Behind-the-scenes Democratic talks halt caucus reform

DENVER -- Prameela Bartholomeusz is no fan of the Democratic Party’s caucus system, a method used in certain states to select the party’s presidential nominee.

A member of the Platform Committee, Bartholomeusz hoped to get strong language in the party’s new platform opposing caucuses. But at a private meeting the night before the committee met in Pittsburgh, she got word that her issue would be shot down.

Bartholomeusz, who lives in Palo Alto, said she attended a meeting with party Chairman Howard Dean and Barack Obama campaign representatives, where various amendments were hashed out outside public view.

Bartholomeusz supported one that called for doing away with the caucus system in favor of....

... traditional primaries. That’s a touchy issue. Many of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s supporters blame the caucuses for her defeat. (Or her showing in the caucuses.)

At the meeting, Bartholomeusz said “party leaders” gave a clear message: “We were told they wanted to resolve amendments because the press was there, and the press would create a story that the party wasn’t unified. And so they would want to address as many amendments as they could so when we’re out on there on the floor, it goes as smoothly as they’d like."

Asked if that message came from Dean, she declined to say. “I won’t be specific on who said the words," she said.

At that same meeting, Bartholomeusz said she spoke about the caucus amendment with Jeffrey Berman, an Obama campaign aide involved in drafting the platform. Berman told her the next day, the amendment would be ruled not germane, she said.

When the 186-member committee met in public session the following day, Aug. 9, that’s what happened. The caucus question was kicked to the party’s rules committee.

The rest of the agenda proceeded with minimal debate or disagreement. The 51-year-old Bartholomeusz said she was disappointed to see no public discussion on the caucus system. The whole matter seemed pre-determined, she said.

“They didn’t want to raise the issue. It was something they wanted to sweep under the carpet for the moment," she said.

Caucuses tend to favor the better organized candidate. During the primary season Obama adeptly used them to build an insurmountable lead over Clinton. Critics say the caucuses leave many voters disenfranchised, taking place at select hours of the day when shift workers and others can’t attend.

Bartholomeusz, who supported Clinton, hopes the party comes up with a fairer way to elect its nominees. “Not everyone can vote," she said. “You have to be there at a certain time. That leaves people out!"

A Democratic National Committee official said the gathering Bartholomeusz described was “an orientation session to discuss how the meeting was going to proceed" –- a courtesy for new members.

As a candidate, Obama has promised transparency in government. He's vowed, for instance, to let C-SPAN cover health care negotiations, for example, to keep the public informed about sensitive business normally conducted behind closed doors.

But the campaign had no comment on Bartholomeusz's statements.

-- Peter Nicholas

Comments

[Alessandro Machi]

Your quote "Caucuses tend to favor the better organized candidate" is miisleading and incorrect.

Caucuses tend to favor the young voters for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, they don't fairly reflect the voters of the caucus states.

Hillary Clinton was either tied or LEADING in most of the caucus contests just days before they had their vote, yet she managed to lose 2-1 in most of the caucuses. I don't appreciate that kind of voting inaccuracy when those same polls are accurate in the states that actually have primaries.

Hillary Clinton was about getting out the vote, the MOST vote, Barack Obama held back a bit in that arena in certain states and instead went where 88% less voters choose the delegates.

If Barack Obama loses this fall, don't blame Hillary Clinton supporters, blame a candidate who was afraid to duke it out in the primaries and instead went to the caucuses and 88% less support to create a false lead.

Hillary Clinton actually won more pledged delegates in the primary states, even when Florida and Michigan are not counted.

http://www.CAUCUSCHEATING.com
http://www.FAIR-REFLECTION.com
http://www.HILLARY-WINS.com

[Paul]

What is someone from California, which holds a "primary", doing telling other states what to do? This would have more credibility if, say, someone from Iowa was speaking out against caucuses in the state of Iowa. Otherwise, it's just someone acting like they know better.

I think caucuses are fair. I don't think they favor the young or the old, or any other demographic. I think they favor those who are passionate about their candidate and willing to work hard to get their voice heard. If a state wants to change from a caucus to a primary, then fine, but no one from outside should be telling that state what to do.

Clinton lost because her campaign thought they had it in the bag and so did nothing to prepare. They thought: Win California and New York and we'll be fine. They didn't care about states like Nebraska or Kansas. They didn't even care about Florida or Michigan until Obama pulled far ahead. If the Clinton campaign had fought harder in smaller states and made more noise about the MI/FL debacle from the very beginning, Clinton would be a President Candidate right now.

If Obama loses, Obama supporters will blame Clinton for her refusal to drop out when Obama was clearly ahead and for her weak showing of support for him when he became the nominee. True or not, it will haunt Clinton if she does get the chance to run again in 2012.

[kmb08]

Obviously, caucuses are a legal way to use coercion, disenfranchisement, and bribery. There is absolutely nothing democratic about caucuses. I would much prefer a system of popular vote only! Whoever wins the most votes in a state, wins the state, and the delegates from that state vote for the candidate at the convention. Short, sweet, and democratic!

It's hard to believe the Republican nominating process is actually more democratic than our own Democratic process. Sad..

Because of the closeness of this race, many people, myself included, for the first time, really studied the rules, and our nominating process leaves a lot to be desired.

There is a documentary being made on the abuses, coercion, bullying methods the Obama team used to strong arm many of Clinton supporters. Everyone wants to praise Obama for organizational skills, but to win a caucus because of "bullying" skills as well, reeks of Chicago style mafia rule. There are too many caucus goers who tried to get help from Howard Dean to bring order to the caucuses, but Dean ignored their pleas.

For those saying HRC should have gotten out of the race earlier because she didn't have the pledged delegate lead, fails to understand the rules. Obama should have gotten out as well then, because he couldn't reach the threashold of required delegates either. Obama was very fortunate that small caucuses were weighed heavier in the delegate distribution system. He also was fortunate that some voters don't matter as much as other voters. His urban voters are worth more than a rural voter when delegates are distributed.

If Obama loses in Nov., It'll be because the general election is a more conservative lot, and many aren't buying his rhetoric without achievements. His passion doesn't match his words. The only passion I see in him is the passion to "win" at all costs. I don't think he will work his heart out like HRC would have, and I don't think he will stand up for the people he's wooing.

[Prameela]

Caucuses by their very nature disenfranchise voters. Although I am from California, I did travel to two caucus states during the primary season and witnessed how many people came and left before their vote could be counted (from 7pm to 1am). They had to wait 4 hours before they could enter the caucus site to vote, so 60% of the folks left before counting began.

Also, I mentioned Jeffrey Berman's name to the reporter, mainly because Mr. Berman did the courtesy of finding me at the Rules Committee meeting in Denver and asked if I were satisfied with the new language of the resolution. When I indicated I was not quite satisfied, he pulled folks aside and we worked through it. I was very appreciative of the effort made by Mr. Berman to follow through, even though I was not on the Rules Committee.

Discussion should have been allowed at the Platform Committee itself. There is nothing wrong with open discussion.