Contrary to what many people say, this year's primary season is not over, not in letter nor in spirit. Every four years the Democratic National Convention marks the formal close of the primary season. The convention is where candidates are nominated, voted upon, and finalized.

Under the Democratic Parles rules adopted after the McGovern fiasco in the general election in 1972, when the voting in primaries and caucuses produces an "automatic" nominee - that is, when superdelegates are not the ones who will cast the deciding votes - the Party has a de facto nominee before the convention, although even in those situations a roll call ballot has been the norm. But if the primaries and caucuses produce an inconclusive result, the votes of superdelegates potentially take on new meaning.

For example, this year the primaries and caucuses did not produce an "automatic" or de facto nominee. This is precisely the situation where the superdelegates come into play, and they should be given the opportunity not only to vote, but to have a meaningful vote. This view should be shared by anyone who understands meaningful voting, rather than symbolic voting, as a required by a democratic commitment to the idea of meaningful enfranchisement. An election without options when options are legitimately available is no election at all.

Thus, the significance of having both Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's names placed into nomination at The Democratic National Convention this August. Since the contest between these two candidates was not automatically determined by the primary and caucus results, a meaningfully democratic Democratic Party would provide superdelegates the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot.

Oh, and just in case people are worried that a real convention means a weak Democratic nominee, do note that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. did not win his first spot in 1932 as the Democratic presidential nominee until the 4th ballot when there were other names in nomination. He certainly turned out to be a strong and successful Democratic nominee as well as a President who certainly participated in making the entire world safer for democracy.

For further information, please see The Denver Group website. If you agree with the idea that the convention should not be a sham, please consider a donation to The Denver Group.

The Denver Group: Monday morning update from The Denver Group, July 7, 2008

The Denver Group: Interim Bulletin from The Denver Group: 7 pm eastern, July 6

From time to time I share factual information that may not be widely available to the public. This post is most definitely not of that sort. I have received a number of questions from people about the reported negotiations between Senator Clinton's attorneys and Senator Obama's. People want to know, "why negotiations? why lawyers? what is being decided?"

As a legal scholar I am occasionally interviewed by journalists trying to piece together what is going on behind a legal dispute based upon public records and information. What follows is a similar analysis although nothing about the matter I'm discussing involves law - it is a private dispute between prominent players in a private organization, The Democratic Party.

Consider the following.

1. We know the Obama/Clinton camps are in negotiations about Senator Clinton’s role at the convention, and her involvement in campaigning for Obama should he become the nominee because both Clinton and Obama have said as much. ANYBODY engaged in high level negotiations of any kind SHOULD be using lawyers for the job. Smart lawyers keep the content of negotiations as confidential as possible, which is why we lack factual information about what precisely is on the table.
2. Jonathan Mantz communicated to “top” fundraisers that the big push to pay off the debt would last through July 15, a fairly arbitrary date.
3. To the annoyance of some Hillraisers, the Clinton campaign stopped using Hillraiser accounts for purposes of retiring the debt. The Hillraiser links take people to Senator Clinton's senate reelection fund.
4. President Bill Clinton: not stepping up to help Senator Obama, barely takes his phone call.
5. As Senator Obama looses support, he may well be more and more afraid that if Senator Clinton’s name is put in nomination at the Democratic Party's convention, then Senator Clinton might actually win the nomination.
6. As it is easier to gain the Democratic Party nomination without having to fight for it, Senator Obama may well be pressuring Senator Clinton to resist efforts to have her name put in nomination (this would include nominating speeches on Clinton’s behalf, something which Senator Obama's campaign would most definitely prefer not to happen.)
7. Senator Obama is having to bail out the DNC which has no money to really hold a convention and that gives him major leverage over Senator Clinton and the convention organizers.

Taking 1 - 7 together I think it is a safe bet that the Obama camp wants an agreement with the Clinton camp that can be announced in the third week of July, just four weeks from the convention, an announcement that would indicate that Senator Obama, the presumptive nominee, will get his coronation.

I believe Senator Clinton is resisting such a spectacle. Apart from continuing to asking for donations to retire the debt, she has never said she did not want her name entered into nomination. Senator Clinton has said publicly that she is actively working to make her policy positions part of the Party platform, which is decided at the Convention. She has said her she is confident her delegates will have the chance to voice their support for her during a roll call vote. (Note: such a roll call vote has meaning only if Senator Clinton's name is placed into nomination at the Convention itself.)

Despite the lack of more concrete information about these negotiations - which could be covering issues such as when and if Senator Clinton will speak at the convention, what the final status of Michigan and Florida will be, and much more - the situation requires urgent action in by those who seek an authentically democratic convention - which, in my opinion, includes putting Senator Clinton’s name into nomination so that any convention roll call vote is not only authentically democratic, but is also truly representative of all the Democrats who voted during the primary season and gave us all the closest result in modern Democratic party primaries. Negotiations do not occur in a vacuum. Now is the time to let both camps know that rank and file Democrats want a substantive convention rather than a showy coronation. That matter will not be decided at the Convention itself; it is being decided as I write and you read this post.

With apologies to Bagehot, the following is twist on an Economist magazine piece critiquing Gordon Brown, Tony Blair’s successor. (Months ago a colleague of mine, a fellow progressive, who lives and works in England pointed out the similarities between Gordon Brown and Barack Obama. The refusal to toe a party's line when that party selects a less than stellar leader can happen in other countries, too.)

…The whimsy and gaffes, however, point to what has been Mr Obama’s most damaging flaw: he is a lousy communicator. A failing in any leader, for Mr Obama this weakness has proved catastrophic.

Part of the problem is—how to put it politely?— the presumptive nominee’s proclivity, under pressure, to be prudent with the truth. It isn’t only his fondness for misleading historical comparisons and self-serving exaggeration: all that is more or less routine, and passes unnoticed by most voters. Much more damaging have been his periodic assertions that up is down as with in his claim that were it not for Selma he would not have been born, when the civil rights march in Selma took place years after Mr Obama's birth.

The mother of all such incredibilities, however, is Mr Obama’s insistence that his latest reversals, waffles, and flip-flops have nothing, repeat nothing, to do with alarming opinion polls. Probably Mr Obama believes that his higher moral purpose justifies such distortions. But they have cost him the respect of political journalists, and through them the faith of the public.

Sadly (for him and for the Democratic Party), Mr Obama has a bad habit even more damaging than saying impossible things: saying nothing at all, often at excruciating length. Beneath his iterations there lies a strategic insight that once served the presumptive nominee well: that his core phrases should be repeated incessantly until they reached the generally apolitical public. But that method works only if the message is clear and appealing. Mr Obama’s themes have often been neither....

Tonight I am weary. Tomorrow I travel for business but tonight I am weary. So why bother to add a post to this space? Because of justice. Justice that must be done and will not be done unless we work for it even when we are slightly weary. And after all, it does not take so very long to put in a word for justice and it is not so very hard, particularly when one can spread the word of a fine writer like Grace Paley who wrote the poem that appears below. Before you read it though, please consider a look at The Denver Group, which is seeking procedural political justice from the Democratic National Party, and has put out an "action alert" related to its efforts. Then, if you feel like it, please come back and enjoy Grace Paley's Responsibility:

It is the responsibility of society to let the poet be a poet.

It is the responsibility of the poet to be a woman

It is the responsibility of the poet to stand on street corners
giving out poems and beautifully written leaflets
also leaflets they can hardly bear to look at
because of the screaming rhetoric

It is the responsibility of the poet to be lazy to hang out and
prophesy

It is the responsibility of the poet not to pay war taxes

It is the responsibility of the poet to go in and out of ivory
towers and two-room apartments on Avenue C
and buckwheat fields and army camps

It is the responsibility of the male poet to be a woman

It is the responsibility of the female poet to be a woman

It is the poet's responsibility to speak truth to power as the
Quakers say

It is the poet's responsibility to learn the truth from the
powerless

It is the responsibility of the poet to say many times: there is no
freedom without justice and this means economic
justice and love justice

It is the responsibility of the poet to sing this in all the original
and traditional tunes of singing and telling poems

There is no freedom without fear and bravery there is no
freedom unless
earth and air and water continue and children
also continue

It is the responsibility of the poet to be a woman to keep an eye on
this world and cry out like Cassandra, but be
listened to this time

Last night, my husband and I took a break from work, volunteerism, and looking after the household in order to host friends for an Independence Day celebration, including watching a particularly lovely fireworks display over the Potomac River.

After the fireworks, we all sat around, snacked, conversed and made each other laugh quite a bit. Most of our conversation did not take us into the the topic of politics. But I did share a story or two about some of my experiences traveling for Senator Clinton. At that point, one member of our merry set asked me a question that really made me think. He asked, who, out of all the people I had met during the course of the primary season had surprised me the most, for good or for ill?

So many people flashed through my mind, people who surprised me with their open minds, their generosity, their graciousness when I visited their cities and towns. Rank and file Democrats like myself; prominent Democrats ranging from Rodney Slater to Mary Steenburgen; Independent voters who contributed - and continue to contribute - their thoughts and talents to Senator Clinton's candidacy and efforts to fix the D.N.C.

Suddenly, though, I knew the precisely correct answer for my friend. The person who surprised me the most in the course of my travels during the primary season was Senator Clinton herself, and she surprised me at a very particular moment right here in Washington, D.C.

I was there when Senator Clinton delivered a stirring speech at the National Building Museum: the speech where she emphasized that she was suspending but not ending her campaign; focused most of her time discussing the people and policies she will continue to fight for; and highlighted the "18 million cracks in the highest hardest glass ceiling" her candidacy for President achieved during the primary season.

Senator Clinton's speech impressed me but it did not surprise me. The surprise came at a relatively small private reception held near the Museum just after Senator Clinton's speech. The reception was sponsored by President Clinton and Senator Clinton. Many of us got there before the Clintons did since we did not have hands to shake or Secret Service arrangements to respect. When Senator Clinton and President Clinton arrived, they were rapidly surrounded by well-wishers, friends, people who had worked so hard to raise money and rally support for the campaign.

I did want a chance to thank Senator Clinton for her candidacy, so I joined the line to speak with her. Now, I have only met Senator Clinton personally several times, and she has of course met thousands, indeed millions, of people in the past 18 months or so especially. So I never expect her to remember my face or even my name.

When I did reach Senator Clinton at the reception, I handed her a glass of water I had gotten for her (since it was clear she was not going to easily make it to the serving tables!), and I asked her to look at the photo I have of when she so graciously joined me in a hug the first time I met her. I wanted her to see the photo because I had shared it with her campaign staffers whenever I traveled, and it always lifted their morale, making them laugh and smile.

After quickly looking at the photograph, Senator Clinton looked at me as when does when trying to place a face. She said, I think I do know who you are. You live in Washington [D.C.] right? Do you work for the government? I replied that yes, I lived in town (other people at the reception were from all over the country) but that I did not work for the government but for Georgetown University Law Center. Senator Clinton asked about my scholarly work. Since time was short, I said that a project I was working on at the moment is a co-authored piece comparing provision of health insurance in the U.S. with provision in the E.U.

At that second, I watched Senator Clinton go, in an instant, from a candidate chatting with a supporter, to a working person with a mission. She locked eyes with me and said, I want to see that article as soon as possible. I was momentarily taken aback (academics are not generally asked by politicians for copies of their scholarly work), and then inquired about how to get it to her. Again, in an all-business manner, Senator Clinton said, have it delivered directly to me at my Senate office.

Talk about multi-tasking, about never taking your mind off the issues that matter to you. On a steamy hot day after delivering a major speech, Senator Clinton had no problem staying focused - more than focused - on health care, one of her passions. She spoke to me as one professional to another in that exchange, in a setting not designed for that sort of conversation.

Today, I will be working on that article. And thinking of the friend who made me realize when Hillary Rodham Clinton surprised me.

Lots of folks I know are discussing how they will be spending Independence Day. I will spend tomorrow with friends and family watching fireworks over the Potamac. Then, I will be going up to Boston on business. Thoughts of independence and of Massachusetts started me reflecting on one of my favorite Americans, a humanist with so much wisdom about the true nature of independence: independence as autonomy; independence as freedom from fear; independence for the individual; independence as the responsibility of a good government to guarantee; independence and its dependence on genuinely democratic processes.

In his own words:

• Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States."
  • On the decision to proclaim independence from British rule, which was made on 2 July 1776, in a letter to Abigail Adams (1776-07-03), published in The Adams Papers : Adams Family Correspondence (2007) edited by Margaret A. Hogan

• I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory.
  
  • Letter to Abigail Adams (1776-07-03), published in The Adams Papers : Adams Family Correspondence (2007) edited by Margaret A. Hogan

• The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.
  • Letter to Abigail Adams (1780-05-12)

• Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
  • Letter to his son, John Quincy Adams (13 November 1816)
  
  
• Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. (Letter to George Wythe, 1776)

• You bid me burn your letters. But I must forget you first.
  • Letter to Abigail Adams (1776-04-28)

Marc Rubin and I were lucky enough to be interviewed for No Quarter radio. Listen.

With so much going on over the last few days, it seemed sensible to provide a list of links about how to donate to whom for what:

1. Hillary Clinton for President (to retire the debt; especially important if you have not maxed out to the primary - not given $2300 to Hillary Clinton for President yet) - donate here.
2. Reelect Senator Clinton to the Senate/support her political activity in 2012 - donate here.
3. The Denver Group - Keeping the Democratic Party democratic (a short term effort to create and buy print and tv ads to pressure the DNC to hold an authentic and open convention this August - The Denver Groups is a 527 (not a PAC, and not coordinated with any candidate or party), cofounded by Marc Rubin (of Tom in Paine) and me. The Denver Group can accept contributions up to $5000 from eligible donors, and welcomes any and all contributions. Learn more and donate here.
4. Other candidates or political figures that I particularly think worth supporting right now Ed O'Reilly, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee, and - a new addition - Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco (with whom Senator Obama declined to have his picture taken): donate to one, some, or all of these good people here.

No contributions to any of the above are tax deductible for any purpose. Remember: donate to your own savings too!

I began my fund-raising odyssey on behalf of Senator Clinton as a small dollar donor. Like others, I went slightly over in my contributions to the primary and I just received an email from Senator Clinton asking me to reallocate the excess funds to her 2012 Senate campaign fund (one does this via a simple online process and if one does nothing one's excess donation is automatically refunded within 60 days). 2012: another Presidential election year. And if one chooses to reallocate one's funds to Senator Clinton's Senate campaign fund - as I did - note this language on the online form:

I hereby verify that my 2008 general election contribution may be designated to the 2012 Senate election. I designate the entire amount to the 2012 primary election, however, if I have already contributed to the 2012 primary, I designate any amount in excess of $2,300 to the 2012 general election.

Significance: regardless of what happens this year, it appears Senator Clinton is already planning for a presidential candidacy in 2012 (note that she would need to raise funds for that even if she became the party's nominee this year, since she would then be running for reelection in 2012).

Senator Clinton is both lucky to have and, in my view, entirely deserving of the millions and millions of dedicated supporters who want to continue to supply the financial backing crucial to her political future. As people ready for the Independence Day donation extravaganza spearheaded by Just Say No Deal, I thought it might be useful to explain who can donate to which of Senator Clinton's campaigns and how the monies donated may or must be used. The only donations that can be used to retire the debt from Senator Clinton's 2007-08 primary season race are those made by people who have not already maxxed out to the primary (that is, people who have not yet donated $2300 to Hillary Clinton for President). Money donated for Senator Clinton's reelection to her Senate seat (that is, money donated to Friends of Hillary the official Clinton senate reelection fund) cannot be used to pay down debt incurred by Hillary Clinton for President. Because right wing groups are likely to target Senator Clinton when she comes up for reelection in 2012 and because a Senate campaign in New York costs at least $20 million to run, Senator Clinton is getting a jump on fundraising for such an effort. If you are maxxed out to Hillary Clinton for President and want to support her reelection to the U.S. Senate, then it makes sense to donate to the Senate campaign fund. Assuming (and this remains an assumption, not a given) that Senator Clinton does not become the Democratic Party's nominee in August, under the Federal Election Commission's rules, she can either refund the money to her donors within 60 days after she officially ends her candidacy OR she can get permission from donors to re-designate their general election contributions for use toward Senator Clinton's bid for another federal office - e.g. Senator Clinton may ask people to redesignate their general election contribution to Friends of Senator Clinton to fund her upcoming Senate race. But no money raised for the general election can be used to pay down primary campaign debt.

A friend asked me recently what the connection is between the political causes I am working on right now: The Denver Group; retiring Senator Clinton's primary debt; taking an interest in Ed O'Reilly; and trying to do my bit to help Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Sheila Jackson Lee. To me the answer is clear. All of these efforts relate to trying to save the Democratic Party from its own worst strategies and choices and keep it true to the principles that have kept many voters committed over many years. Ed O'Reilly's challenge to John Kerry is gaining real media attention. Today, Mr. O'Reilly was featured on CNN. To me the best part of the story is that while, like any challenger, Ed O'Reilly is considered a longshot, polls and analysts in Massachusetts say he cannot be discounted. John Kerry may not like this, but giving people choices and open and fair processes are central to what the Democratic Party has been and should be. Take a look at the CNN coverage for yourself. And then if you care to, consider a donation to Mr. O'Reilly, especially you are maxed out to Senator Clinton.

As I noted in a previous post, the Clinton campaign sent word out to top fundraisers about where to donate for specific purposes of retiring Senator Clinton's primary debt. The campaign created a new online space for this purpose because many people did not want to deal with wading through the splash page on hillaryclinton.com. Note that in the previous post, the campaign provides specific mailing information for those who became concerned that online donations would not be used for purposes of retiring the debt.

Nothing in the information relayed to me had anything to do with or seemed to indicate that Senator Clinton is doing anything other than making life easier for her supporters; and her campaign was most definitely responding to what I, along, with other fundraisers, have been telling the people who head the campaign: that we can raise money for retiring the debt so long as people know THAT is where the dollars are going.

So, take the new online site at face value and use it to RETIRE THE DEBT.

Some friends who could not listen to the interview asked if I would "live blog" it. I did, and thought I would share what I wrote (with just a few edits) with others who may have missed the interview but might be interested in what Marc said.

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Adrienne Mitchell of the Race is the host. Marc Rubin cofounded The Denver Group with me!

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Marc is ON!!

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I just got mentioned as The Denver Group’s “chief fundraiser” and Marc was described as the one who handles our media strategy.

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Marc is explaining that the Denver Group is not advocating for either candidate but advocating for an open convention.

Honest roll call vote.

Marc notes that Senator Clinton has NOT released her delegates.

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Marc is explaining that what we want to do is just make sure that the Democratic Party lives up to democratic principles.

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:29 pm

Host asks Marc about his involvement with Count the Votes Cast (for Fl and MI) and Marc explains the only connection between that and the Denver Group, is a matter of getting the DNC to do the right thing!

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Marc is doing great!
He’s explaining that if the situations were reversed and Senator Obama had been the injured party, The Denver Group would act the same way.

He’s explaining that at the dinner I was at Senator Obama showed no interest in an open convention, and, Marc adds, Senator Obama does not want Senator Clinton's name on the ballot.

#Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Marc stays on message: neither candidate got enough pledged delegates, this will still be decided by superdelegates.
#

Heidi Li // June 30, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Marc is explaining that Pelosi strongarmed declarations from superdelegates.

Marc announces the website!

This just in: Marc Rubin, cofounder of The Denver Group will be interviewed on XM satellite radio's channel POTUS '08 between 7:40 and 8:00 p.m tonight, on the show The Race w/Adrienne Mitchell.

You can listen via the web as well as, of course, satellite radio. Learn how here.

If you are interested in The Denver Group or want to hear the voice of the man who writes the blog Tom in Paine, tune in!

First mention I have seen...will list others...because it this CRAZY FUN!

Yahoo! And see here and here and here.

5:15 update: Release is going nationwide!

Here. Here. Here. Here.

Because I live in Washington D.C. which does not have full and meaningful representation in the U.S. Congress, I regard every Senator and Representative as responsible for representing me - it is a second best solution until Congress awards the residents of the nation's capital proper representation.

Ed O'Reilly, running for Senate against John Kerry in the upcoming Massachusetts Democratic Primary, is somebody I want in Congress representing me. I have been researching Mr. O'Reilly for a while now, since a friend drew my attention to him. Unlike the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Mr. O'Reilly is for universal health care, because Mr. O'Reilly understands that without genuinely universal coverage the economics of the idea of universal coverage will not work. This is just one instance of Mr. O'Reilly adopting the right position for the right reasons. Learn more about Mr. O'Reilly in latest nationwide coverage.

John Kerry has not been challenged in a primary since he was first elected to the Senate and it does not appear he's best pleased with having to work to keep his position as the Democrat to beat in November. His campaign has used all the smear tactics we've seen used by Democrats against Democrats this election cycle. Not a pretty sight. But Mr. O'Reilly is just sticking with one of the hardest aims in American politics: defeating a very well-funded opponent who many people do not scrutinize as carefully as they should.

Ed O'Reilly: the sort of Democrat I want to see in Denver - and Washington, D.C.

Yesterday I was thinking about the rank and file Democrats who have come together because of Senator Clinton's candidacy. Today I found myself thinking about the more high profile Democrats who came together for Senator Clinton, some of whom did so at real risk to the their own political futures. Although more than one name came immediately to mind (I plan to write about others in future posts), one person has been at the forefront of my thoughts.
She is Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Rep. Tubbs Jones stands out to me not just because I had the honor and privilege of observing her at events, large and small, related to Senator Clinton's candidacy. Yes, she gave her all in support of the candidate she preferred. Yes, her eloquence and enthusiasm impressed me. Yes, her loyalty to Senator Clinton showed a level of personal commitment and principle not readily found in politicians.

But Rep. Tubbs Jones stands out on her own. She is an American politician to be admired and respected because of her long service in the cause of true progressivism. The latest examples include: Rep. Tubbs Jones' stand against the FISA bill and her stand against giving George W. Bush a blank check to run his occupation of Iraq. But there are less well known examples too.


Rep. Tubbs Jones consistently participates in the Home Court annual basketball game, a charitable event sponsored by Georgetown University law students to raise money for the homelessThe game pits members of Congress against members of of Georgetown University Law Center faculty and staff. I try to participate each year in this unique fundraiser, which has been going on for more than twenty years. I remember when I was new to the annual game, and I know that one of the first members of Congress who not only listed himself or herself in the program as a participant but who showed up and participated was Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

It is easy to put your name in a program. My colleagues and the members of Congress who show up and participate in Home Court's annual fundraiser have other things do with a weeknight evening. But part of being truly progressive is putting your heart and your effort into both big time and smaller time causes. And part of being somebody others can and do believe in - and there are many who believe fiercely in Representative Tubbs Jones, and who will make sure she is reelected to serve for as long as chooses to run - is putting in the real effort, showing up, doing the work - year after year, week after week.