I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse.
I’m trying really hard to stay out of the rancor of the primary, because it’s making people really stupid, but good lord I can’t just ignore this.
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization’s two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.
Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization’s other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.
But this isn’t just bribery. It was backed up, it seems, with an implicit threat. Basically, gangster negotiations.
Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban’s call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group’s 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were “emotional,” one participant said. “It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them.”
Another source said that Hardt and others were acutely aware of Saban’s status within Democratic circles and were concerned that their organization would suffer long-term harm if they declined his offer or if news of the proposal became public.
“I said I thought that the appropriate response was to call Haim back and say thank you but we are not interested,” said the source. “I also said that it was surely the case that this story would get out because it is too interesting not to and they should think about how to deal with it. It was a day or two [before they responded]. They felt afraid. They were like, ‘Holy shit, this is Haim Saban.’”
They were afraid. I’m so angry right now I’m spitting. This is how we treat young people who are interested in electing Democrats now?
I can’t emphasize how much my decision to go with an Obama endorsement over a Clinton endorsement has to do with remaking the campaign strategies of the Democrats. All other issues are pretty much moot if we can’t win. And part of what’s going to move us towards more winning is getting the millennial generation to consider themselves loyal Democrats. There’s a ton of them , and Obama’s campaign has done a bang-up job of getting young people on board. If he wins with this strategy, then people who want to employ it will have a lot more leverage in the future.
32 Responses to “Young people: Who needs ‘em?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wow, the Clintons really do run their campaigns more like Republicans than Democrats. Now I know where the Republican vitriol towards them comes from–they out Republican the Republicans.
I can’t emphasize how much my decision to go with an Obama endorsement over a Clinton endorsement has to do with remaking the campaign strategies of the Democrats.
I know what you mean. Once Edwards dropped out, I started thinking about the race as Terry McAuliffe versus Howard Dean in a lot of ways–DLC versus 50-state strategy, that sort of thing, and I know which one of those models I like better. I wrote something about a similar subject a few days ago about the issue of Clinton’s experience actually being an anchor for her in this election that I think hits some of the same notes.
Wow, the Clintons really do run their campaigns more like Republicans than Democrats. Now I know where the Republican vitriol towards them comes from–they out Republican the Republicans.
Hold on–there’s no indication from this story that Saban was working as anything other than as an independent agent.
It took me a while to parse it out because the identity politics were getting so vitriolic, but, yes, when I say, “Obama represents change,” I don’t mean his policies per se, because those are pretty much the same as Clinton’s. I mean the 50-state strategy vs. the 50%+1 strategy.
The DLC strategy worked to get Bill Clinton into office, but it was a disaster for long-term party building. Time for a new strategy to strengthen the party and increase our reach instead of just trying to cling to what we already have.
Time for a new strategy to strengthen the party and increase our reach instead of just trying to cling to what we already have.
Especially since we have the wind at our backs right now. It won’t stay that way, of course, so we should take advantage of our opportunities, and I think Obama represents a better shot at that than Clinton does.
Hold on–there’s no indication from this story that Saban was working as anything other than as an independent agent.
And I’m sure that perception is only slightly convenient for Clinton. Gotta keep her hands clean, after all.
Not republicans per se, more like east coast/large city machine politicians. Or what I like to call “Demublicans” in these parts - they are only Democrats because they are conformists and fanny kissers.
Mnemosyne–
Yes, let’s not forget that it was Clinton who pushed the party under the bus during his first term, resulting in the Republican landslide of 1994. When you spend half of your time attacking your fellow Democrats and the other half capitulating to the Republicans (banking deregulation, telecom deregulation, banning gays from the military, partial birth abortion ban, welfare reform, etc), you give everyone the impression that it’s the Republicans who know what they’re doing.
And we’ve seen the same tactics from Clinton. She went along with the Iraq War and voted to declare Iran a terrorist state. She supports the McCain gas tax holiday. Whenever she’s thought that she could get an advantage from it, she’s adopted Republican positions and talking points.
Frankly, I don’t know if the party could survive another four years of Clintonism.
If I may add something, this is more than an older versus younger split going on here - it is also a sign that the northeast does not have the same sort of stranglehold on influence in the democratic party that it has in the past. This is, in large part, the result of Eastern democratic enclaves losing population - and YOUNGER population in particular - or stagnating during the past twenty years as states in the west and southwest have continued to grow.
Always funny to hear people in MA bitch every time we lose a congressional district due to population stagnation here and rapid growth in the West. There gets to be serious talk about how unfair it is and how we shouldn’t lose seats because relative population has changed and on and on. Constitutional ignorance is entertaining, sure, but I think the Clinton Campaign is simply engaging in more of the same sort of “geographic privilege” whining when they attack the youth vote and younger voters.
Why are you angry that “they were afraid?” Was it Saban’s fault that they were afraid? Did he say, if you don’t take my $1 million you’re through in this party? I don’t see it.
Fine, they were afraid and felt intimidated by the offer. Isn’t that on THEM? Is this new generation that’s going to change politics going to quake in its figurative boots any time someone rich and powerful makes them an offer? Kudos to the advice to tell this bird to kindly take his money elsewhere, but I don’t see how the offer justifies being angry.
I hope that their inference of a threat doesn’t mean the threat was actually implied. Not that I approve the ethics of bribing a group– just that in the markets of power, it’s not easy to judge between take-it-or-leave-it offers vs a stick if the carrot is rejected. And it would be depressing if the kids are right about the stick.
There’s been a great deal of LBJ appreciation in the last few years as Democrats have lamented Johnson’s spine to do what was needed or right (never mind that whole Vietnam thingy).
This whole episode is rank with Lyndon’s legacy. He would have done something like this. And enjoyed bringing the little kids into the adult world of hardball.
‘Threat’? Sounds more like ‘politics’.
‘Gangster’? Sheesh, a real gangster would be embarrassed. What a bunch of nellies.
Rob, that’s a bit of bad faith, don’t you think? They’re not stupid. They know when a threat is being implied.
And manhandling young people is not going to teach them any lessons besides, “Get out of politics.” Right wingers are smart. They cultivate their young. We abuse ours.
Eric, you can piss on these kids, if you must, but do you mind not using homophobic terminology?
You know, not to be a nellie or anything.
“nellies,” Eric? That’s some nice gay-bashing there. Keep it up.
I liked Haim Saban better when he was composing music for cartoons in the 80s with Suki Levy.
Just a thought, but are you sure this capitulation, and not just compatible values? They might not see it as capitulation if what they’re giving up (e.g. the interests of the majority of your constituents) means little or nothing to them, anyway.
Right wingers are smart. They cultivate their young. We abuse ours.
Damn right. The College Republicans are flush with money, and the head of the College Republicans draws a decent salary he can live on. Young Democrats are considered an annoyance unless they can be used for unpaid labor.
And manhandling young people is not going to teach them any lessons besides, “Get out of politics.”
One could argue that teaching them this lesson is intentional.
This whole episode is rank with Lyndon’s legacy. He would have done something like this. And enjoyed bringing the little kids into the adult world of hardball.
It would have worked differently, though: LBJ would have recruited the head of YDA to do his dirty work for him, rather than threatening the guy.
I don’t see how the offer justifies being angry.
Gee, I don’t know, maybe because it’s a gross ethical violation of the sort that progressives should deplore? Just a thought.
“nellies,” Eric? That’s some nice gay-bashing there. Keep it up.
What do you expect from somebody who thinks a meme is a foodstuff? One he refuses to cook, no less?
I take it “liberal” in “liberalrob” and “progressive” are at odds here, just as they are throughout “liberally” mass-backward-chusetts.
I’m trying really hard to stay out of the rancor of the primary, because it’s making people really stupid,
This statement doesn’t make sense whatsoever from blogging point of view.
1. The point of democracy is distributed decision making. And the blog is at best when doing analysis against public opinion.
2. If it is stupid, and one knows it is stupid, should he say something if not fix it? Letting it continues to be stupid seems rather dubious.
3. Want to fight patriarchy ? Well, analysis and method of analysis are the very core of changing social perception. (Gotta show up when things matters. When deep analytical thinking on contentious political issues are needed.)
Right wingers are smart. They cultivate their young. We abuse ours.
This is true in so many ways, and it really makes me angry. You know those Obama fellows that the campaign has made so much of are NOT BEING PAID. I was part of a campaign which promised supporter housing to its staff and then when they all moved out to work they couldn’t find enough supporter housing. So they just left them on their own to rent a place.
It’s impossible to work on most campaigns unless you are rich and have parents to bankroll you. Otherwise it is just not financially sustainable (until you get up to campaign manager or field/finance/etc. director level but not everyone can do that, obviously). And most campaigns don’t provide health insurance.
So they’ve got people working for poverty wages — $200/week is pretty standard from what I’ve seen, occasionally you may get more — required to have their own car to use, sometimes their own cell phone which they pay for — it’s just exploitative and bad, bad, bad.
Oh and then there was a time I was injured working for a campaign and they paid my workers’ comp but then treated me like shit until I quit.
Not that I’m bitter, or anything.
I wish someone would threaten me with a million dollars.
It’s only a threat if you look at it from the position that all political donations require 100% compliance to the donor’s wishes and/or all of one’s sources of funding must be 100% ideologically scrubbed. We make such a big deal about not taking money from lobbyists and giving back money received from people or groups that do or say something stupid. If I were in charge of an advocacy group or running for office I’d take anyone’s money, and you know why? Because I would use that money to further my own cause, not theirs. There is no law on the books that says accepting donations requires agreement with the donor’s agenda or compliance with their demands; the only reason that works is when you want to have that donor give you more money later. Donors only have power to the extent that recipients grant it to them. These kids should have taken Saban’s money and then immediately announced that their superdelegates would vote for Obama, if that was their organization’s intent. In any case, take the money! Worst case is he never gives you more, in which case it’s all good because he never would have given it to you anyway.
I hope they are not at odds, because that would mean that progressivism is just as blinkered and parochial as conservatism has proven to be, and that would be a great tragedy in my eyes.
No, worst case is that you, your organization and anybody in it of any significance is marked down as a lying little bastard who is finished in the party because:(a) The people that you screwed over have long memories and a revenge streak a mile wide. Any Clinton loyalist in the party — and there are many — will ensure that you never get above stuffing envelopes.
(b) The people that you supported don’t trust you because:
(b1) you’ve established that [by the odd rules of legal corruption] you can’t be trusted, and
(b2) you’ve shown that you’ll take the money to work against them, so they can safely rely on the fact that later on somebody will find the price at which you will promise to betray them and actually do so.
Thank you for bringing up the issue of the Democrats lacking any really solid youth organization (and not for lack of interest/attempts among young Democrats!). I was a YD in the mid-90s and we got treated like crap. I got much more valuable political experience working for orgs like Planned Parenthood and People for the American Way who were interested in us as more than just free labor.
I so hope that you’re right that the Obama campaign (and the DNC under Dean) has realized what a missed opportunity the youth vote is and they are genuinely cultivating a strong base for Democrats. Even though now I’m old and I should be shaking my cane at them and telling them to get off my lawn.
“young people” in this case could be as old as 35. which isn’t really young, it’s just too young to run for president, which is what I think the rule is related to.
Indy, don’t you think that, so far as the Powers That Be are concerned, “young” is best defined as “younger than the asshole making the decisions” ?? (For the same Powers That Be, “uppity snotnoses” is synonymous. These are the sort of people who would say, “shut up, kid, you don’t have my experience!” to any younger person who points out that their ass was on fire.
Just for clarfication. This is Haim Saban. This is a major part of his life’s work.
So yeah.
Well, 35 seems to be a culturally agreed-on cutoff point for “young adult.” I think the YRs cut off at 35, too. And that’s when they kick you out of the Jaycees, too.
Or haven’t you ever seen Smile?