Jun 27
Unity? How about Treachery?
By Denise Ross
Over at S.D. Watch, Todd Epp has reported a truly breath-taking story that has the potential to derail Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s big Unity push just as it’s beginning.
… the Clinton campaign offered a major fundraiser to the state (SD Dem) party in exchange for two superdelegate votes …
Todd promises more details, and I, for one, am waiting at the edge of my seat. Given what he’s reported so far, this seems to be an ongoing offer from Clinton rather than something that faded away after the June 3 primary.
An intra-party dispute erupted Thursday during the SD Dem Convention in Oacoma. Clinton delegate and Rapid City alderman Malcom Chapman - who introduced Hillary at many of her SD appearances - became angry with SD Dem party chairman Jack Billion for resisting Clinton’s offer. This says to me that Chapman is still trying to proffer such a deal. Indeed, Epp quotes Chapman as saying he has “almost cut the deal” with the Clinton campaign.
Nevermind, I guess, that Chapman almost certainly lacks authority within the SD Dem Party to strike such a deal.
This revelation raises a lot of questions. Here’s what I think they are. Please write in with more analysis.
**Do super-delegates Cheryl Kandaras Chapman (Malcom’s wife & the SD Dem Party’s vice chair) and Sen. Tim Johnson, count as the 2 super-dels sought by Clinton? Or is she seeking 2 additional? (While Johnson endorsed Obama, he has pledged to cast his vote for whomever won SD’s primary, and that’s Hillary, as we all remember well.)
**Are the Clintons mounting a 50-state strategy of their own, seeking similar deals across the nation? If so, does that mean that she’s still aiming for her party’s nomination? What else could it mean?
**Now that word is out about this little escapade, on the eve of the Dems’ big Unity push, how quickly will it sour already fragile relations between Obama and Clinton?
**If you’re Tom Daschle, are you furious or bemused? (Tom, feel free to answer this one directly.)
**If you’re Stephanie Herseth, is this why you skipped the party convention? (It would scare me away were I in her shoes.)
**If you’re Tom Daschle, does this prompt you to make any additional efforts to retire the SD Dem Party’s notorious and seemingly endless debt?
6 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
I don’t have any knowledge of this other than what I’ve read here and from Epp. My impression was that Hillary made this officer BEFORE the nomination was essentially settled - when she was still trying to win superdelegates. That is an interesting story, because it shows the sort of tactics Hillary was willing to use.
If I am mistaken, and Hillary made this offer SINCE the nomination fight basically ended, it is a way bigger story - because it shows that her support of Obama is merely a facade and she is still trying to win the nomination.
Holy crap, this is huge! I can’t wait to see what develops.
The SDDP may be broke, but it is no where close to as broke as the Hillary for President campaign. They’re focus on fundraising will start with their own big debt.
I think Todd is a little off about the timing, and I’d bet almost anything that this happened before Hillary dropped out of the race - when they were trying to develop their last ditch, superdelegate strategy.
Chapman and others are probably still a little sore over the primary, and are raising the issue to put Jack on the hot seat. But I don’t think selling votes to the highest bidder is a smart political strategy, or a responsible way to handle your responsibility as a party officer. It’s nothing more than selling votes. I’m glad the party didn’t bite.
But all of this makes little sense now. There is virtually no chance of there being a substantive roll call vote at the convention, and even if there is a vote - two more supers won’t make much of an impact.
From Denise: I take a different view, JB. If this were not still on the table, why would Chapman bring it up on Thursday, before the party’s executive board no less? And, sure, 2 super-dels from SD won’t matter much, but check out the math Cory did over at Madville Times. That proportion nationwide gets her the nomination, and she has not closed her campaign. In fact, she’s seeking a floor vote at convention. As for Clinton’s debt, Obama seems ready to pick up the tab.
I, too, am eager for more details - the key being when the offer was made and if it was ever rescinded. Epp reported an exchange that took place Thursday amongst high-ranking state party officials, and I’ve seen no one dispute it.
The Montana Democratic Party benefited financially when their super-delegates remained uncomitted through the June primary election and both Obama and Clinton appeared at state and county party functions that raised big money for Montana Dems. I read the annual Montanta sping dinner-fundraiser made more than $200,000.
That didn’t happen in South Dakota - the super-delegates committed early, and whatever promises that might have been made about events to benefit the SDDP fell through. No dinners, no debates, no nothing.
Now, Billion has to explain how the SDDP failed to make a dime from a political season that brought President and Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Dodd, and others to SD. Why didn’t Obama agree to the joint appearances that McGovern suggested and Clinton agreed to attend that were to raise $50. a person and benefit the SDDP?
I would bet this converstion started with Billion’s inability to raise money.
This was prior to the primary not post primary.
I was there.
“Chap” felt we had lost an opportunity during the runup to the primary to use the Clintons for a fundraising event and was disappointed that he and the SDDP were not able to cut a deal. Chap was very gracious and said he was not pointing fingers, but he was encouraging us to take advantage of these opportunities in the future because often they are once-in-a-lifetime.
Billion was a little nonplussed (apparently) and wanted to make it clear that the Clintons had made a deal but that “the price was too high.” When pressed, he said that the price was to get a couple of superdelegates into their camp, and the folks involved were not interested in switching to make a buck for the party. This isn’t immoral, and the state party would have benefited, but the superdelegates involved simply didn’t go for it. I don’t fault them, and neither did Chap at the meeting; that’s politics and that’s the way it goes.
This kind of blogger gotcha is not productive and it makes me more than a little annoyed. Politicians vie for endorsements, it’s what they do. There is nothing illegal about this, no one is “selling” their loyalty. Nobody made threats, in fact the Clintons spent a lot of time in the state without a deal and the Party has benefited.
Could we have generated more cash with these folks in town? Maybe. Is it more important to be united and stand on our own two feet to organize, instead of depending on random calendar fate like this year to get in the black? I sure think so.
Nothing to see here.