PORTSMOUTH, NH -- The first questions every observer will ask when NewHampshire polling places close their doors around 8 tonight and clerkstabulate the results of the Democratic and Republican presidentialprimaries will be the essential inquiries: Who won and by how much?
In a media age when even the most complicated stories are reduced tosimple headlines, the news of a Barack Obama landslide on the Democraticside or a John McCain win on the Republican side will dominate earlyreports from the state.
But the real story from New Hampshire will be more nuanced and, perhaps,significant than the identification of a pair of winners and a lot oflosers.
Here are some questions that voters and viewers can ask as the returnsare reported:
Will the frontrunners finish first, and by how much?
How a candidate fares in the expectations game may matter more than the actual results.Pre-primary polls predicted a big Obama win, while McCain was expectedto prevail in a closer race on the Republican side. If Obama's margin ofvictory over New York Senator Hillary Clinton is narrow, it may be readas something of a stumble for him and a comeback for Clinton. IfClinton were to win the Democratic primary, she would enjoy a monumental"Dewey Defeats Truman" moment--while Obama would be devastated.Similarly, if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney were to overtakeMcCain on the GOP side, it would be a hugely important win for Romneyover a foe who was at the close of the contest portrayed as very nearlyunbeatable.
Will McCain win the way he did in 2000?
The Arizona senator is not merely competing with current expectations, but also with memories of ahistoric win in New Hampshire. Eight years ago, McCain prevailed with anear majority--49 percent--over four serious rivals. No one expectshim to win that sort of victory this year against an even more crowdedfield. But if he falls far short of his past mark, there will beinevitable speculation about McCain's declining appeal.
Who will New Hampshire voters recommend for vice president?
The Granite State's primary ballot allows not merely for presidential voting but for vice presidential voting. New Hampshire electors generally write in thenames of their favorite candidates, with a penchant toward makingpresidential contenders over as vice-presidential prospects. Often,voters write in the names of candidates of the other party. Thus, thevice presidential voting becomes a measure of the cross-party appeal ofpopular contenders.
Will Ron Paul beat a frontrunner again?
Libertarian Republican Paulfinished ahead of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in last week'sIowa caucuses, but Giuliani did not make much of an effort there. Not soNew Hampshire, where all the Republican candidates have waged campaigns.If Paul, an anti-war Texas congressman whose enthusiastic supportershave flooded the state, beats Giuliani, former Illinois Senator FredThompson or former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, then it will beharder for television networks to exclude him from debates--as theydid Sunday in New Hampshire.
Who drops out?
Republican Thompson seems to have had a hard timemaintaining interest in the race. Similarly, Democrat Bill Richardson isrunning far behind and waging a campaign that does not quite seem readyfor prime time. Particularly weak finishes in New Hampshire couldinspire both men to exit before they must spend more money and morecredibility on losing races--as did Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd andDelaware Senator Joe Biden after their out-of-the-running finishes inIowa. It is tougher to see Democrats Clinton or Edwards exiting afterfinishing behind in New Hampshire, though there has been speculationthat Edwards will have a hard time carrying on his populist campaign iffails to rival the popular support secured by Obama and Clinton. Thereis even a buzz about Clinton--who seemed to choke back tears during anemotional campaign appearance on the day before the primary. But that'sunlikely considering the large amount of money her campaign still has inthe bank and the fact that she continues to lead in many national polls.
Who gets fired?
If the Clinton campaign is to go forward, it will haveto be retooled. The candidate won't be fired and, frankly, she does nothave to change that much. She's actually been good on her feet in NewHampshire. (The whole "tearing-up" thing is a silly diversion. Everyserious candidate here is tired and, frankly, she's managing better thansome of her opponents.) Nor can "First-Man" Bill Clinton be ditched,although he is likely to be in more of a backseat role, as hiscontribution in New Hampshire has been negligible. So watch for campaignaides to be let go and new players--can anyone say "Carville"?--brought on board. It's the same with the Romney campaign on theRepublican side. There is going to need to be a "new Mitt" fast. Andthat's going to require new people taking places at the side of theformer frontrunner.
Who exits New Hampshire fastest and where do they go?
Candidates know that the best way to put a poor New Hampshire primary finish behind them is to shift attention elsewhere. After finishing second after adifficult 1992 Democratic presidential primary campaign in the state,Bill Clinton immediately declared himself "The Comeback Kid" and leftthe state before the night was done to campaign on friendlier turf inthe south. Former First Lady Clinton may tonight be similarly inclinedto get out of Manchester quick. If she loses badly, watch for her tohead for Michigan, a state where she is positioned to secure an easyprimary win next week over anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Similarly,Romney will be in a hurry to get elsewhere fast if he is badly beaten byMcCain--bet on Michigan, a state where his father served as governorand where aides say he may erect his "firewall." And watch for Huckabeeto head for South Carolina, which has an early primary and a lot moreevangelical voters than the Granite State.
Will Fox News Declare Mitt Romney a winner even if he loses?
The Republican-friendly network's taste for the favorites of the Republicanleadership in Washington has hardly been a secret. Even after mostanalysts said Romney took a beating in the Republican debate Foxproduced on Sunday--with all the leading candidates except Paul andCalifornia Congressman Duncan Hunter--Fox commentators were hailingthe former governor's "strong" performance.
What state is the next New Hampshire?
As the candidates disperse across the country, the race becomes less focused. Will Nevada, where the powerful Culinary Workers Union is expected to endorse Obama and perhaps tip the caucuses to the Illinois senator, be taken off thetable? Will Clinton try to play a race with Dennis Kucinich in Michigan--which most Democratic contenders skipped--as a serious contest?Will she risk embarrassment there at the hands of Kucinich? Will sheskip South Carolina and cede the state to Obama, whose support amongAfrican-American voters there is surging? Does she then target Florida'sJanuary 29 primary as her "firewall" fight? Do McCain and Romney decideto duke it out in Michigan? Do they give South Carolina to Huckabee? Inshort order, New Hampshire will be old news. Another state, or severalstates, will suddenly be "definitional," as what unsettled racescontinue for both party nominations.
Will more New Hampshire voters cast Democratic or Republican primary ballots?
New Hampshire voters can choose which primary in which to participate.Independents switch from one party to another. Historically, NewHampshire has been a Republican state. But it has been trendingDemocratic--electing a Democratic governor in 2002 and voting forDemocrat John Kerry for president in 2004. As recently as 2000, whenboth parties had seriously contested nomination contests, 236,802Republicans cast primary ballots while just 154,639 Democrats voted inthe state's first-in-the-nation primary. (Of those Democratic primaryvoters, more than 3,000 were cast as write-ins for McCain.) Ifsignificantly more voters participate in the Democratic primary thisyear--after dramatically more Democrats than Republicans caucused inIowa last week--it will be another indication that no matter whom theparty nominates Democratic fortunes are on the rise in 2008.
John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:
"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"
Ooh, right,we need a big strong manly finger on that nuclear button! Even if that finger has spent most it its life writing personal injury briefs in North Carolina, which, when you come to think of it, is not an obvious preparation for commander-in-chiefhood.
"When people say they don't want anyone's finger on the button who cries, I say I don't want anyone's finger there who doesn't cry," Pat Schroeder told me when we spoke by phone this afternoon. "Tears show someone is a human being." Schroeder ought to know. In 1987 she was viciously attacked for shedding a few tears while announcing her withdrawal from the presidential race. "Ronald Reagan used to tear up all the time," she said. " when John Sununu left the New Hampshire governorship to run Reagan's campaign he was crying so hard he couldn't finish his speech. Bush recently teared up. Dozens of male politicians cry. But when a man cries, he's applauded for having feelings. when a woman cries, she attacked as being weak."
Hillary Clinton, long criticized as cold, shows a bit of feeling and is attacked as overly emotional. It's the latest installment of the ongoing double bind in which if she wears a black pantsuit she's too masculine and if she wears a pink shell she's too feminine; if she's serious she's humorless and if she laughs she "cackles." (George Bush has a horrible heh-heh-heh laugh, Schroeder reminded me. But who, besides Jon Stewart, makes anything of it? ) When Hillary was First Lady she was attacked for being too involved in business of state; now, when she claims "experience" we're reminded that First Ladies are basically trivial. "I'm so sick about the way Hillary is treated I can hardly talk about it," Schroeder told me.
It's bad enough when the media goes after Hillary like a pack of addled lemmings. A few weeks ago it was her wrinkles -- would people vote for a visibly middle-aged woman? today it was her welling eyes. But Edwards is not some on-air airhead . He's supposed to represent "change," remember? You'd think he'd be more alert to sexist gender scripts, given that he's been dogged by accusations of effeminacy for (oh horrors) spending too much time and money on his hair.
I guess in his case metrosexuality only goes scalp deep, because today he sounded like quite the old-school bully boy.
Hillary Clinton has taken a beating in New Hampshire for tearing up in a conversation with a supporter.
In September, a House-approved bill granting 600,000 citizens in the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress for the first time, fell just 3 votes shy of overcoming a Republican filibuster for an up or down vote in the Senate. Republican Sen. Orin Hatch declared that the tactic of filibustering against civil rights had been "resurrected" and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty observed that "not since segregation has the Senate blocked a voting rights bill."
DC Councilman David Catania was there when the vote went down and he decided to take action. As he told the Washington Post, "We've talked ourselves to death about this issue, but we need to take our show on the road and build allies."
Catania reached out to New Hampshire state Representative Cindy Rosenwald who serves with him on the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices(a group Catania spokesman Ben Young told me doesn't make them too popular with Inside-the-Beltway folks!). At Catania's urging, Rosenwald crafted a resolution for the New Hampshire legislature that Young said "expresses regret" that New Hampshire Senators John Sununu and Judd Gregg "voted to deny the District of Columbia the right to be represented in Congress." Young noted that once Rosenwald decided to proceed, voting rights advocacy organization DC Vote was instrumental in the effort.
"We've been in constant contact with Rep. Rosenwald and helped to prepare for Wednesday's hearing [on the bill]," DC Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka told me. "We've also helped to promote the legislation to the media there and here in DC."
New Hampshire's House committee on state-federal relations will hear testimony on the resolution on Wednesday – the day after the primary – and witnesses will include Fenty, Catania, and Zherka. In all, the mayor, nine councilmen and the DC shadow (non-voting) congressional delegation will attend the hearing.
This is a smart and important effort spearheaded by Catania who has no short supply of courage and backbone. He's openly gay and was first elected to his at-large seat in 1997 as a Republican in heavily Democratic DC. He became an Independent in 2004 after speaking out against President Bush's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and then opposing his reelection.
Young said this is the very first time that DC's elected officials have left the city to push the voting rights issue. As Catania told the Post, "I want to cause these members of Congress who are voting against voting rights . . . to wonder, ‘What will this mean to me back home?'"
Indeed, Zherka said that New Hampshire is the "first leg of a multi-stop road trip" that will make sure constituents know which senators are standing in the way of voting rights for the citizens of the District. Over the next few months DC Vote will meet with media, coalition affiliates, students and others in Montana, Oregon, West Virginia and Kentucky.
"Rep. Rosenwald's bill supporting democracy for all Americans echoes the sentiments of many who have learned about DC's lack of voting representation," Zherka said. "New Hampshire is just one of many states DC Vote will visit to educate Americans about the disenfranchisement of the more than half a million District residents who pay taxes, serve on juries and fight in wars yet are denied a vote in Congress."
For weeks the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the largest union in the AFL-CIO, has been relentlessly criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plan on behalf of their favored candidate, Hillary Clinton. AFSCME President Gerald McEntee has long been a controversial figure in the union movement because of his exceptionally close ties to the Clintons. But conventional wisdom said the union would boost Clinton, especially in Iowa.
Following the Iowa caucus, members of AFSCME's executive board had seen enough, taking the unprecedented step of rebuking McEntee's anti-Obama strategy in a letter to the union chief. "We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama," the letter states. "We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton."
The letter continues:
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through "independent expenditures" is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."
While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of those candidates, Barack Obama.
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15 million people when infact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among many in the media and the progressive community.
Funnily enough, when I interviewed McEntee back in the spring, he had nothing but nice things to say about Obama. He called the Illinois senator "lightning in a jar" and described how popular he was among the union's Illinois delegation. At AFSCME's national convention in Washington in June, it was Obama, rather than Hillary, who stole the show.
Thus far, Obama has gotten by with scant union support. Another victory in New Hampshire and that could change.
MANCHESTER, NH -- Anyone who has seen the trilogy of "Lord of the Rings" films knows that Aragorn is up for a daunting battle. And so it should probably come as no surprise that the actor who played the king has thrown himself into the New Hampshire primary battle at the side of a candidate who faces a test that is the equivalent of Mr. Frodo's journey up Mount Doom in Mordor.
Film star Viggo Mortensen was so angered over the exclusion of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the last Democratic presidential debate before Tuesday's first-in-the-nation primary that he jumped on a red eye flight from the west coast to not just endorse the anti-war Democrat who has proposed impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney but to campaign on Sunday with Kucinich in Concord and Manchester.
"When a television network has the power to decide which candidates are 'worthy' of addressing the American people, it robs the American people of their most precious right to the free flow of information and dissenting points of view," said Mortensen, a deeply political man who used the forums he was given during the "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" publicity tour to oppose the rush to war with Iraq. "I am an actor, but I am also a citizen and a voter who resents the control that big money, big media, and entrenched political interests have in deciding what I should see, what I should hear, and what I should be allowed to think."
Mortensen is not the only celebrity campaigner on the trail in New Hampshire. Actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were scheduled to make multiple appearances with John Edwards Monday in Bedford, Hampton and Dover. And, of course, the Obama campaign, which once accepted a boost from queen-of-all-media Oprah Winfrey, is now holding events with a "star" that voters are lining up for blocks to meet: Barack Obama.
But the presence of Mortensen, whose chiseled features appeared on a million "Lord of the Rings" posters and who more recently earned critical and commercial acclaim for his turn as a Russian gangster in the film "Eastern Promise," gave the neglected Kucinich campaign a last-minute luster as the candidate and his supporters fought for attention in a state where they have been denied even the measure of media attention accorded rebel Republican Ron Paul.
With Mortensen at his side, Kucinich actually earned what he was denied when ABC News excluded the congressman from Saturday night's Democratic debate between Obama, Edwards and Hillary Clinton: serious attention from the cable and broadcast networks that have all set up shop in Manchester.
Kucinich and Mortensen even appeared on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" show for an extended segment that say the congressman engage in an extended discussion about fair tax policies and a single-payer health care system
Of course, conservative Sean Hannity took a few swings. But Mortensen struck back at the dark lord of talk television.
After complimenting Mortensen's film performances, Hannity said, "In spite of everything, I'm going to forgive your politics…"
"You don't have to," said Mortensen. " I'm not going to forgive yours."
That was typical of Mortensen's campaigning on behalf of Kucinich, which was a good deal sharper and more engaged than that of most of the absolutely exhausted contenders in New Hampshire.
Mortensen even showed up to introduce a televised forum on Constitutional concerns where this reporter spoke about the need to restore a system of checks and balance.
While the discussion of presidential accountability was surely bracing, one suspects that the dramatic moment of the evening belonged to Mortensen.
"One of the reasons why I support Dennis Kucinich is this…," said the actor.
Mortensen then pulled open his button-down shift to reveal a black t-shirt with the word "Impeach" emblazoned across the front.
The election is almost a year away, and already it's come down to branding. In Saturday night's Democratic debate the candidates discussed in considerable detail muclear terrorism, health care, carbon emissions and other substantive issues. But what really got them excited were the vague competing mantras of "change" and ‘experience." Obama says he stands for change. Edwards, siding with Obama against Clinton for some strategic reason too subtle for me to understand, says he stands for change too. Hillary Clinton, who casts herself as the candidate of experience but actually uttered the word "change" more often than the other candidates, dismissed her rivals as fancy talkers. She said she has 35 years of experience ( which means she's counting everything she's done since getting out of law school) and knows how to make change happen. She points out, quite correctly, that electing a woman president would be a very big change, but nobody seemed too interested in that. After all, electing a black president would be a big change too.
Hillary Clinton was fiery and funny and bore no resemblance to the candidate relentless attacked in the media as rigid, incompetent, Machiavellian and screechy. You can understand her obvious frustration with the ongoing lovefest for Obama: At one point she even compared his "likeability' to that of George W. Bush. In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity.
Somehow Hillary Clinton is stuck as the candidate who simultaneously represents excessive compromise and excessive partisanship. For various reasons, John Edwards, who actually represents the most substantive hope for change, seems in some ways a throwback to the old-fashioned class-based politics of the 1930s. Poor Richardson, who actually has the most experience of any candidate in either party, can't get any traction at all. Obama, the black candidate who never mentions his race, gets to smile his mile-wide smile and be a rock star. Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be.
It may not be fair, but then, that's show business.
Most of the people who made Barack Obama the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination – a status that new polls suggest will be confirmed when New Hampshire voters go to the polls Tuesday – flew out of Iowa with the candidate on caucus night.
But the man who was most responsible for the win – aside, perhaps, from the candidate himself – did not make the trip.
John Norris, the old Iowa political hand who was an early and essential adviser to the Obama campaign in the first-caucus state, was back to practicing law and chairing the Iowa Utilities Board.
That put Norris far from the limelight that is now shining on Obama and those around the Illinois senator whose first-place finish in Thursday's Iowa caucuses reordered a nomination race that just a month ago was supposed to be a cakewalk for Hillary Clinton.
It is where Norris likes to be. Though he made a bid of his own for Congress in the impossible year of 2002, he does not generally seek the attention or the power that other strategists covet. Veteran campaign adviser Steve Cobble, who got to know Norris when they were both working on the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988, says, "John Norris is the greatest organizer in modern presidential politics and nobody knows his name."
That's not precisely true. Barack Obama knows Norris' name. And the candidate has not hesitated to praise his essential ally in Iowa.
The senator knows that, to a greater extent than anyone else, Norris gave Obama's Iowa campaign its structure and focus. He introduced Obama to the right people in Dubuque and Keokuk, he figured out where to open offices and direct resources, he helped define the themes and the images of a run that saw an African-America graduate of Harvard Law School connect with white farmers, teachers and store clerks in a state that demands more of presidential candidates and their campaigns than any other.
This is not the first time that Norris has achieved the seemingly impossible in Iowa and, by extension, in American politics.
In 1988, as a young progressive activist, he coordinated Jesse Jackson's campaign in the state. It was Norris who convinced Jackson to target his campaign toward Iowa's hard-pressed farmers in a move that would artfully illustrate the candidate's ability to leap lines of race and region. When Jackson won 11 percent of the vote in the overwhelmingly white Hawkeye state, it was one of the first signs that the civil rights leader's 1988 campaign would be a far more serious and successful quest than his 1984 bid.
Norris would go on to play a critical role in the campaigns of Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, managing Harkin's 1992 presidential bid to an easy win in the Iowa caucuses of that year and to victories in the Idaho and Minnesota caucuses that followed. Norris remains a trusted campaign and policy adviser to Harkin, former Governor Tom Vilsack and other Iowa politicos.
Invariably, when national Democratic contenders begin scoping out Iowa in anticipation of a caucus run, they are told to hire Norris.
Even before the Obama campaign, his reputation was as a political "miracle worker."
That's because it was Norris who, in 2003, took on the unenviable task of restoring John Kerry's viability as a contender for the 2004 Democratic presidential nod. His successful completion of the task earned Kerry an Iowa caucus win and a Democratic nomination that once seemed unattainable.
Going into the 2008 presidential race, Norris initially committed himself to Vilsack's quixotic bid for the Democratic nomination. When the former governor quit the race and backed Clinton, however, Norris threw in with Obama. He bet on the Illinoisan at a time when the senator trailed both Clinton and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards in Iowa.
With the help of Norris, Obama began to get a hearing from the grassroots Democratic operatives who are critical players on caucus night.
Norris counseled the Illinoisan to avoid the negative campaigning that always spells trouble for contenders who attempt to impose a national strategy on the distinct political culture of the Hawkeye state. And Obama listened. "Barack positioned himself as drawing distinctions with Hillary," explained toward the end of what became the most intense caucus contest ever seen in Iowa. "You don't want to get too negative -- he's come close to the line but I don't think he's gone over it with Iowa voters."
Norris argued that Clinton went too far in December when the New York senator "made it personal by calling (Obama) naive -- that was the first personal attack in the campaign. It's not a good position to be in -- being forced to go negative in the last month."
As the pressure mounted on Obama, Norris kept reminding him that Iowa was different from other states. And the candidate kept listening to the local boy.
While some questioned the wisdom of bringing Oprah Winfrey to Iowa to campaign for Obama, Norris recognized the critical role that the visit could – and, ultimately, did – play in distinguishing his candidate from the pack of Democratic contenders.
"There were so many candidates and (there was) so much going on in the state, really I think her ultimate value was to help us cut through the clutter of news and dominate some attention for Barack Obama," argues Norris, who adds that, "That pre-appearance and appearance and post-appearance of her just helped more people hear Barack's message."
Obama was wise to trust Norris. And those who seek to understand what happened in Iowa on Thursday – and what may, as a result, happen in the rest of the country – would be wise to consider the strategist's assessment that what worked in Iowa will work in New Hampshire, in other primary and caucus states and, ultimately, in November.
"(Obama's) attitude about bringing people together -- as he says addition and not division -- is a much more constructive politics for this country," Norris explains. "The Democratic Party perhaps owns that message more now because of Barack Obama's leadership."
Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people – who were mobilized and organized – participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here's the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
"Huh?" you say. "vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo."
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=940DE3D91030F937A15750C0A96E948260"> challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.
The outsize importance of the entirely unrepresentative state of Iowa in the US presidential selection process casts America as tractor pulls, county fairs, town halls and truck stops.
Yet more than 80 percent of Americans live in cities and densely-packed suburbs. The crazy primary process seems to totally stiff big cities which makes it much easier for the candidates and the media to neglect the question of a federal urban agenda. A strong federal/metropolitan relationship is arguably more important than its ever been in the wake of the Bush administration's total abdication of responsibility for urban America. But what would a progressive, proactive urban agenda look like?
A new collaborative video project between The Nation and the Drum Major Institute asks the people who know our cities best: America's mayors. In ten punchy video interviews, the mayors of Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Rochester and Salt Lake City offer their prescriptions for a reinvigorated urban agenda.
The contrast between the mayors' priorities and the presidential candidates' rhetoric couldn't be more stark. "In presidential elections, the media and pollsters focus on issues like war, abortion, gay rights, things that, quite frankly, for those of us in the trenches, aren't the hot-button issues," says Miami Mayor Manny Diaz. "People want to know that their kids will get a good education, that their neighborhoods will be safe and clean.... It's difficult for me to understand how presidential candidates don't see that. Those are the issues that affect Americans each and every day. We [mayors] are dealing with them, and [candidates] should also be dealing with them."
New York Times' columnist Clyde Haberman recently surveyed the videos which he wrote help fill the "silence" on urban issues in the presidential campaign to date.
Watch Diaz and the others at MayorTV.com for insights into urban issues, presidential politics and the elections.