Politics always is crazy. But the way the Democratic Party is choosing it's presidential candidate – that's beyond crazy.
I know, because I'm being driven insane trying to figure out what the delegate count is between Obama and Clinton. Obama's my man, so I'm pumped by how well he's done in the most recent primary contests.
But when I check CNN's Election Center just now, oh no!, I see in a big bold-face font that Clinton is still leading Obama, 1148 to 1121. (This even includes today's Maine results.)
Then I read the fine print breakdown. And see that actually Obama has 986 pledged delegates and Clinton 924. Clinton leads only in superdelegates, 224 to 135.
Who aren't at all "super."
They're Democratic Party functionaries. They can change their mind at any moment. And their preference for president shouldn't get more play in the press than the votes of more than 14 million people who have participated in Democratic primaries and caucuses so far.
Yet many news organizations include some of the 797 superdelegates in delegate totals for Clinton and Obama. CNN tallies 359. A week or so ago the NY Times had deduced the preference of 303.
I wish these not-so-superdelegates would shut their mouths for the moment. Every single one should be saying, "I've haven't made my mind up yet."
Because these unpledged delegates aren't supposed to be deciding who's going to be the Democratic candidate come November. Their job is to give the frontrunner, after all the primaries are over, a clear cut margin of victory at the convention.
At least, that's the informed opinion of Tad Devine, Walter Mondale's delegate counter in 1984, who says "Superdelegates, Back Off."
The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.
The party's leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the two remarkable candidates who are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.
If the superdelegates determine the party's nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don't count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.
Absolutely. I heard Obama say that whoever is ahead in delegates after June 7, when the last primary is held, should get the votes of the superdelegates.
Makes great sense.
As Devine says, the last thing the Democratic Party needs is a drawn-out nominating process that drags into the convention, where the country would be "treated" to (or disgusted by) the sight of back room deals harking back to my memories of how candidates were selected in the not-so-good-old days of the 60's and 70's.
What's bizarre about all this is that the Democratic primaries assign delegates proportionally, which is wonderfully, well, democratic. Every vote counts, in contrast to a winner-take-all approach where the preference of 49.9% of voters can be ignored.
Yet the superdelegates have the power to ignore not the will of a minority, but the majority.
Millions upon millions of fired-up Obama supporters could put him clearly in the delegate lead on June 7, but lacking the few delegates he needs to win the nomination outright.
It'd be a travesty, shades of the Supreme Court giving the presidency to George Bush in 2000, if a few hundred politicos overturned the will of millions of primary voters and caucus goers.
(On the delegate tracking front, the Obama campaign has a clearly laid out Results Center. It seems accurate and dare I say it, conservative, since so far the states who voted on February 9 and 10, all Obama victories, haven't been factored in. It has: Obama 910, Clinton 882.
A Daily Kos diary today did a yeoman's job of assembling delegate counts from major news organizations and factoring them into a up to date consensus estimate. Bottom line: Obama 1028, Clinton 948.)
Democrat super delegates who ignore the will of the majority-- whichever way it goes-- can count on wrath in the election for their party. People are already disgusted with democrats for how they haven't done anything since '06 about anything they promised. If they add to this a backroom deal to give the nomination to whoever didn't win it, they will see the results in the House in November and any Senators up for election. I have been watching this too and agree with what you said-- they should keep their mouths shut for now!
Posted by: Rain | February 11, 2008 at 06:47 AM
Heard Hooley on OPB this morning talking about her retirement and other topics.
Turns out she's a Super Delegate who already "gave her word" to vote for Clinton unless she's "released" by the candidate. WHUH? Thanks for waiting to find out what WE wanted.
I don't know which is worse- winner-take-all or this Super Delegate nonsense.
Then again, Oregon doesn't have an open primary, so I don't get a voice anyway. ;)
-Mike
Posted by: Mike | February 11, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I would like to know why, Brian, Obama is your "man".
This is not intended as a challenge or to bait you, I am just interested in why people think he is "the one". What has he demonstrated that indicates he can handle the difficulties facing America? What philosophical values does he hold which you feel are better than his remaining competitors, McCain and Hillary?
He certainly is an excellent speaker, far more articulate than Bush, which I feel is a prerequisite for a national leader and the lack of this talent is part of the reason for Bush's downfall, but all I hear from Obama is glowing rhetoric about change and a new, better America. What do you believe he can accomplish that others haven't/couldn't? Why? He seems to be a nice, smart guy, but I see his following as a cult of personality rather than substance.
Why should I vote for him?
Posted by: Condor | February 11, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Condor, excellent questions. Here's why I strongly tilt toward Obama.
First, on "60 Minutes" last Sunday he said that a big difference between him and Clinton is that he wants to change the rules of the game, while she doesn't.
This rings true to me. I confess to nostalgia for the "change the world" optimism of the '60s. We thought that things could be different.
Not quantitatively, so to speak (more health care, more income equality), but qualitatively -- a fresh way people relate to each other.
Obama would be much better at reducing the divisions in this country between black and white, red and blue states, progressives and conservatives, and so on. That appeals to me a lot.
Further, and related to the above, it seems clear that Obama is more electable than Clinton. Moderates and independents are attracted more to him than to her. McCain will appeal to these people, in the absence of Obama. I don't want another Republican administration.
Policy wise, there isn't a whole lot of differnce between Obama and Clinton. Yes, she speaks in more detail than he does. But Obama clearly is capable of also being a policy "wonk."
On 60 Minutes he talked about this, saying that early in the campaign he was criticized for going on and on about policy details, boring people to death. Now he's being criticized for being all inspiration and no depth. Can't win.
Finally, he's simply more appealing to me than Clinton is. I like his sense of humor, his naturalness, his seeming humility. Clinton strikes me as someone who always relates through a facade, much as Bush does.
I'm tired of that. I'm ready for Obama.
Posted by: Brian | February 12, 2008 at 10:51 AM
"he wants to change the rules of the game, while she doesn't."....
Sounds good. Would be tough to do.
"We thought that things could be different."....
and found out otherwise.
"more health care, more income equality"....
Somebody's got to pay for it and when the government's involved, it's usually less efficient.
"Obama would be much better at reducing the divisions in this country between black and white"....
This would be a good thing. No more excuses about white oppression. The slavery thing is over..history. It doesn't play anymore. Jesse and Al would have to get another gig and quit playing the race card. Black president, black secretary of state, black defense secretary, black supreme court justice, black general, black billionaires, CEO's, doctors, judges, professors, scientists, geniuses and the list goes on. You can do more than jump, so pull yourself up by your boot-straps and make something out of your life. If they can do it, you can do it too. The American Dream is now realistically yours as well.
"Obama is more electable than Clinton."....
I think so too, but still may not have quite enough to beat McCain which is OK with me because McCain understands the fanatic islamic threat is real. I don't think Obama does. National security is most important to me and trumps everything else. Unfortunately, McCain is liberal about the border like Obama although McCain's trying to back-peddle off that stance now to gain conservatives' confidence. I'm not fooled. However, better 1-2 than 0-2 in my view.
"But Obama clearly is capable of also being a policy "wonk."....
Let's hear it, but I'm cringing.
"Now he's being criticized for being all inspiration and no depth. Can't win."...
Yes, unfortunately perception is in the hands of the media. They could give him a good shot at the office. I think they will.
"Finally, he's simply more appealing to me than Clinton is. I like his sense of humor, his naturalness, his seeming humility. Clinton strikes me as someone who always relates through a facade, much as Bush does."....
I agree, except I think Bush is misunderstood. Still, Bush blew it and now because of him even a good republican candidate will have a tougher row to hoe. McCain needs to remind Bush haters.."Hey, I'm not him."
"I'm ready for Obama."....
I'm not ready for any of them.
Posted by: Condor | February 12, 2008 at 04:02 PM
I'm for Obama also. McCain scares me. He's too eager to find war as a solution and seems to keep forgetting who attacked us vs who he is attacking. There should be a correlation. What I like about Obama is he is not saying he has all the answers. He's saying he would work with others to find them and apply them. He's not daddy. He's a partner leading the way. I don't want a president who has promised us the moon. I want one who's willing to work and use practical solutions to solve real problems. I think that person is Obama.
Posted by: Rain | February 13, 2008 at 09:25 AM
The super delegate system is a travesty to democracy. Our vote must be heard! We can not have our nominee selected for us!
I have made a protest site here:
http://www.popularprimaryvotenow.com
Please add your comments to this page. I will print them all out and hand them to the democratic national committee!
Posted by: avijit | February 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Rain--"What I like about Obama is he is not saying he has all the answers. He's saying he would work with others to find them and apply them."....
They all say that, for as long as I've been aware of presidential candidates. What Obama is saying is nothing new or original. Just the same old campaign rhetoric. All presidents have advisors, cabinets, committees and intelligence to help them make decisions. Don't be fooled. He has his ideology and will try to enact it.
Rain--"I don't want a president who has promised us the moon."....
Again, they all do that. Obama promises to change the way things work in Washington, and that is promising the moon. In fact, I think I'd bet on him delivering the moon before he delivers a change in the way things work in Washington.
Yeah, I'm a cynic, but I have good reason to be.
Posted by: Condor | February 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM