There is no reason for the superdelegates to delay announcing their votes for either Clinton or Obama. Waiting benefits John McCain, and insures nothing but mutually-assured destruction (MAD) of the two Democratic candidates by each other's campaigns, egged on by the lazy mainstream media who love nothing more than an inane foodfight.
The notion that somehow the passage of time and events will enable superdelegates to choose with any precision the candidate more likely to beat McCain is absurd. We know it is absurd because the mainstream media and Rush Limbaugh are pushing it. We also know it is absurd because Obama and Clinton are contesting each other, so who wins what state only determines whom the voters want, not who will win against McCain in the fall.
One need only recall that Bill Clinton was THIRD, behind both H.W. Bush and Ross Perot, going into the 1992 Democratic Convention, to recognize how poor such projections are. Let us hope that no one is going to decide between Clinton and Obama based upon how they are polling against McCain on any particular day. To quote Bill Clinton, "give me a break."
Let us address the arguments for waiting.
1. We will learn who will be the best candidate in the general election.
As I ("The Absurd Arguments of Both [Clinton & Obama] Campaigns," February 15, 2008) and David Sirota ("The False Assumptions in the 'Electability' Arguments," March 9, 2008) have previously indicated, there is absolutely nothing that the primaries do to provide any guidance as to who will be the best candidate against McCain.
To understand why, listen to the arguments of the two campaigns. Hillary's people say, "look, she's winning the big states that are the Democratic base and those are must wins in November." Yes, but does anyone seriously believe that Barack would not win them as well? Who was Hillary beating in those states -- Barack!
Similarly, the Obama campaign says he is winning states that Democrats do not usually win. Yes, but winning them against whom? Hillary!
Apart from who wins what state, there is a valid argument that Obama brings in new voters, increases the participation of younger voters and can get Independents and Republicans. But, we already know that. What is the goal of delay -- to diminish that appeal? That's Rush Limbaugh's prayer.
Here's the kernel of truth: the primaries tell us whom the voters want to be the nominee. There are clues about new voter and crossover appeal. But, all the arguments about who has won which states as clues to the November election are specious.
2. We will learn who will win the elected delegate count.
We already know. Obama's lead is insurmountable. Is anyone seriously going to cast a vote for Obama if his elected delegate lead is 115, but not if it is only 85, or conversely? That would truly be absurd.
3. We will learn who will win the popular vote.
We already know -- almost. The lead is not so insurmountable as the delegate count, but still very very difficult for Hillary to overcome, and, judging by the last few weeks, the only way to overcome it is to tear down Obama. Doing that must prompt a response from Obama lest he be written off as not strong enough.
Moreover, if it is already known that Obama wins the elected delegate count, will a superdelegate change their vote to Hillary if she ekes out a popular vote win if she has used the scorched earth policy to get there? Remember: you get more of the behavior you reward, and less of the behavior you do not reward.
Do the superdelegates want to reward scorched earth policies? The longer they delay, the more scorched earth [aka, the kitchen sink] they will be encouraging.
Hillary has lost the elected delegates, she has lost the number of contests and she has very probably lost the popular vote totals as well. Thus, her only remaining road to the nomination is to savage Obama, and she seems willing to do so.
Any superdelegate believe that Hillary will return to the position she held when she was "inevitable," that Democrats should not be attacking one another? [Anyone who believes that, I've got some shares in Bear Stearns to sell you].
Superdelegates declaring themselves now would also facilitate a solution to Florida and Michigan. Why? Because both campaigns would understand the magnitude of their exposure and, with the reduced uncertainty, be more likely to resolve it. If, after the superdelegates all declared, Obama trailed by, say, 50, and had an elected delegate lead of 150, then seating Michigan and Florida under some deal would not change the outcome and the Party could avoid not only the spat, but also the $30 million expense.
What's at stake? Only war and peace, the Supreme Court, the middle class and at least a generation of progressive policies designed for the modern age.
So, what in the name of Franklin D. Roosevelt are you superdelegates waiting for?