Lawmakers from caucus states roiled over Clinton criticism

Democratic lawmakers from caucus states are agitated by the Clinton campaign’s attempts to dismiss Sen. Barack Obama’s (Ill.) victories in their home states.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and her campaign surrogates have tried to marginalize Obama’s caucus wins by saying the process is unfair because it limits participation. In a televised interview earlier this month, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell (D), a top Clinton supporter, went as far as to call the caucus process “undemocratic.”

{mosads}In interviews, a host of superdelegates supportive of the caucus system pushed back against that criticism, and said the attacks reflect hardball tactics by a Clinton campaign trying to diminish Obama’s overwhelming success in caucus states.

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), an uncommitted superdelegate whose state and district were won by Obama, said the Clinton campaign’s attack on the caucus system is a “cause for concern” in evaluating her candidacy and one of a number of factors he’ll consider in making his endorsement.

He said his home state’s January caucuses “were one of the most democratic processes we’ve ever seen.”

“If you had seen what I saw in my precinct caucus, and the overwhelming number of first-time caucus attendees, including my two older children, I think that it would put to rest all of this nonsense about caucuses being an undemocratic process,” Braley said.

Braley’s concerns were echoed by superdelegates from Washington state, where Obama also won.

“The first thing I would say to any national leader, whoever they are, is, ‘Don’t boss around states and tell them how to select their delegates,’ ” said Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), who, like Braley, has not picked a candidate to support in the race.

The attacks by the Clinton campaign, which makes the pitch that she is the most electable Democratic candidate because of her success in large states with primaries, risks alienating lawmakers and other superdelegates who are expected to determine the outcome of the nomination battle.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is likely to clinch the nomination after the last primaries are held in early June, so the candidates are taking their case directly to 795 superdelegates — the members of Congress, governors, Democratic National Committee members and other local officials whose backing might determine the outcome of the race. At least 50, or more than 15 percent, of the uncommitted superdelegates come from the 13 states that hold caucuses.

{mospagebreak}The caucus system differs markedly from primaries, where voters cast a secret ballot. Under the caucus system, voters gather in a town-hall meeting format, where they talk about the platforms and issues of each candidate. When the voting begins, attendees divide themselves into groups depending on which candidate they support. Supporters of the other candidates then try to woo undecided voters to their side. The candidates win the precincts where more of their supporters turn up.

Critics of the caucus process, including the Clinton campaign, have argued that the system does not accurately reflect the will of the voters, since Democratic Party activists, rather than general voters, are more likely to participate in a deliberative caucus process. They argue that primaries have a longer voting window and allow for absentee ballots, unlike a caucus that is held at a set time.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this month, Rendell cited those arguments in claiming that the caucuses are “undemocratic.”

{mosads}“We want primaries — that’s the way we elect presidents,” Rendell said. “We don’t have caucuses to elect presidents in the fall.”

Just prior to the Wyoming caucuses — which Obama won — Clinton told an audience in Cheyenne that “it isn’t any secret that a lot of people who vote for me have never caucused for me,” according to The New York Times. “It’s not an election.”

Supporters of the Clinton campaign have sought legal action to prevent some caucuses from going forward in Nevada.

A Clinton campaign spokesman did not respond to an inquiry seeking comment.

Some state parties are discussing ways to encourage more participation in the caucus system, but supporters say the caucuses award candidates who are the best organized, which is critical in the general election.

They also say the process helps facilitate discussion over the issues facing candidates and energize their supporters far more than simply pulling a lever at a ballot box.

“A vote is different — you cast your ballot behind a couple of curtains,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), a supporter of Obama, who won his state’s caucuses. “Caucuses are a social event and they breed enthusiasm in the party.”

In Iowa, where Democrats take perhaps the most pride in the caucus process, given its role in kicking off the presidential nominating season, 239,000 people participated this year. That broke the previous record, set in 2004, of 124,000 attendees, according to the state’s Democratic Party.

“I think the criticism this cycle of the caucus system is probably predicated on how you finished,” said uncommitted superdelegate Richard Machacek, a Democratic National Committee member and farmer in Winthrop, Iowa. Lawmakers have responded similarly.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), one of the most influential uncommitted superdelegates remaining, said his state’s January caucuses — in which Clinton won fewer delegates than Obama despite receiving a majority of the popular vote — represented a “tremendous sea change” and unprecedented participation in Nevada politics.

“If we’re going to change any of the rules it has to be [in the] next election,” Reid said to reporters earlier this month.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who is uncommitted in the race, said the process has its pluses and minuses, and added that Obama’s strong win in her state’s caucuses was “very impressive and will be a significant factor” in awarding her endorsement.

J. Taylor Rushing contributed to this article.