Was the Obama Delegate Debacle a Failure of a Decentralized Campaign?

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

I'm getting slightly conflicting reports about exactly where the decision to "prune" the delegate list came from. One report put it the decision in Chicago's hands, another says that it was a California decision. But at this point, the most reliable information that I have was that this was a decision made by the California staff, and a decision that perhaps even angered the Chicago staff.

I don't want to make a huge deal of this because I'm only 90% sure of this, but the signs are pointing to a case of overzealousness.  They wanted to a) make it easier on themselves for the running of the caucus and b) ensure that there weren't any hidden Clinton fans.  I think they now understand the reaction that this decision has caused and the reasons for that reaction, and even that they made a mistake.

I think we can chalk this up to a more decentralized campaign than we are used to.  That's generally a good thing in that it empowers local activists if the local campaign staff has some authority and flexibility. It is nice to be able to talk to a decision maker.  But, the down-side of this is that occasionally you get some rookie mistakes.  Look, it didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that you would cause more problems than you would solve by pruning the list so dramatically. It's a double-edged sword, but I think I'm ok with that.

As Dave pointed out, it is a good thing that the campaign corrected itself.  It is a good thing that the campaign heard the grassroots speaking. Mistakes happen, and for the last seven plus years we had a president who wouldn't admit mistakes and wouldn't correct mistakes.  I'll be glad to have a an administration who knows and acknowledges that they are fallible.