George:

Since writing to tell you of my endorsements last night, a number of people have complained -- some bitterly -- about the fact that I endorsed anyone at all. I'd like to say why I think it is appropriate for party officers to make endorsements if they want to.

In the not-too distant past, when we selected delegates who would then select our nominees, it was common (though not universal) for party officers to declare their preferences. Indeed, if they didn't, they might not be elected as delegates to the convention they were running. I seem to remember, when I ran for City Council in 1990, that the party officers expressed their preferences. I am not sure that I remember who the officers were then (John Conover as chair, perhaps?), but I seem to remember that they were elected as delegates to the Convention, and that would have virtually required that they disclose preferences. I don't think it is set in stone that officers, including the chair, should not have, and express, a preference.

Some have complained that I have showed bias, and that I should therefore not participate as an official at the Caucus on Saturday. First, let me say that Rus and I had already decided, before I sent you my endorsements, that he would preside over the meeting. I was going to supervise the vote-counting. Lest there be any controversy, I won't even do that.

Personally, though, I think that requiring party officials NOT to express their opinions is the wrong policy, for four reasons.

First, I would much rather have people reveal their biases so that I can be alert to their effects, than to have people conceal their biases and have me wonder. What vote counter, having announced that he supports candidate A, is going to purposely miscount the votes? Surely the other counters will be checking -- that's why the system that we will be using on Saturday will have counters working in pairs, and all results that produce a nominee or eliminate a candidate will be double checked.

Second, do any of us seriously think that our party leaders have no preferences just because we don't know what they are? Do any of us think that if they were inclined to act on their preferences, that they would be MORE inclined to do so after having expressed them than when they are concealing them?

Third, sometimes party officials have a different way of looking at candidates, or different information, or different priorities, and it is useful to the entire debate to have many voices heard. Party officials may be more willing than others to view things from the perspective of what is best for the Party, and some voters may wish to hear that perspective.

Fourth, in an environment in which some folks seem determined to find conspiracies and plots, openness is preferable. Remember in November, when we nominated Creigh Deeds? Everyone was convinced that Party officials were conspiring to elect Creigh. The rumor mill was going full blast -- some people were convinced that unnamed Party officials, who never disclosed their own preference, had given Creigh unique access to Emily's old lists of supporters. I had drafted the Rules; the rumor was that I had drafted the Rules in such a way as to give Creigh an advantage. Wouldn't it have been useful to tell people that Creigh was not my first choice?

Just because I think Party officials should be free to tell people who they support, that does not mean that Party officials should be WORKING FOR a candidate; sometimes Party officials are called on to WORK FOR all candidates -- run out mailing labels, call or e-mail to make sure that they know about things, give advice to them if they are doing something that might be destructive to the Party. And Party officials should not WORK AGAINST a candidate, because those officials will have to be able to support that person if he or she wins nomination. But we are supposed to be adults here -- if I win the nomination, I should be able to count on the support of ALL Democrats, including those who supported the other candidates. If someone else wins, they should be able to count on my support and the support of my supporters.

I was appalled at the bitterness and backbiting in the 2000 campaign. I thought, until the last two days, that the 2002 campaign was free of that. I remember 1990, when David Toscano, Kay Slaughter and I fought for 2 nominations, and David and Kay beat me. If there were ugly rumors, I don't remember them. It did not offend me that some of my friends supported my two opponents. It did not offend me if Party leaders supported David or Kay, and some of them did. Despite the fact that some of them supported my opponents, I was confident that the process would be fair, and it was. When it was over, my supporters worked for David and Kay. I was their campaign treasurer. We were friends when we started, and we were friends when we finished.

It was in the perhaps gauzy recollection of that spirit that I made my endorsements. Maybe it was foolish of me -- maybe the "us vs. them" spirit has replaced the spirit of friendly competition. I hope not.

To those who see my endorsement as a sign of a plot -- you are wrong. If I had wanted to plot, I would have done it in secret.

To those whom I have offended -- I am sorry. That was not my intent.

To the supporters of those whom I did not endorse -- I may well end up voting for your candidate on Saturday anyway. I will certainly support both of our nominees wholeheartedly in the general election.

Lloyd Snook (electronic mail, February 19, 2002)