goes beyond phone calls Richard. Here's the complete text of the email.

--------

Hi,

As you know, superdelegates are poised to play a major role in nominating the Democratic candidate for the presidency this year. Two candidates remain in the race -- Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton -- and if neither achieves the requisite number of delegates required for the nomination, superdelegates will make the decision. At this point, there's little indication that either of them will drop out of the race; Clinton maintains a lead among superdelegates while Obama's recent string of victories provide him a margin among delegates. But just who are these people who may determine the next Democratic nominee?

WOULD YOU RESEARCH AND INTERVIEW A SUPERDELEGATE? Reply to this email, and we'll match you up with a superdelegate, provide instructions on researching them and conducting your interview.

If this is your first time participating in a distributed journalism assignment with OffTheBus, don't worry. We'll guide you through the process.

In the past week several OffTheBus members interviewed superdelegates on their own. From OffTheBus member Devon Mills we learned of Washington resident David McDonald, who told her that Clinton met with him for a "courtesy chat." Beverly David interviewed Christine "Roz" Samuels, who recently made waves for defecting to Obama after originally pledging for Clinton.

The information you learn about today's Democratic superdelegates can help us answer many questions, such as -- Who does the Democratic Party entrust its superdelegate status to? Who are the most powerful Democrats? Who's been contacted by what campaigns? Will the superdelegates' votes be influenced by the popular vote?

PLEASE JOIN US, AND INTERVIEW A SUPERDELEGATE. The assignment requires a commitment of only two hours. Reply to this email, and we'll get you started.

best,
Amanda, Marc, and Neil

"WOULD YOU RESEARCH AND INTERVIEW A SUPERDELEGATE? Reply to this email, and we'll match you up with a superdelegate, provide instructions on researching them and conducting your interview."

"The assignment requires a commitment of only two hours."

That looks a lot like "google them to see if they've publicly committed, google their district to see how it voted, and then call them."

Also, can you send me the contact info for Amanda, Marc, and Neil? I'd like to follow up.

Interestingly, this entry is the only google hit I get for offthebus and "research and interview a superdelegate."

Yeah, that doesn't sound too different than Dodd's "Citizen Whip Count" for FISA ...

Again...they're party officials. They run for positions and/or accept positions knowing that they will carry with them a public responsibility and the power to help pick a nominee. Why should contacting them be a no-no? Not hiding in the bushes outside their house or listening to their private phone calls, obviously that's a little over the top. But calling them, or trying to arrange an interview, that seems completely OK to me.

I'd even dare say that campaigning them to vote a certain way is fine...because again, it's what they signed up for by taking on a position of power within the party.

The alternative is that we could have the nomination decided by a few hundred elected officials who everyone knows how to contact and who are accountable to voters...and a few hundred people who nobody has heard of and who are accountable to no one. Since the elected officials appear to be breaking relatively evenly between the two candidates for now, that could very well result in a bunch of faceless unknowns unaccountable to anyone playing the role of kingmaker/queenmaker. excuse me if I don't find that idea very democratic... regardless of who they choose.

MoveOn and DFA, fine. But the Off the Bus / HuffPost thing is strictly about getting some basic information and whipping up a large, well-researched article on what the current state of the superdelegates is. As a former OfftheBusser, I third the bullshit on that particular project being any kind of "intimidation."

what it sounds like is that DFA and Huffington POst are trying to mobilize their supporters(!) to talk to elected officials (!!!!! ZOMFUG!!!!!!ELEVEN!!1!!!1!!!one!!!!!!)

Remind me why I should care.

PS: I still like my three candidates for prez who all dropped out.

Somewhat OT:

1) Is John Edwards a superdelegate? (I think it's no).

2) Does he have to become a superdelegate (elected in his North Carolina district) to go to convention?

Rather, does he have to become a delegate (not superdelegate).

I think the answer is yes, he has to become a delegate *if* he wants to cast a vote. There will be people going to the convention who aren't delegates.

Oddly, as near as I can tell NC selects their delegates on May 17 before they know who they are pledged to (primary is May 20).

I signed the USA Today ad, and I don't see a thing wrong w/pressuring the superdelegates to vote the way we want them to. Paul Begala (sp?) is on now, saying the entire superdelegate system is a disgrace, giving the elite of the party more power than the base, the voters who've turned out in record numbers, all the way up to today, when the weather in Wisconsin may have kept some people at home. They have same day registration in Wisconsin, so the 27% that were undecided as recently as yesterday could really make a difference, esp. in Madison, where students might be a big block.

As far as this whole superdelegate thing, I think we have a right to contact the party leaders, and to hold them accountable to us. I'd like to see us do away w/the superdelegate system altogether. A brokered convention would be a disaster for us, imho, and if the Clintons and Obamas can contact and urge the superdelegates to support them, I certainly think those of us who make up the grass roots of the party not only can, but should as well. I'm delighted that their names, addresses, and phone numbers are being made public. If they didn't want the heat they shouldn't have come into the kitchen.

Power is a a privilege, and these folks are supposed to serve the Democratic party, not steal the nomination/election from the people who have turned out in record numbers to vote, no matter who they voted for or support personally. I love it that we have superdelegates like DPG Chair Jane Kidd here in GA. who are keeping their intentions to themselves, that's integrity.

I trust her to put the good of the Party before her own personal preference, and I only wish I felt the same sense of trust in more of them.

At least they know we're watching now, and that can only be a good thing.

Okay, they've called McCain the winner in Wisconsin, golly I wish he'd learn to give a speech, I'm going to go cruise around the internets and do some channel clicking, see y'all later.

MSNBC is calling it for Obama, 52 to 47%. That was quick!

I think the problem is that these appeals claim some superiority of principle, and imply- if not outright say- that the superdelegate process is unfair. I don't agree with that, and I think this is just campaign politics run amok.

There is nothing wrong with having about 25% of the delegates chosen by and/or represented by the Party. I would think that if the popular vote is close enough to be indecisive, that is exactly what we, as The Party, should want. MoveOn and DFA email recipients have had plenty of time to get involved in the Party and get superdelegates that they like in place. It seems a bit WAAAAAHH! to now pounce on the process as being unfair when it looks like neglect has caused things to slip away.

I suppose there is also nothing wrong with people trying to contact and influence superdelegates, but doing so with the attitude that their very position is an abomination and that they are OBLIGATED to reflect the exact proportion of the popular vote is, well, not exactly the politics of hope.

"I'd like to see us do away w/the superdelegate system altogether."

Please, no.

1) No one should have to run against their Representative, Senator, or Party Chair to become a delegate to the National Convention.

2) It would be (more?) boring to go to a National Convention and find that all of the Representatives, Senators, and Party Chairs stayed home because they didn't see the point in going or didn't want to take the spot of someone who had never been to the National Convention.

Both of these things used to happen before the superdelegate system.

one of the things i dont like about this superdelegates debate is, well all of it, but this whole thing that oh they didn't change who the superdelegates are or just get involved and become a superdelegate or state committee member like its just something you can do.

Actually, it is something you can do. Do you need a tutorial?

I guess from the perspective of a keyboard warrior perhaps it's not something you can do. This is the other edge of the internet. So many people think that sending an email elevates them to the status of "seasoned activist", and anyone who does more than that is part of the problem.

It's the least-common-denominator argument for the 21st century.

like its something you can do easily i should have said.

ok serious question.

What do you say to the activists who just DO NOT want to get involved in the party as a committee member or superdelegate or what have you.

They don't want to run for any of those positions, what are they supposed to do? Are they not supposed to contact the state cmtte members or SDs so that they know how the activists feel?

IDK the answer which is why I ask.

Activists who don't want to get involved in the Party but want to influence internal Party functions? I say good luck, type away, but I hope their influence is actually minimal.
Get involved or start your own damn party. Trying to be an outsider with insider credentials is just amateur.

uh thats not what i mean. The activists who don't want to become committee members or officers and then become able to vote on superdelegates and what not.

Im fine knocking on doors attending meetings and doing other grunt work, for example. But because of my job, even though its not related to politics, I don't want to become an "official member" of the party per se.

And to use another more general example, the volunteers of campaigns who are Democrats but don't want to take the above path? Their only real option here is to contact the SDs and other officials to have a say in their party.

Listen to what you are saying: You only want to participate peripherally, but you want to have significant influence. What does that say to those who DO participate in the Party fully? Are they wrong? Must everyone only have as much influence as those who choose to participate minimally?

The Democratic Party belongs to those who participate. I think we operate it on behalf of the greater good, but we also ask a little in return. Text messaging and email have changed the way we communicate, but it doesn't mean that anybody with a Blackberry gets automatic Party privileges.

"The Democratic Party belongs to those [in the State Committee]."

Just wow.

uh no im not wanting significant influence. Im not. If someone is influenced by me, i have to ask, why?

What I am saying is there are people involved with the party who knock on doors, phone bank etc. They chose to not become state committeee members or anything else official for whatever reason. They don't at least get a say or a voice? Even minimal? What about the people who have 20-30 years of voting in dem primaries only and only voting for dems (the overwhelming majority of all democrats), why don't they get a voice?

My point is this, anyone who has a genuine interest in getting Democrats elected and can show it through their actions and their beliefs gets a say. Sure some people deserve bigger influence and they get it, its well earned and well deserved.

But im not about shutting genuine Democrats out of the process even minimally. Give people a chance to say what they want, at least pretend to listen to small people, even if you don't take what they have to say to heart.

echoing Jen's statement, which is exactly what your comment is implying, do the people on the state committee who are there simply as a reward for being part of a machine, but do nothing more to serve the party deserve a bigger say than a dedicated volunteer who does a lot of work on all levels but for example, tries to get on the SC but can't (this example is not me BTW)?

As for keyboard warriors having little influence, I am sure that comes as a surprise to Kos, Matt Yglesias...

I get what IRE is saying. My job would actually not let me hold a position like that in the party without prior approval (which I'd never get), and I suspect a lot of people work for companies that would frown upon that level of political involvement. We don't get a say in how things are done because we have to choose between our job or becomng a party insider?

I have tremendous respect for the people who do the legwork of running the state and national party, but they are not unaccountable or immune from criticism from those of us who aren't party insiders, simply by virtue of attaining those positions.

Reading through all these comments is really interesting.

I suppose I don't have a big problem if they are approached in a respectful open forum for their support.

I guess my question would be, once you've made the ask, and you don't get the answer you want, what next? How far will some people push? Now that does scare me. All it will take is for some nut job (and yes, you know who you are) to get some press for going too far. I'm tired of the assumption that these superdelegates have become Britney Spears and we're all entitled to know their business.

The other comment I'd like to make is on one hand you want influence, a voice, clout and attention, yet some want it at the low low low entry price of showing interest.

Hey, that's not how organizational politics works. You have to show up all the fracking time to things, work tirelessly in thankless committees, attend functions when you would rather be sleeping in, be available for meetings on inconvenient nights and times and in general "be there" for the organization, for years people.

In any other world we'd call that "paying your dues". I guess I don't get why every 4 years some think they can just stroll up to something announce they want to be "involved" and we're supposed to drop everything to listen and do what you say? Frankly it's disrepectful as all hell to expect that. Is that what you would want? Work your ass off for years in a organization to have some Johnny come lately tell you what to do. I doubt that will work.

Most of us learned long ago that you can't have everything you want, you make choices, you make decisions that you have to be at peace with.

Reminds me of a trailer

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P8nD2KB0a_E

"this is a private matter!"

Nobody's saying we want clout, attention, or anything more than for our primary vote to matter.

I've got to jump on with IRE. Part of the idea of the representative republic (why we want transparency, an active, accurate and aggressively truth-seeking press, etc.) is that you shouldn't have to be 100% involved to have your voice heard (and perhaps weighted appropriately).

The politicians are the ones that should implement, but you shouldn't have to be a lobbyist (paid or not) for your preferences for goals to be heard.

It's kind of a tricky thing, but it's a pretty small segment of the population that can get much more involved in the political world than writing letters or talking to friends and neighbors and get out and voting from time to time.

And every time we make those people feel that their voice isn't being heard or cared about, we lose just a little something.

Every time we complain about the atrocious voter participation rate, we've got to keep things like this in mind.

I'm still not sure that I believe my primary vote doesn't matter.

So far nothing has changed to make that so.

I would argue that our primary votes do matter and that what we're seeing, is that the voting population is split on the matter (at least up til now). So if we're still at a tie, how do you propose breaking the tie?

well, there are two candidates left, someone's going to get 50%+1, just a matter of when.

Agree with Kimmie, nothing's changed to make my vote feel less either.

But i'm also not going to harass my superDelegates either. Those that want to mirror their state will, those that have a preferred candidate in mind will, the rest is most likely a very very minute number.

I have better things to do with my time, like start preparing for a July primary and a November election.

Y'all don't have to be a state committee member to "have a voice". We can all vote for the elected officials who become superdelegates. That is your "voice". You can still show up at your county meetings and express your opinion even if you don't pay your dues or hold a post seat. That is your "voice".

Sara: I don't know what you expect. As IRE pointed out, you can join Kos, or for that matter MoveOn, or any number of other organizations and have influence without being actually IN the party. But why is it so bizarre to have actual dues-paying, meeting-attending Democrats be the ones who get to select our leadership? We should throw the doors open to anyone on MoveOn's list? Let everybody vote on the Party leadership? Where do you draw the line?

And if the popular primary vote isn't decisive within a certain margin, then we should absolutely let the party leadership have some influence. After all, presumable we elected them for their judgment and dedication. We can argue about where that margin should be, but it's not about "principle" at that point, we're just refining the mechanics.

I wish one of you would spell out exactly what you want. You want volunteers who do phone banking for a candidate but don't go to meetings and don't pay dues to... what?

"You want volunteers who do phone banking for a candidate but don't go to meetings and don't pay dues to... what?"

We should do our damnedest to get them involved in the party, but by the time they've gotten on the phone to do that awful banking thing, they are already in the upper 5% of people in this country in terms of political participation, I would wager. They sure shouldn't be written off.

"You want volunteers who do phone banking for a candidate but don't go to meetings and don't pay dues to... what?"

We should do our damnedest to get them involved in the party, but by the time they've gotten on the phone to do that awful banking thing, they are already in the upper 5% of people in this country in terms of political participation, I would wager. They sure shouldn't be written off.

In fact, I would try very hard to ask them why they got committed to a candidate to a level that they wouldn't a party - because that is pretty invaluable information.

We can all vote for the elected officials who become superdelegates. That is your "voice"

really? I voted for Jane Kidd? Or Richard Ray? Or, you get the point.

I'm not denying the SC members a voice, I think their's should be louder and more influential than non SCers.

What i'm saying is if you are a dedicated Dem, you get *a* voice. i don't know why anyone would be opposed to this. Obviously it would be weaker than those on the SC or who run the organizations (as it should be) but they at least have *a* voice. Its funny to think that there are members of the SC who are there only as a political reward and somehow they are more deserving of a voice than a hard working volunteer. THe only reason I can think of to oppose this is fear of losing an SC post.

Where do you draw the line?

Real easy. Those on the SC or post seat holders. What I am saying is that SDs need to hear from, well all members of the party. It ain't hard to see why. Just because I don't want to become an SC member or others can't formally join the party, is no reason not to listen to them. A reason for not listening to someone talking about internal politics is if he or she is not a democrat.

Really, what i think this all boils down to, and i could be horribly mistaken and i love to be proven wrong, is that a majority of SDs were for Hillary at the start of the race. And if that is the case, I call shenanigans on this whole debate. And we all know, you can't just throw around calling shenanigans.

BTW: I hope that this sort of exclusionary tone is not an official practice/policy/whatever of the SC, because of it is, that might be enough incentive to get different people involved with the SC.

You are taking a real "all or nothing" approach to this Odin. There are ways to participate at many levels. No one's getting written off.

Complete the thought though: You want volunteers who phone bank but don't go to meetings and don't pay dues to be able to vote for party leadership? Is that what you want?

i don't think he is. he is saying we should get people involved if they are willing to volunteer.

What i am guessing he wants is for all democrats to have a say in what goes in *OUR* party. I repeat, *all members* having a say in *our* party.

The only way *our* party remains a party where everyone cand say *my* party and not *their* party, is if we give every dem a voice. Be that calling SDs, EC members, DNC members, even vaunted and most high SC members and saying, hey, here is what I like. Take it or leave it from there but at least listen.

How do we determine exactly who the members are? Who is "every dem"? How do we tell them from "not dems"? Exactly what do we need to do differently? That is what I am asking!

Actually IRE, the majority of SDs are uncommitted and have been uncommitted from the beginning...

"exactly who the members are? Who is "every dem"? How do we tell them from "not dems""

Well, volunteers on campaigns, people who vote in Dem primaries, people who have a genuine interest in getting Dems elected, you know, those people.

If you really need help determining who is and who isn't a Democrat, well, as a general rule of thumb, people who are routinely engaged in things that promote the party are Democrats.

MAybe a better example is in the DNP's constitution and bylaws, tehre is a Democratic Party Pledge, people who swear to that are Democrats. Or even better, are people who register as Democrats. Something that might be harder to determine in GA but still.

"You want volunteers who phone bank but don't go to meetings and don't pay dues to be able to vote for party leadership? Is that what you want?"

Why not? The trick would be ensuring that one doesn't vote in both parties (or third parties).

However, I'd say about anyone that registered Democrat in closed primaries or regularly votes that way considers themselves a Democrat.

Also, I'd say the people that know and care about who the candidates for Party Chair are, for example, and those that do a significant amount of work/proselytizing for the party are a pretty well mutually overlapping set.

Go any further down the list, and I'm pretty sure you'll get county dues payers (or those that will pay when the bucket is shaken at the elections meeting) as the same people who care who runs Gwinnet/Fulton/whatever county Dems.

So, my return question is, what do we have to offer those that identify themselves as Dems rather than just Independents that vote Democrat 99.9% of the time?

I'm going to go a little further with this philosophical wandering and say that I tend to see political gatherings more as a mutual defense pact. Namely, you push for my issue if I push for yours in a coalition.

That's the difference between being part of a party and being in a single-issue group like Planned Parenthood or Sierra.

BTW: to me, all that is being said is that the only way to determine who is a Dem is if someone is on the SC or what have you.

Well then I guess as someone who its not really clear if I am actually a democrat, despite giving around 2k dollars to Dem candidates, organizations, and other allied groups in the past two years (which is a frikkin HUGE part of my pay if i can just say so and does not include union dues); volunteered i dont know how much, staffed a couple of campaigns; and regularly goes to meetings; that if this questioning is the official stance of the SC then I do want to get involved with the SC to change that. Professional ethics and codes be damned.

as a final note from me, this thread's gotten to bitter for me.

I won't argue any more.

Criminal Records needs my patronage.

with the exception of a few appointees from the chair, the State Comm folks had to run in local elections (county party) and be elected by their peers. They didn't even have to be members of the county party if memory serves me correctly from when i was a SC member.

Anyone in my county (DeKalb) could have shown up at the meeting, declared themselves a Democrat and caucused to nominate these SC folks and then put them up for election by the County Party. Pretty simple,

Tim- same in Cobb, caucus style everyone present got a vote for the state party rep.

One small correction, the DNC forbids excluding anyone from participating if they can't pay dues. So all memberships fees are in fact voluntary. County parties can ask you to join by filling out a form and such, but it can't be tied to a financial payment.

Also, all County Party, DPG & DNC meetings are open to the public.

I feel like much is getting lost in the noise here. I don't begrudge anyone who is a seatholder within the Democratic party for their commitment or participation in the process. I wish more people had the time and energy to be active party members and to get elected to positions that entitle them to a superdelegate vote. But it's not possible for every person who's active in the Democratic party to be a seatholder. And on an even broader level, it's not possible for many individuals who vote consistently Democratic to get involved in party procedure because it's a time commitment they just can't afford. Given how much we've heard this year about caucuses being undemocratic in part because they require a greater time commitment, I would think you all would be sympathetic to the fact that for many people, earning a living or childcare take precedence over going to state party meetings.

I'm not seeking any greater influence than any other individual voter is hoping for--I want to feel like I and the 20 million other people who've voted in the primary so far are helping to determine the nominee with our little individual votes. If superdelegates decide the nomination by supporting a candidate who was behind in pledged delegates, or if a nominee wins by convincing pledged delegates to switch, that would make a lot of people like me feel as though our votes didn't matter. Obviously this is all hypothetical right now, but it would not be nearly as much of an issue if certain campaign surrogates didn't continually insist on going around announcing the ways in which their can secure the nomination without being in the lead in the tally of pledged delegates. That freaks people out, not just because it might mean their candidate might not win even if he or she takes a majority of votes, but also because it means that maybe the votes of the people wouldn't really matter that much--if a 100 delegate majority could be erased by the decisions of the superdelegates or by poaching from the other side, then the whole nomination process put into effect by the party will start to look to a lot of people like a sham. Now obviously if some sort of deal is worked out or if the superdelegates fall in line with the frontrunner and the pledged delegates hold to their pledges and we have someone hit a clear majority, all of this talk will be for naught. But this is on a lot of people's minds right now because a certain campaign's surrogates keep saying these things in the press that raise red flags to a lot of people.

I'm not a member of Kos, MoveOn, DFA or any other organization that's involved in the various superdelegate interview/transparency/accountability efforts. I think their hearts are in the right place, but I'm not giving them money or hiding in a superdelegate's bushes for them. But I recoil at the notion that giving the people on the ground more information about people who potentially have the power to decide the nomination is a fundamentally bad thing. I also think that efforts to persuade those people, just as the 2 campaigns attempt to persuade everyone else who has a vote before they head to their precinct, is perfectly legitimate. Superdelegates were never intended to be immune to lobbying for or against a particular candidate.

I don't think it's the slightest bit bizarre to have dues-paying and involved Democrats pick the party leadership...but I think every single voter who is willing to cast a Democratic ballot has a right to help decide who will be the party's standardbearer in the general election. And I think our votes should matter just the same if we only vote every 4 years or if we show up to every rules committee meeting and fight about where the comma goes in the fifth line.

Fundamentally, I think we just disagree about whether party officials should be superdelegates. I can see many of the reasons cited above as reasons why public officials should be superdelegates, even though ultimately I think I'd much rather have a system that requires a supermajority of pledged delegates that forces people into consensus, or perhaps have superdelegates come in to break a tie only if that supermajority is not achieved. Elected officials have to work with the eventual president and often their fortunes in their own re-election campaigns will be tied to who is on the top of the ticket. They also have to answer to their constitutents at the end of the day which is always a nice check on establishment power. But those same justifications don't hold as true for me in the case of party insiders who get superdelegate votes. It's not that I begrudge them anything, it's that I simply don't think "you don't want to have to run against your party chair for a seat at the convention" is a good enough reason to give those people delegate votes, and in enough numbers that they could theoretically hand a nomination to the candidate who's otherwise behind.

Maybe the good that will come out of this whole brouhaha is that average voters will see the value in becoming involved in party politics, and that perhaps the procedures will be refined a little to prevent the possibility of this worst case scenario we've all been talking about. I know at a minimum this year's close race has forced a lot of voters to learn more about exactly how their party allocates convention delegates--and that many eyes are being opened in the process. Transparency in government is always a good thing in my mind.

Whew. Sorry that was so long.

I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating: Historically SDs have switched their vote/voted to side with the candidate that had the most votes from the primary/caucus period. I have no idea why people this election cycle think this won't happen again... One candidate or the other will be in the lead and uncommitted SDs (which are most of them right now) will side with that candidate, and some committeds will switch too. I see this whole thing as a tempest in a teapot....

Sara, I think most of us will agree with your last post.

As well we also need to realize that it's like the old saying "showing up is 90% of life".

Recently attended the delegate training, 70+ people showed up to run for 3 seats. Hey yippee that's great looky everyone wants to be part of something exciting.

Do I think the overwhelming amount of them will be disapointed they don't win, yup, do I think some will take their toys and go, yup, do I think out of that 70 there are 4 good people who will want to hang around and work like crazy for the nominee, yup. Do I think 25 of them will go home and bitch endlessly about how unfair it all was, absolutely.