Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Puerto Rico Gov. to back Obama | Main | Should Political Journalists Vote? »

Gary Hart: How Super Delegates Did Me In in '84

February 13, 2008 12:36 PM

ABC News' Jennifer Parker Reports:

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama entrenched in a battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, some see a scenario where the race may come down to superdelegates -- state and national party leaders, officeholders, former Democratic presidents -- who get to act as free agents at the party's convention.

Below are excepts of an ABC News interview with former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., from a few days ago. Hart argues that his 1984 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination was scuttled by superdelegates who had committed early on for former Vice President Walter Mondale, the establishment candidate.

Hart, who is now a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, sees parallels between his 1984 bid and Obama's 2008 run. He argues Clinton may have a legitimacy problem among the rank-and-file in the party if the superdelegates crown her the Democratic nominee.

ABC News: What's your opinion of the role of super delegates?

GARY HART: There's a long history to it going back 35 years. Since the Democratic Party revised its rules and after the chaotic 1968 convention in Chicago and before the 1972 convention, the party found that it had to open itself up and not let the party bosses pick who the nominee for the party would be, and that was at a time, of course, of the Vietnam war, and civil rights, and the feminist movement, and a lot of other things going on.

And after that reform, then there was a counter reform in 1980 in which it was felt that some provision had to be made for party and elected officials so they wouldn't be shut out simply because they picked the wrong candidate in primaries and caucuses. And that then led to the automatic delegate state by state largely composed of party officials and elected officials and that's how we end up here.

ABC: That affected you personally at one point, right?

GH: In 1984 I was roughly the equivalent of the Obama candidate, I was the new figure, the new face and it ended up, after elimination of a number of candidates and  contests from the beginning in Iowa and New Hampshire, all the way to the convention, between myself and former Vice President Mondale, and the superdelegates in that contest did make the difference. I wanted their support and I didn't get it.

ABC: Did you question their role at that time?

GH: They were all there according to party rules, so there was very little to question.

I did speak to all 700 of them, my wife and I did, individually between the end of the primaries and the convention, and ask for their support. But many of them had pledged to Vice-President Mondale even before the primaries began and they felt that they were morally obligated to support him even though they felt I might be the stronger candidate.

Many have put their lives into the party, and building the party, or running for office and holding office so they feel that they have some claim on participation and I think that, to a point, is fair. I think that what they should do, however, unlike in my year,  is they should keep an open mind until the end of the caucus and primary process, which goes at least till May, and then make their mind up after that, after speaking to both candidates and deciding which one would be more electable, and run the stronger race in the Fall.

ABC: Why didn't they do that for you?

GH: Vice-President Mondale was being acclaimed by the press and the pollsters as the inevitable nominee -- that no one could stop him. And I defeated him in the first primary and then we battled it out through all of the other primaries and caucuses and basically divided the country. I think we each won 25 states, primaries and caucuses, but the difference was the superdelegates. I think what the cautionary lesson from that to superdelegate is to wait and see.

ABC: Do you think it will get to that point this year?

GH: I think so, simply because they're both so well financed. I had no money and I was just kind of living off the land. Obama has clearly excelled with the Internet which we didn't have as a fundraising tool at that time. He is able to finance his campaign which will mean as long as he can win states, or show strongly in states, he'll be able to finance his campaign all the way to the end. It is interesting to me that Mrs. Clinton, with all of the structure and network that she has behind her, seems to be having financial problems and that may plague her as time goes on.

I'm supporting Senator Obama, I have been for some time. I think he's far and away the best candidate and I think he clearly is a leader of the future and I think we're living in extraordinarily revolutionary times. And all leadership or previous leadership which Senator Clinton represents is not adequate to address the new realities that the country faces. The key issue is the imperative for the superdelegates to wait and listen and not make pre-judgments until at least the primary season is over.

ABC: Would you like to see the role of super delegates be nixed within the Democratic Party?

GH: We in effect tried that in the period between 1972 and 1984 and there was just such a hewn cry from elected officials and party officials that they thought that they had a right to be delegates at the convention, had earned the right to be delegates at the convention, that this provision was made. It's not quite pure democracy but it's one of the accommodations that institutions make.

ABC: Some blogs are saying this isn't democratic?

GH: If it is close, and if 60 percent of the superdelegates favor one over the other, then the supporters of the one who doesn't prevail will say it's unfair.

ABC: Will Clinton have a legitimacy problem if Obama wins the delegates but the super delegates go for Clinton?

GH: I would think so. And to a degree, the same thing happened in my year in 1984, because there were an awful lot of people who felt that I would have run a stronger race against President Reagan. And Mr. Mondale lost very badly and so they felt that the party had made a bad decision. If you went back and asked all those 700 superdelegates, 'would they do it again?' an awful lot of them probably would say no.

-- Jennifer Parker

February 13, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (30)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/26093946

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gary Hart: How Super Delegates Did Me In in '84 :

User Comments

We need leadership NOW ! and Gary Hart should have been president in 84 & 88 But it's not too late and the time is now - GARY HART '08 STRONG LEADERSHIP

Posted by: Hart In 08 Independent | Feb 28, 2008 1:13:15 PM

Yeah, well the word is that Hillary is trying to keep close enough to Obama's delegate count so her "Super" delegates can steal the Democratic nod from him.
Now, I'm not an Obama supporter, nor a Hillary supporter. In fact, I think this year's choice of Presidential candidates is horrific.
But, here's the irony: why the stink over chads in Florida when Gore claimed Bush stole the Election but no stink now over the "Super" delegates, who will subvert the will of the people???
Either allow the people's votes to count or cancel the primaries and caucuses, because it's all apparently meaningless.

Posted by: Richard Harvey | Feb 17, 2008 9:35:53 PM

Super delegates are surely a worry for Obama but first he must deal with Foster/Brown syndrome. The closer he gets to locking this thing up the more likely this dread condition will come his way,

Posted by: J Fox | Feb 14, 2008 8:18:13 PM

Re-vote FL and MI outright, or award their delegates proportionally after the primary season ends, based upon the respective performances of Clinton and Obama.

Anything else will be unfair, and will unnecessarily divide the party, which it can ill afford.

Repubs are watching and laughing. It's called "divide and conquer." Once again the Democrats' "circular firing squad" appears to be taking aim.

GET OVER IT -- NOW!!! If you want a chance to beat George W. McCain next November, grow up and GET ON WITH IT!!!

Posted by: chickaboom | Feb 14, 2008 5:43:06 PM

Further about 1984, the Democratic superdelegates gave the nod to Mondale, even though national polls showed him losing to Reagan by 17% while Hart was only 4% behind Reagan at that time, so it obviously was not about who was most electable. I hope they don't make a similarly stupid mistake this time.

Posted by: Tomas(2) | Feb 14, 2008 4:28:53 PM

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I was conflating 1984 and 1988 events overtaking Mr. Hart's campaign. In any case, though, it would seem that the decision arrived at in 1984 was borne out to be correct in 1988, given the notorious "Monkey Business" scandal, right?

Posted by: chuck | Feb 14, 2008 3:04:25 PM

I think all of you arm-chair historians should go back and do some reading of what actually happened in 1984 (not 1988) and you will see that Senator Hart's account above is accurate. He was denied the nomination primarily because of super-delegates. And every poll, as well as punditry, thought he would have been the stronger candidate. That's easy to agree with, having been there, because it would have been hard to be a weaker candidate than VP Mondale. To be believable, bloggers should check their facts before posting.

Posted by: Tomas | Feb 14, 2008 9:48:07 AM

In 1984, I was the independent candidate who turned 18 years old on the campaign trail. I was impressed by Gary Hart when he first emerged and challenged the Democratic party to get behind "new ideas." At the time, I was about to graduate from high school, and I had been planning my independent run for the White House since sophmore year. The emergence of Gary Hart caused me to pause my campaign plans; that is even noted in a story by the UPI newswire in that year. If the nomination was his, I would have simply rooted for him in the general. But, the real turning point was in a debate where Walter Mondale asked Hart about his new ideas -- "Where's the beef?" Hart did not stand up for himself and his platform. Instead of a strong answer, Hart gave a watery answer. "Where's the beef" became the zinger and the gotcha line which stuck. At that point, the writing was on the wall, and it was time for me to run my own independent campaign as the 18-year-old for President.

Posted by: John Kusumi | Feb 14, 2008 2:50:22 AM

Gary Hart is correct the democratic party behavesthe the subversive arm of the REPUPLICAN party!!!!The citizen looks so stupid so far again another disfunction ballot and so with out savey of the position and responcibility of citizenship and how to effect polling processes!!!!Hilary is so prepared for following a man who has been falsely accused of wearing the presedent of united states shoes stupid and anyone presedent is the scape goat for the LAZY US CITIZEN and HILARY CAN TAKE MORE ABUSE THAN ANY MAN STANDING AND CHAMPIONS TAKE ALOT MORE PUNCHES THAN TYHE THROW!!!!DEMAND HILARY CLINTON PRESEDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BARACK OBAMA VICE PRESEDENT OF UNITED STATESOF AMERICA NOW NOW NOW !!!!

Posted by: norman spalding | Feb 13, 2008 10:15:48 PM

Gary Hart is correct the democratic party behavesthe the subversive arm of the REPUPLICAN party!!!!The citizen looks so stupid so far again another disfunction ballot and so with out savey of the position and responcibility of citizenship and how to effect polling processes!!!!Hilary is so prepared for following a man who has been falsely accused of wearing the presedent of united states shoes stupid and anyone presedent is the scape goat for the LAZY US CITIZEN and HILARY CAN TAKE MORE ABUSE THAN ANY MAN STANDING AND CHAMPIONS TAKE ALOT MORE PUNCHES THAN TYHE THROW!!!!DEMAND HILARY CLINTON PRESEDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND BARACK OBAMA VICE PRESEDENT OF UNITED STATESOF AMERICA NOW NOW NOW !!!!

Posted by: norman spalding | Feb 13, 2008 10:13:01 PM

Mr. Ralph

Thanks for pointing that out, I was so angry when I wrote that post that I forgot to clarify that he screwed up twice.

Again, thanks.

Posted by: Rick | Feb 13, 2008 6:43:45 PM

Chuck is off on his years; granted details can get murky as the seas of time roll on but Gary's Rice affair didn't come to light until he was running for the nomination in 1988; until then his "monkey business" (pun intended as this was the name of his boat where he was famously photographed with Donna on his lap) hadn't come to light yet.

Posted by: Political Paul | Feb 13, 2008 6:40:22 PM

Mr. Rick

Gary Hart lost the 1988 nomination because of "Monkey Business" - he lost in 1984 because of superdelegates...

Posted by: Ralph | Feb 13, 2008 5:31:34 PM

anonymous, you wrote: "Clinton is attacked for not looking toward the others states coming up and then is attacked for not looking back. Is there any winning with you people?"

That is one of the neverending "perks" of the job she is seeking!

Posted by: James Danley | Feb 13, 2008 5:29:55 PM

Gary Hart should try some honesty, it works great.

Google on "Photo of Donna Rice sitting on the knees of Gary Hart on the luxury yacht Monkey Business" and you'll see the reason to why he never made it to the White House.

BTW, he wasn't the Barack Obama of that campaign but the Ron Paul who just ended up in the wrong party.

Posted by: Rick | Feb 13, 2008 4:47:47 PM

Those who say they got their feelings hurt in Virgina or Maryland who voted for Hillary last night, because she didn't thank them. Give me a break! This is politics, survival of the most fit. Those who are switching sides because they got their "feelings hurt" must not have been steadfast supporters for Hillary to begin with. Quite Frankly this sounds like some Obama media ploy over the blogs.

Posted by: Steven Shaman | Feb 13, 2008 3:53:00 PM

What is a "hewn cry"? Perhaps the former senator actually said "hue and cry"?

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Feb 13, 2008 3:52:30 PM

"it takes 5 hours to drive across Va., but it takes 10 hours to drive from Gainsvilles, Tx to Houston, Tx ".

Hey, we in The Old Dominion have slow cars also!! Maybe we ARE a small, by comparision, state, but boy have we generated some GOOD presidents...can Texas say that?

Posted by: Revnur | Feb 13, 2008 3:52:05 PM

Sherry Williams

Whose fault was it that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, not Clintons.
So, why then should she be accountable for his actions?
If he will be in can't even get his name on the ballot in the correct time.
How then, is he to run the country?
Doesn't that show exactly how he will run the country?

Superdelegates were put place for a reason. That reason is becoming apparent with this race.

GH was in a comprising position, caught on his boat.

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 13, 2008 3:47:48 PM

wasn't Gary Hart caught in some compromising position?

Also he would of never beat Reagan, GH is delusional.

Posted by: spock | Feb 13, 2008 3:36:48 PM

wasn't Gary Hart caught in some compromising position?

Also he would of never beat Reagan, GH is delusional.

Posted by: spock | Feb 13, 2008 3:36:39 PM

Yes, the Superdelegates are a part of the Democratic party processes. Just the electoral colleges took the popular vote from Gore, in 2000.

To Joe,
the “latte liberal”
How long has Clinton being doing this, months?

It took you approximately 16 hours to jump ship.

That’s way the republicans will win again!

Posted by: Anonymous | Feb 13, 2008 3:34:42 PM

Clinton made a mistake by not “Thanking” her supporters, I will agree.
Come on, she is human, too!
Do YOU always do the correct thing? Especially, when you are upset and/ or hurt, probably not.
Clinton is attacked for not looking toward the others states coming up and then is attacked for not looking back. Is there any winning with you people?


Besides, here is a little item to chew on: it takes 5 hours to drive across Va., but it takes 10 hours to drive from Gainsvilles, Tx (the northern border by Oklahoma) to Houston, Tx and you aren’t even to the border that takes another 2-3 hours.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51000.html

Populations
7,642,884
23,507,783
Land area 2000 (Sq. miles) TX 261,797.12
VA 39,594.07

Sorry to say it, but you are small in comparison. I am not necessarily speaking about the size of your state or your population, rather obviously in your lack of conviction.

Where is your loyalty?

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 13, 2008 3:21:12 PM

i think that the superdelegates should stay out and whoever has the most votes should win no matter if they get to 2000 or not. if florida and michigan count for hillary that would be WRONG for the simple fact is obama name wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states. it was listed as uncomitted. so those votes shouldn't count. right is right and fair is fair, the party decide not to count those two states so they shouldn't be counted.

Posted by: sherry williams | Feb 13, 2008 3:17:47 PM

In this extremely self-serving analysis about why he was "denied" the Dem presidential nomination in 1984, Mr. Hart conveniently "forgets" to mention that his extramarital affair with Donna Rice also cost him delegates, votes, and any respect he once enjoyed in the Democratic Party. THOSE are the reasons he was "done in" in 1984.

Posted by: chuck | Feb 13, 2008 3:02:12 PM

Jake,
I'm a 40 year old educated "latte liberal" man who voted for Hillary Clinton last night in Virginia(along with my wife) yet this morning we are Obama supporters. Call it a political epiphany.
We are longtime Democrats who were enthusiastic about Senator Clinton's candidacy. We have bumper stickers, we've donated money, etc. Last night's loss hurt. My sister sat in traffic in nasty weather in Maryland just to vote for Clinton, and she too was saddened by the outcome in her state.
Then an odd thing happened. We tuned in to watch Senator Clinton speak, waiting to hear her thank her supporters in Virginia and Maryland. Nothing. Not a word. 640 thousand went to the polls for Clinton in the DC area and not a single thank you. Is it denial? Rudeness? I know it is certainly not presidential.
Then her advisors says Clinton is not concerned with the small states. Virginia, small?
My wife and I were deeply offended, we feel used, and unappreciated.
On a practical note, we really think Obama can carry Virginia in November.

Posted by: Jay | Feb 13, 2008 2:27:11 PM

I don't hear any Obama people saying the superdelegates shouldn't count in this election. They're just saying that they hope the superdelegates will follow the will of the American people instead of reversing their decision.

Obama also isn't saying Florida or Michigan shouldn't count. He's just saying that they should hold a contest that complies with the rules. If they do that, their votes will count.

Posted by: Mike | Feb 13, 2008 1:28:32 PM


Hillary has just gotta get to that smoke filled room in Denver and cut some deal$.

Keep HOPE alive.

Go Hills. Go Hills

Posted by: The Commander Guy | Feb 13, 2008 1:22:19 PM

Obama supporters want their cake and eat it too. Not fair to let Florida count for Hillary because of the rules but not willing to follow the rules regarding the super delegates. We have a long time before the Democratic convention, lets see how Obama stands up in the light of day.

Posted by: Firefighter | Feb 13, 2008 1:10:40 PM

Hart admit it you were 6"'s away from presidency not 700 super D's

Posted by: Deni | Feb 13, 2008 12:44:17 PM

Post a comment