Superdelegates Will Be Superdelegates

We've heard a lot of talk about superdelegates. We've seen an interesting contradiction, too: superdelegates are lauded as critical to the 2008 presidential nominating race, while simultaneously under fire as "undemocratic" and being called to task to follow the popular vote. For the first time for some Democrats, the Republican delegate system of winner-takes-all might be making more sense. But, the DNC supports the superdelegate system, and the proportional awarding of delegates. It looks more democratic.

Is democracy supposed to be driven by mob mentality? Are presidential candidates supposed to be selected based on pop images and biases created by competitive television networks? I don't think so, and neither does the DNC; that is why superdelegates exist. This is not Survivor or American Idol, the steady diet of the "youth vote" that is supposedly the voice of a new America. This presidential election is not going to take place on Google or Facebook or SodaHead.com. In November, it will be winner-takes-all, no revotes, no more debates.

So who are these "superdelegates" anyway? They are a small handful of former Presidents and Vice Presidents, all of the current State Governors, all current Senators and State Representatives, a small handful of former members of Congress, and a long list of DNC members who represent respected and dedicated Democrats selected at the state level. Calling the superdelegates "undemocratic" is an insult to the hard work, conviction, and loyalty these people have shown to America and to democracy. Many of these people are elected officials, empowered through our votes, through our confidence, and through our government process, to make choices. If we don't like those choices, we elect someone else. Yes, they have an obligation to serve the best interests of the nation. Yes, they should be considering the popular voice. But, at the end of the day, they should also be allowed to vote their conscience just like every other citizen. Both Democratic candidates are campaigning for their support, not just one.

The superdelegates represent a check and balance system inside the Democratic Party, and they should not be turned into puppets with no real function. The same people who are criticizing Sen. Clinton for wanting to "change the rules" of the Michigan & Florida primaries are also calling for the rules to be changed, a much bigger rule, with much more dramatic outcome. This is hypocrisy at its best.

I very much doubt that the DNC is going to support any kind of change in the delegate process midway through an election. The superdelegates also represent a very corporeal power base for Democrats; these people are the DNC, and there is very little to indicate they are unhappy with the process, only with unseen problems in the plan. If a concession is made by the DNC Chair to admit shut-out states, there will be even less indication that such a change would be supported. Admission of the two contested states would be a move toward supporting delegates, pledged and unpledged. And if they stand firm on Michigan and Florida, there is an equal case that the rules work and are being upheld.

One way or another, the superdelegates are going to have their voice. There is more evidence to support the system than to challenge it. The Democratic Party's delegate process is modeled on the U.S. Electorate. In 2000, in spite of an outcry of protest literally heard around the globe, Al Gore obeyed the will of the Electorate, being unable to produce legal precedent otherwise, and conceded the presidency to Bush. Al Gore is one of the superdelegates, and no doubt his opinion counts. It is clear he is already in private meetings with senior party members, and likely has had some collaboration with John Edwards concerning their shared silence. I have said before that I believe Edwards is more aligned with Clinton than Obama. I also believe that in spite of strained relations with the Clintons, Al Gore will also weigh in for Hillary, preferring her stance on climate change and nuclear power to Obama's.

I believe what the ephemeral voice of the DNC is leaking, that a brokered convention will not be allowed to come to pass. Coming out the victor of a brokered convention would hurt the whole campaign. Clinton would look like a greedy power broker, and Obama would look like a risk. As I have said in a previous article, the DNC has already sent an email on its public contact list saying that they believe a nominee will be identified "before August." I believe it is clear everyone is waiting to see what will happen between now and March 4th, maybe the end of April. If Clinton is able to break Obama's winning streak, and takes the lead again, which she is predicted to do for the most part, the decision will be a lot easier. The same for Obama if his momentum holds. If it remains too close to call, then senior party members will get involved. They will not risk appearing heavy handed by speaking too soon. These elusive "party elders" need to be seen as the mediators and saviors of the process in order to pass fairness muster.

In her remarks at the Wisconsin Democratic Party Founders Gala last night, Feb. 16th, she said (paraphrase, as the transcript is not yet available), "On the day the moving van pulls up to the back door of the White House, and George Bush and Dick Cheney hand over the keys..." We should remember that that day is what the whole nation is waiting for. She also said that the Republican party should be so embarrassed by the Bush Administration that they should not even tender a candidate, but they're going to. That remark drew thunderous applause, the kind usually heard at Obama events. I've said this over and over, but it cannot be said enough: the GOP is going to serve up John McCain, a hard, overhand serve. Hillary Clinton has the iron to stand up to McCain, but I believe that Obama's popularity cult would prove flimsy armor.