With the explosive news surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright this week, it is even more likely that the so-called superdelegates are going to have an important role in resolving the Democratic presidential nomination contest. The New York Times reported that one of these delegates in Washington State said the scandal "is beginning to reflect negatively on Senator Obama's campaign. I think he's handling it very well but I think it's almost impossible to make people feel comfortable about this." On the other hand, we have seen some superdelegates begin to speak in favor of Obama late this week, before the primaries are even over. Today, Joe Andrew, who served as the head of the DNC from 1999 to 2001, switched his support from Clinton to Obama saying that "I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party."
Some Democrats insist that these uncommitted delegates should vote for the person who wins the most pledged delegates. Otherwise, they say, the process would be unfair. "It would be a problem," warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided." Other observers go so far as to warn that if the superdelegates make a choice that contradicts the pledged delegate count, chaos will ensue at the convention.
But according to the rules set by the Democratic Party in the 1980s, Democratic activists and journalists should back away from such arguments in order to create an environment where uncommitted delegates can make an independent choice. The choice can be to vote for the candidate with the most delegates or to vote for the other candidate. The rules say that is up to them. These might not be the best rules for the party or for our democracy -- there are very good arguments supporting the critics of the superdelegate system -- but these are the rules that the Democratic National Committee officially established.
Democrats created this group of uncommitted delegates after some members of the party were frustrated by the contentious primary fight between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy in 1980. Kennedy's supporters did not like Carter, and Democrats remained divided going into the general election. The devastating loss of Senator George McGovern to President Richard Nixon in the 1972 election had also created concerns among Democrats as to whether the party reforms of the 1970s, which weakened the power of party bosses, needed to be modified for the electoral health of the party. Moreover, the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana, lobbied for the change to give Congress a bigger role in the convention and thus avoid the gulf separating Congress and presidents who won through the post-reform nomination process. This had been a big problem when president Jimmy Carter clashed with a Democratic Congress that felt alienated from him.
Democrats established a commission in 1982 under Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina to look into the issue. Hunt's commission designed a proposal that would authorize uncommitted Democrats to participate in the convention. The number they proposed was 30% of the delegates. The commission said they wanted to preserve the "traditional" role of the party which was a "mediating institution between citizens and government, as a guide to constituent and rational electoral choice, as a bond pulling the elements of government together for the achievement of positive purposes." The commission agreed that the party reforms of the 1970s had been beneficial by eliminating "secret caucuses, unpublicized procedures, closed slate-making, racial exclusions..." But they said, (the Democratic National Committee agreed in March 1982 without almost any debate), party leaders also should have some role in the selection of the presidential nominee.
Critics warned that this new system would create a class of unaccountable elites -- thus the term superdelegates which was introduced with derision. The proposal seemed like a throwback to the older era of smoke-filled convention halls that the 1970s reforms had intended to eliminate. In the end, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro brokered a deal that lowered the number of uncommitted delegates to 14 percent. The delegates included members of Congress as well as state and local party officials. This group was expanded over the years to include members of the Democratic National Committee, Governors, distinguished party leaders and a few others. The percentage of uncommitted delegates has increased to about twenty percent.
So that's how we ended up in the current situation. The frustration regarding the uncommitted delegates is similar to the anger many of Clinton's supporters feel about the insistence of Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee to stick by the decision to discount Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan because the states violated the national party's rules on scheduling. Supporters of this decision argue that Clinton and Obama agreed to these rules, and now must live with them.
If this is the case, and the rules of the primary system are to be rigidly followed, then all Democrats should be prepared to support and encourage superdelegates to reach whatever decision they think best for the party. It's difficult to know which way their votes would go, although recent polls suggest a large number of superdelegates might stick with Obama, despite the recent week's events.
Whether we agree or disagree with the system created in 1982, this is how this game is played. Perhaps some delegates will decide to challenge those rules at the convention, as might very well happen with the Florida and Michigan delegations. That, of course, would be fair game. But unless the rules are changed, the uncommitted delegates of the party should have the opportunity to choose.
Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Harvard University Press). He is currently writing a history of national security politics since World War II that will be published by Basic Books.
Then we as voters, no matter who you support and no matter how they did, will be able to make informed decisions about what changes we do or do not want to make in our Party and in it's leadership.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019
Yet they continue to go after money from the donors that can least afford it.
Lastly, the supers should take the threat of the Obama followers of a riot at the convention into account and NOT let themselves be threatened by these folks. If they are, the future of the party will be really bad. You know, rewarding bad behavior and giving in to threats and all that.
To disenfranchize the majority rule believe me would cause a lot of problems for the party .It would be stealing the vote of all those people who voted for Obama and I think they know that . The super-deligates were suppose to be used to break a tie not to change the whole race when one candidate is leading by as many votes as Obama is and vote for the candidate that is behind in votes .
Senator Edward Kennedy strikes again. Although Jimmy Carter had won by a 2-1 majority of pledged delegates, Senator Kennedy would not shake his hand, thus telling his supporters not to support President Carter. This lead to the election of Ronald Reagan with the help of the Reagan Democrats who were Kennedy supporters who would not vote for Jimmy Carter.
In this nomination race, Senator Kennedy is supporting Senator Obama to spite Bill Clinton, originally giving Senator Obama credibility as a viable candidate, and creating the same situation. Senator Edward (Teddy) Kennedy strikes again. Who has tried to destroy the Democratic Party, TWICE.
And these people who demand that Hillary quit before all the people gets to vote is UnAmerican!! Let the process go forth .. let everyone vote & go to the convention in Denver. Yes, you will have some who won't vote if their Candidate isn't selected, there's always some out there who will do that, no matter what .. it's just this time .. the supporters of both are very vocal on line ... Screaming their opinions, instead of looking at the result ...
I find it odd, that on several blogs now, the BO supporters are talking about rioting if BO doesn't get it. This is not the voice of reason, but a mob mentality that's too scarey to imagine ... though, I don't have to imagine, I remember the riots of the 60's very well ...
Republican's have been hoping Hillary will win because they know she doesn't have the majority of the voters behind her and she is not well liked in Washington. She is not at all the best candidate for the party and certainly not the best candidate for the nation.
My Republican sister has been trying so hard to turn me off on Obama and she is praising Hillary .This is a woman who hated Hillary and is voting for McCain .So what does that tell you about what the republican's think of Hillary as the nominee ? It tells me that the Republican's think McCain who is a weak candidate might be able to beat Hillary but they know he can't beat Obama.
All the other candidates both Dems and Republicans dropped out when they knew the numbers weren't there for them to win all except for Hillary who still thinks she can sway the super-deligates to chose her and steal this election or for the DNC to seat Fla and Michigan and count their votes which she signed a statement not to count and Obama's name in Michigan wasn't on the ballot so that contest wasn't even a contested one giving her an unfair advantage .
Come on Hillary is tearing the party apart by staying in hoping to pull off a coup.
The longer this goes on the more damage this will have to the candidate that is nominated giving McCain the advantage. Is that what you Hillary supporters really want to see.
But, the main point is that these two and others have shown is that a SuperDelegate's "commitment" is worth exactly ZERO, because if someone offers them a better deal tomorrow, they can switch again. Having broken their commitment once already, why not do it again.
The only thing that they can't switch is the vote they cast at the Convention. And, as the author of this article explains, no one can tell them how to vote.
So, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are wasting their breath trying to get the SDs to "commit". They can't "commit" in any meaningful way. Who's to say they are not being pressured and will vote differently which is their right at the Convention.
This struggle cannot end before the Convention without someone breaking the rules, and if they do that they will permanently fracture the Party.
If you get to a convention where the decision is not decided on the first ballot, you really get a backroom deal. Still the backroom in that situation is better than the deals in so many countries where the generals and maybe the colonels in the army decide.
Too bad it cannot be decided cleanly. If you want to blame anybody, try the Republicans in Michigan and Florida.
It should be obvious that Obama will not win the Presidency. No matter how much we liberals want it in our hearts, the heartland of America will not elect a Black President. As I have written before, After the first Republican supporters Ads that, "He won 92% of the Black vote in Pennsylvania, 85% of the Black vote
in . . . etc., etc Are His values the same as your.You know John McCain's values are! Vote for John McCain, an American Hero!', or Ads to that effect. The "Swiftboat' misinformation machine is effective. Please don't tell me that the SuperDelegates should follow the popular vote if you don't count Florida and Michigan. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. Great decision, wasn't it?
Hillary Clinton can win the Presidency. Obama will not, even though he will get my vote if he is the Democratic candidate.
That aside if they take the nomination away from the candidates with the most States, Elected Delegates, Popular Vote, it would split the party in half and 40% of the base would stay home. 4 Clinton SD and a ton of operatives have switched from Clinton to Obama...none have gone to Clinton from Obama. In addition since March 5 Obama 84 Sd Hillary 10 lost 4
If the republicans want Hillary to win the nomination to run against her and bring out their base.
OR
Polls show that if Hillary loses the nomination, more of her supporters will stay home or vote for McCain than the reverse if Obama loses the nomination.
Is this 3 dimensional chess or what?
Why does sleaze and conflict always follow the Clintons?
We have a no brainer here!!!
CHANGE the outcome of the voters decision to the CHOICE of the party elite = the only reason for the supers existance.
"Should" has nothing to do with it. They DO have the opportunity to choose. They'll make their choice and live with the consequences. End of story.
I sympathize with Hillary having been shocked by the emergence of Obama, and her right to have fought back for the nomination. However, the time to withdraw has long since expired. Her conduct has become UNPATRIOTIC. She clearly thinks of herself way ahead of the good of the country, and the party. She wreaks of selfishness. Please, please, get out of the way so we can win in November and move on with change.
See the article below from iReport (http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-10736)
IF A PASTOR IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP!
When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said , Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.
Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted of child molestation, will we see the same furor directed at Hillary that Obama has had toendure these last few weeks?
IF A CANDIDATE IS KNOWN BY THE PASTOR THEY KEEP.
Then you need to email this article to everyone you know. Here the CLINTON'S Pastor is convicted of child molestation. So, if Obama bears the guilt for his pastor's
comments, then Hillary has to be equally tainted by this guy's crimes.
I guess we'll just have to rely on the various other felons who have participated in Hillary's campaigns, then been convicted of various frauds and election law violations.