The issue of superdelegates needs to be revisited after this election season (and discussion can begin at the convention).
From The New York Times:
Mrs. Clinton [provided an internal list of her superdelegate supporters to The New York Times that] listed as superdelegates an array of past and current Democratic National Committee leaders, evidence of the extent to which she was, at least at one time, seen as the candidate of the party’s establishment. Those include Robert M. Strauss, Joe Andrew, Steve Grossman and Ken Curtis. (The chairman of her campaign, Terry McAuliffe, is also a superdelegate by virtue of being a former party chairman.)
Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates include some lions of the Democratic Party, including Walter Mondale, the former vice president, and two former House majority leaders, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Jim Wright of Texas. Her superdelegates also reflect her effort to recruit labor support, including Randi Weingarten, who is expected to become the new president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Gerald W. McEntee, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who had sought, until he dropped out last month, to become the nation’s first Hispanic president . . ., in an interview, would not say whom he would vote for, but he clearly sided with Mr. Obama in the philosophical debate over how superdelegates should decide how to vote.
“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. “It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.”
Being essentially political creatures, these superdelegates are more prone to factor political considerations into their deliberations than the voters these two campaigns have encountered since the start of the year.
That has been something of a problem for Mrs. Clinton. As Mr. Obama has swept to victory in primaries and caucuses over the past week, and as polls suggest that he is becoming an increasingly strong candidate, it has sapped the clout of the Clinton campaign as it has sought to nail down commitments.
Mrs. Clinton [provided an internal list of her superdelegate supporters to The New York Times that] listed as superdelegates an array of past and current Democratic National Committee leaders, evidence of the extent to which she was, at least at one time, seen as the candidate of the party’s establishment. Those include Robert M. Strauss, Joe Andrew, Steve Grossman and Ken Curtis. (The chairman of her campaign, Terry McAuliffe, is also a superdelegate by virtue of being a former party chairman.)
Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates include some lions of the Democratic Party, including Walter Mondale, the former vice president, and two former House majority leaders, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Jim Wright of Texas. Her superdelegates also reflect her effort to recruit labor support, including Randi Weingarten, who is expected to become the new president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Gerald W. McEntee, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who had sought, until he dropped out last month, to become the nation’s first Hispanic president . . ., in an interview, would not say whom he would vote for, but he clearly sided with Mr. Obama in the philosophical debate over how superdelegates should decide how to vote.
“It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency,” he said. “It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president.”
Being essentially political creatures, these superdelegates are more prone to factor political considerations into their deliberations than the voters these two campaigns have encountered since the start of the year.
That has been something of a problem for Mrs. Clinton. As Mr. Obama has swept to victory in primaries and caucuses over the past week, and as polls suggest that he is becoming an increasingly strong candidate, it has sapped the clout of the Clinton campaign as it has sought to nail down commitments.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 7:15 AM
2 Comments:
Democratic voters should consider a class action lawsuit to end the process of super-delegates. A case can be made that the super-delegates degrade, and are intended to dilute, the weight of our votes to allow the party elites to determine who gets the nomination of the party. It doesn’t matter whether Hillary or Obama gets the nomination, both will be great democratic leaders. However, the fact that super-delegates have the power to overrule the voters is against the concept of democracy, and harms the voters of this country. A single super-delegate vote can carry as much weight as 50,000 citizen votes.
Do not lose focus on this issue after the primaries are over. While it may turn out that this process does not override the American vote this year, the chances are there for the future. Our votes must be equal to those of the Washington insiders.
I think that many of the superdelegates are going switch over to Obama. My first choice was Edwards but the strongest ticket right now seems to be Obama-Webb.
Post a Comment
<< Home