The existence of the super-delegates is a fraud and a scandal. Even today there is an article by a Dem. insider in the NY Times, "Super Delegates- Back-Off" by Tad Devine, former strategiest for Al Gore. It's hard for me to believe that the Dem. party would self-destruct, but anything is possible. If there is any hint of a "fix" - the super-delegates overturning the choice of a candidate who has the most elected delegates by voter choice- then there will be war of the worst kind, a split in the party, a convention walk-out, and a guarantee of a Republican victory in Nov. And the Dem. party would have discredited itself for a generation. If the insiders like Kulongoski and Hooley want to press their case to over-rule the choice of the voters to fix the outcome for their partisan choice, then we will need a brand new party for sure. The super-delegates need to stand-down now.. all of them! And let the voters decide, state by state. And at the Aug. convention the mere existence of the super-delegates should be eliminated. Their existence is a disgrace to the party.

I don't see the fraud. In a race as close as Clinton and Obama's, the "popular vote" could almost be decided by confusing ballots or the various state primary rules. Think about Michigan. An unregistered w/ party voter, like myself, could make the difference in a state like New Hampshire, but I don't have a say in the Oregon primary. Dropped-out, spoiler candidates could also make things unfair, something the GOP may have to deal with.

IMO, the system has weeded out the unpopular candidates. Let the superdelegates (who may personally met the candidates, instead of being influenced by thirty-second campaign ads) decide between the two options presented by the people, a sort of check and balance, another idea our democracy was founded on.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I suppose I'm contaminated some how with my past when I notice a mark that can't help to behave as a "loser" when they have every advantage to win. When a player plays not to loose. I have taken money off the table against many better players than I, it's easy, just create doubt in your opponent. It's the cancer that eats away at their confidence, and their ability to win.

When a player thinks they have to try not to loose, when they see failure behind every shot, behind every opportunity, it's best to stand back and politely speak sweet admirations, and let them beat themselves. The result 95% of the time is they do all the work for you, leave the nine ball hung up in the pocket after choking on the money shot.

This fortunately for Democrats is never going to happen!

Let me say that again for those "looser lobel" Democrats that can't help but see what happened in 2000 & 2004 and have waking nightmares of Republicans pulling off the miracle with McCain in the White House. This presumes the candidates are loosers, I'm here to tell you that either one of these candidates are WINNERS!

I would lay money on either candidates if Ronald Reagan's spirit were to possess McCain's body on RNC Convention Floor on national T.V. it would stil not help the Republican! The American electorate of most likely voters, primary voters, have been doubling the Republican turnout, and likely will be bigger in the general election.

I think this energy should be directed at voter registration. Let your panic be the fuel to volunteer for Obama, or Clinton! When the general election begins in earnest in August '08 and November '08 comes around let's show the Neo-Con what Americans really think of their vision for America. We'll gouge their eyes out with a landslide the likes never seen in my 32years of voting, and likely in American history.

I'm happy to lay money down, and stand back as the Republicans do all the work and hang the nine ball up in the pocket in the general. I'll be happy to pick-up that money.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

unelected "Super Delegates"

The word I had was some of these positions are held by the likes of US Senators, Governors, etc. Most gain these positions through an election. If folks don't know who are super delegates, should their ignorance rule the situation? Haven't we had enough of that kind of government?

...another idea our democracy was founded on.

You mean like "one person, one vote."

It's always nice to see Democrats argue that a tiny group of elites should decide the election, or that certain people should be rewarded with "super" election powers that defeat the principle of one person one vote.

Kaleb and Evan's lack of faith in democracy by The People would make Wayne Morse roll over in his grave: "Why you're a man of little faith in democracy if you make that kind of a comment. I have complete faith in the ability of the American people to follow the facts if you'll give them."

The question is, "If the insiders in the Democratic Party overrule the choice of the party's members, will Democrats behave as democratic republicans or sheep?"

Barring some startling event that causes a vote stampede towards one of either Obama or Clinton, it is now certain that the superdelegates will wind up deciding the nomination. Look, the closeness of the race is radically different than anything seen for 40 to 50 years. Regardless which candidate wins, the difference in delegate numbers is going to be small. But does this translate into "disenfranchising" the minority? Not obviously. Not unless some truly odious shenanigans become apparent. So angst-filled speculation about the fix being in may be appealing to some, but not obviously merited.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

The Super-Delegates will follow the will of the Party, the will of it's voters in this election, and don't see a movement that would usurp the will of the primarys and caucusses.

This is another 'loser's' mentality that would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, fortunately we have two true WINNERS left on the ticket, and either one will choose to WIN!

I stil don't hear anybody making a line on whether the Super Delegates will pooch this Democratic election? I'm happy to make that bet!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

This last week I've been watching the "super delegate" issue coming at us from the media.

Frankly, its bullshit.

First, for any worst case scenario to arise, we would have to have a race over turned by the Super Delegates. We have way to many votes yet to be cast for us to be at that turn. The convention in Denver is still a long time in the future.

So, why the debate now?

Voter suppression. This media sponsored issue will have only one effect, to reduce voter turnout. If my vote doesn't count, why vote?

Who Gains? Well, Republicans gain of course. And remember who owns the media...

In reality, the Super Delegates would be delegates no matter. When we vote in our elections or caucases, we are not electing delegates directly, we are telling our delegates who to vote for. If there were no Super delegates, these people would squeeze out local people at the Congressional District level to get the seats at the convention. By keeping the State Central Committee officers, the members of the Democratic National Committee, a few appointed people who otherwise do good works for the Democratic Party, and the elected Democrats as Super Delegates -- democracy is enhanced as that frees up more seats for local people from our Congressional Districts to attend the convention.

Please people, be careful what you grasp onto from the media. This is a bullshit issue from top to bottom.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I hate this constant worrying, this constant complaining about the choice being the problem, their both progressive Democrats, their are both candidates that can win in Novemeber '08, yet we angst, we play not to loose.

I have faith in the candidates! They are not going to be remembered as the reason why Republicans won in a year projected to be a landslide for Democrats. Let's not make voters anxiety for which winner to pick cost us the general election by shooting ourselves between the eyes while the Republicans coyly tell us how much we should win by.

Come time for primary ballots make your vote for whom you like, and be assured that you'll be at the polls in November '08, and bring a few voters you registered with you.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

"Far from being the "small elite" described by Pat, there are nearly 800 superdelegates."

Compare that with how many millions of votes cast in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, and it's not just a relatively small elite, it is microscopic.

"Let's keep in mind that this is a party nomination, not a general election. There are no constitutionally protected voting rights at stake here"

No, but a political party's integrity is.

"Where is the democratic outrage at the specter of a few tens of thousands of Nevadans and a few hundred thousand Iowans having such a influential voice in the nomination process?"

Well, the facts on the ground (i.e. the contest continues quite vigorously) are that Iowa and Nevada haven't been all that influential in deciding the final outcome.

"democracy is enhanced as that frees up more seats for local people from our Congressional Districts to attend the convention."

The idea that democracy is greatly enhanced because the "super" delegates allow a few extra party activists to get an invite to the convention is, umm, interesting.

All this angst works well as a full-employment act for the professional campaign advisers and wannabes, and it probably boosts sales of Zantac and Prilosec. Clearly it's a even cabal by the candidates in league with Big Pharma.

Paulie … Which “popular vote” are you referring to? The delegate count? Total vote count? Some hybrid that pro rates the caucus results in those states and projects it to an assumed total of votes had there actually been a primary?

Total vote count – which certainly emphasizes results in big states – would seem to be the best measure. By that standard, Hillary would almost certainly get the superdelegate support if she wins Texas and either Ohio or Pennsylvania. That won’t sit well with the Obama supporters.

Obama has scored big in caucus states, but those participating in causes aren’t necessarily representative of a state’s total population. The party faithful, young voters, urban residents, and those who are wealthier are disproportionately represented. That’s Obama’s following. It’s one thing to ask people to spend a few minutes voting. It’s another to require that they spend several hours traveling to a site and spending several hours at a meeting. People who are working, who live far from the caucus sites, and those who simply have more pressing matters to deal with (like attending their kids’ basketball games) may have strong feelings, but don’t get a say.

Hillary won the California primary by 400,000 votes and won about 45 more delegates than Obama. While we won’t know for certain for a few days, it looks as though Obama won about that many more than Clinton in the Washington and Nebraska caucuses. His total margin of victory between the two: about 24,000 votes. This certainly doesn't look like "one man, one vote."

Obama has done very well in many small and moderate-sized states that the Dems have little or no chance of winning this fall (Idaho, Utah, Alabama, North Dakota, Georgia). Hillary is winning larger states that are essential, including Michigan and Florida (yes, those count, too, if we’re making a case for the superdelegates.)

When you claim, “the fix is in,” you might be right. I’m just not sure which side the fix is in for. Right now, the playing field seems to be titled in Obama’s favor, even though he isn’t getting the majority of the actual votes.

To my Democrat friends:

As a pseudo political scientist, I have to admit that what is shaping up in the Democrat primary is truly fascinating. So much so that I actually watched Meet the Press to try and learn what the potential scenarios are in choosing your party's nominee.

I know, I know. You are probably reading this saying "Ross is a Republican, who cares what he thinks." And you are probably right. So I have a question. I have read the 19 previous comments, and I cannot figure out what the general consensus is on Blue: does the likelihood that the superdelegates will ultimately decide who the Democrat nominee is going to be bother the grassroots Democrats or not?

Also, aside from the fact that you can draw your own conclusions from simple arithmetic, bear in mind that the news media bringing you the "smoke-filled roomful of superdelegates" scenario are the same news media bringing you the highly accurate polls (yes, many are commissioned by news agencies) that successfully predicted Obama's victory in New Hampshire and the tie in California, for example.

The problem with super delegates deciding the party's nominee is that it suggests a parallel with the Supreme Court deciding who the president would be in 2000 by over-ruling the majority of the people. In your calculations, you should not leave perception out of the equation.

Steve Bucknam is exactly right. This is part of the narrative that the media has been constructing: that the evil Clintons will “steal” the nomination and the Obama voters will sit out the general election.

And let’s make no mistake about it, despite the half-hearted attempts to be neutral, this narrative only goes one way. It’s the underhanded Clinton "machine" versus Obama, the candidate who presumably would win if the system wasn’t rigged.

Nevermind that millions of people have voted for Hillary Clinton… all those votes must have been stolen too, right? The Clintons will stop at nothing.

Please people.

J

In one hypothetical case, we disenfranchise the 50.1% of the voters who support candidate A. In the other, we disenfranchise the 49.9% of voters who support candidate B.

Evan, if the Superdelegates decide this, about half of the voters will be disappointed, but <u>100%</u> of the voters will be disenfranchised.

OK, I find this really interesting because 20 years ago I was immersed in all the arcane knowledge about delegate selection and party rules, and after that was over thought the knowledge would never be useful again.

First of all, a convention has power. Unless things have changed, the permanent members of the Rules and Credentials Committee will be chosen state by state as part of the delegate selection process: Obama states choosing Obama committee members, Clinton states choosing Clinton committee members, etc. Oregon elects members to the committees by votes among those voting on delegates, etc.

Regardless of what the press or anyone else may say, individuals have power. The Mondale people in 1984 tried to depose DNC Chair Manatt just before the convention, and Oregon's DNC member Larryanne Willis contacted other DNC members and discovered they didn't have the votes on the DNC to do that. Then she let the Mondale people know they would look bad if their attempt was not ratified by the actual DNC meeting at the end of the convention.

You should have heard the roar of applause the first time DNC Chair Manatt appeared on the stage of the convention--a rebuke to that attempted behind the scenes action!

In 1980, there were Oregon delegates I knew who talked about supporting one candidate for the nomination and another candidate on procedural issues. Just because we have lived through a period of cut-and-dried politics where grass roots activists had little or no voice, do not believe this is true now.

Our DNC members should have access to the Official Proceedings of the 1984 Democratic National Convention, as well as any former delegate who hung onto their copy (as I did). It lists all the delegates (although they got someone's address wrong in the Oregon delegation) all the members of the Committees (RP Joe Smith is listed on the Platform Comm., although many people now may know him more as the Dad of Jefferson Smith of the Bus Project and husband of DPO chair, he was also once state chair.)

On p. 201 the discussion of the Rules Committee report begins with speeches by Pat Schroeder and Maynard Jackson. That was a very important part of the convention, as it dealt with complaints about the delegate selection process and the creation of the Fairness Commission to adjudicate disputes. It was negotiated between the Mondale, Hart, Jackson campaigns and other groups. There is a difference between negotiations and brokering.

Among other things, the adopted report set the maximum delegate threshold at 15% and required caucuses to be held at the smallest voting unit used in other elections (pct. etc.) so people would not have to travel long distances. One of the Fairness Comm. issues had to do with what the Mondale people had forced Wisconsin to do (regardless of decades of experience otherwise, they were forced to elect delegates by caucus), and any solution to the Michigan/Florida problem (are they going to say rules aren't rules?) should keep that precedent in mind.

We have an Oregon DNC member named Jenny G. who was elected after the surge in Dean supporters in Oregon. She voted to elect Howard Dean the DNC Chair. Dean wrote the book YOU HAVE THE POWER, and if he or anyone on the DNC wants to go back on that and do something behind the scenes, each of us has the power to do any number of things, including: involvement in the delegate selection process here shaming anyone who advocates back room brokering of superdelegates into remembering Fannie Lou Hamer * finding a way to contact every sitting DNC member (there should be contact info. somewhere) and saying that if the DNC website says open and honest elections are a priority, they'd better live that motto with regard to the national nominating convention.

Hamer was mentioned early in the Schroeder speech in 1984, and is the reason we have such structured delegate selection rules. If you do not know the story, Google the name Fannie Lou Hamer and Miss. Freedom Democrats and educate yourself.

The last thing the Democratic Party wants to go into history doing this year is to have the kind of contentious situation seen with Hamer and others in 1964 in a year where the 2 top contenders couldn't have been imagined back then: a woman and an African American.

Very interesting discussion on Meet the Press today, with these quotes below this paragraph being especially relevant. The fix is not yet in, and anyone who worries about this should contact the DNC members from Oregon, AND let Howard Dean know that "You have the power" clashes with some kind of agreement among superdelegates behind the scenes. Do not think superdelegates are a bloc plotting behind the scenes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23095171/page/4/ MR. TODD: Right. And so why do you participate in caucuses? Because that's where you can continue to win delegates. But let me throw in one big monkey wrench in all this, about these caucuses. When--there are delegates that are allocated to Obama that he's winning. All of these caucuses still have to go through state conventions and district conventions. And that's where--for instance, in '84, that's where Walter Mondale cleaned up and stole delegates, basically, from Gary Hart. Gary Hart would win in places, and they would go to the state conventions and somehow outmaneuver them.

<hr/> <h2>MR. DAVID BRODER: Well, this is a year where the scenarios have been invariably wrong. And so if our current scenario is it's all going to come down to the superdelegates, that's probably going to be wrong.</h2>

Ted Devine, who was the delegate counter for Walter Mondale way back in 1984, wrote in today's New York Times the following: "In the 1984 Democratic primary the superdelegates did the work they were created to do: They provided the margin of victory to the candidate who had won the most support from primary and caucus voters. "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." And, David, you mentioned Donna Brazile. She said this. She was campaign manager for Al Gore. "Superdelegates, in my judgment, should not decide this election. The last thing we need is politicians and insiders deciding this election. We need to let the voters decide this election. I think if 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I'll quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly."

Gwen: MS. IFILL: She actually is--has, has edited herself to say she would quit her position on the Democratic National Committee, not the party. But I do think that goes to the point that David was making, which is there's--there is a real fairness question.

It might be a good idea to consider changing the system regarding super-delegates AND caucuses, which are not a popular vote at all and are questionable due to group pressure and the lack of basic democratic protections like a secret ballot. But we shouldn't change the system in the middle of the process just because Obama supporters are afraid to have an open convention and allow delegates to make up their own minds. You're already shouting and chanting louder than anyone else. Yelling even louder will not help.

The word "democratic" in Democratic Party is worthy of a large belly laugh of contempt if we have a nomination determined by party officials, over that candidate who gains the most elected delegates. And the Democratic "brand" would certainly be held in utter ridicule should this happen. There are many, many progressives who have held out some thread of hope for this organization who are ready to go to the Greens or elsewhere if the insiders are so insistent in maintaining the Clinton co-presidency in power in order to quell an insurgent candidate.

That said I do believe the Obama express is gaining steam and the party bosses may find themselves overwhelmed and getting on board.

Superdelegates...the very term upsets my sensibilities and my (apparently naive) perception of democracy and the Democratic Party. The idea that any group of Democrats should have the ultimate power to override the popular vote and the will of the people chills me. The implication that someone who has served in public office is wiser and more important than any other delegates seems feudal to me.

Who coined the term super-delegates? Could we be a bit more honest and call them the Decider-delegates? The Over-ride delegates? Power-delegates? How 'bout Omnipotent-delegates?

Many interesting comments on this issue of Super Delegates. None, however, have commented on DNC Chair Howard Dean's reported statement to the NY Times, copied below. I greatly admire Dean's hard work to organize the Dems from the grassroots up, and his comments may be have taken out of context. Nonetheless, as an Oregon voter who must wait until May to cast my vote, I found them alarming, and yes, "disenfranchising." The excitement of this race has been terrific for party building, and I will work for our Democratic nominee, both good candidates, whichever one it is. But once we have the White House, I'll take a good look at sticking around with the Dem Party IF there has been wheeling and and back-room dealing. Anyone deeply concerned should let Dean and the DNC, and our Oregon superdelegates know how strongly they feel. Here's the excerpt from the New York Times, 2/7/2008, “Obama and Clinton Brace for Long Run” by Patrick Healy

<hr/>

The narrow margin in delegates, and the growing likelihood that it will remain close, prompted concern on Wednesday from the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, who said Tuesday night that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should avoid taking the nominating fight all the way to the party convention in August.

“I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April,” Mr. Dean said Wednesday on the NY1 cable news channel, “but if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention; that would not be good news for either party.”

An adviser to Mr. Dean said Wednesday that he had not discussed the idea with either candidate.

“He was essentially laying down a marker that if need be, he is prepared to step in and try to help resolve the situation,” the adviser said.

Yeah....I can't help but compare the super delegate rule in the Dem party to the Patriot Act, (or some of Bush's Signing Statements, the way these things just slip into the record when no one is looking). Now I know that's going to tick off some people. But think about it...they are similar types of beasts. Conceived in the heat of the distracted moment, phrased in terms to candy coat the reality, sold to the public wrapped in the semantics of democracy and national pride, but untimately serving to strip rights and power from The People.

As far as this election cycle goes you just gotta wonder What Next? And we thought 2000 and 2004 were corkers.

It's like a light bulb went on and someone figured out 'hey, most folks don't have a clue about their rights, and don't understand any of the election process, They TRUST that nothing bad can happen to their right to vote in this democracy..... so we can just go ahead with whatever nefarious schemes we want, as long as we SAY it's for the common good.' After all this is America, home of the bold.

Super Donkey my ass. Pun intended. Maybe it's time to stop using that logo....the implications are getting nasty.

Voter suppression. This media sponsored issue will have only one effect, to reduce voter turnout. If my vote doesn't count, why vote?

Voter suppression has been practiced by both parties for generations. There is nothing unique about its application to this election regardless of what the corporate media might be up to. With Obama encouraging young people to become active in politics the party oligarchs must be giving some thought about how to discourage this civic activity. We don't want the people calling the shots, do we? Otherwise, we might have to initiate impeachment hearings against Cheney and Bush and bring the war on Iraq to an end. Let the party leaders collude and decide what is best for the rabble - and the parties' corporate sponsors.

Bill R said: The word 'democratic' in Democratic Party is worthy of a large belly laugh of contempt if we have a nomination determined by party officials.

The following are majority positions among Americans, and overwhelmingly majority positions among Democrats: end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the vice president, create single-payer not-for-profit universal health coverage, withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, and slash the Pentagon budget in order to invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy.

This is not the "loony left" of the party; it is the CENTER of American politics. So what does Obamary have to do with democracy? The belly-laugh you fear to hear already is a bipartisan phenomenon. It is one of contempt for democracy.

The fix was in a long time ago. The fix is what prevented Kucinich, the only Democrat candidate worthy of the name "progressive" from being able to compete effectively.

It was about being able to raise money from the fixers by proving one's corporatist/hegemonist credibility to the fixers.

Progressive Democrats have already lost, no matter what happens in the remaining nominating process or the general election.

So, if we are going to become concerned with democratic process, let's figure out how to wrest control of the presidential debates from from the corporate media. I'd much rather have the Democratic candidate selected by party insiders than by GE, Rupert Murdoch, and Microsoft.

The fix was in a long time ago. The fix is what prevented Kucinich, the only Democrat candidate worthy of the name "progressive" from being able to compete effectively.

While the oligarchs and corporate media had much to do with sidelining Kucinich, party members - that is, Democrats instead of democrats - colluded with them for one reason or another.

I'd like someone explain to me how super delegates, many of whom (as noted) are elected officials, are any less representative of the Democratic Party than the tiny percentage of voters who participate in caucuses, all of which have been won by Obama.

I have to agree with those who see this as a phony 'crisis' kept alive by the media. Not to mention Obamaniacs.

Thanks, Steve. You saw Superdelegates debated in a group which has the ability to let them (and others in the party) know where they stand.

I believe that the people who have the best handle on the situation are people who have lived through previous contested nominations.

And someone (maybe one of the superdelegates) said that if those superdelegates went with whoever had the most votes or delegates at the end of the primaries, that's the way the system is supposed to work. But if they didn't, it would be time to change the system.

And the national convention would be a great place if anyone wanted to change the system.

Right now, the playing field seems to be tilted in Obama’s favor, even though he isn’t getting the majority of the actual votes.

Not true. Obama has received the majority of votes cast so far in the Democratic primary, at least according to the Meet the Press calculation from this morning. Maybe someone else can find the specifics, but it pointed out that Obama is winning by about 1 percentage point in the overall popular vote.

All these conspiracy theories.

1) Caucuses are by definition undemocratic - only certain people can attend (i.e. people who aren't working at the time, etc. unlike an election that you go in, vote, leave), in most of them so far you did not have to be a Democrat to participate. There is a problem that caucuses are open to a small group (as few as 2% of the party) dominating them and hijacking the nomination; to prevent this the party created superdelegates - people who have a vested interest in protecting the party: elected officials and party officials.

2) Party primaries and caucuses are regulated not by the 17th amendment but by party rules (the party need not have either, it's up to that state).

3) The notion that "superdelegates are going to steal the election' from someone who is winning caucuses but not so much primaries (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, etc.) is patently ridiculous. The superdelegates are split at this point 60 / 40 similar to the primaries Clinton / Obama as opposed to the caucuses.

4) watch also where each wins: Obama is winning in the republican states who are likely to vote for the republican candidate in November. Clinton is winning in the large democratic states that are likely to vote for a Democrat in November. Why?

Some obvious falsehoods:

1. "This is a corporate media conspiracy." Please. Some of us have been worried about this since long before the media started writing about it this week. Trying to discredit the millions of Demcrats who are troubled by this by saying that we've all been fooled by the media is a losing, insulting strategy. You can do better than that.

2. "The only ones concerned about this are Obama supporters trying to ensure his victory." Well, I think Obama supporters are more concerned than Clinton supporters because he has won more of the popular vote, has won more states, and has won more real (pledged) delegates -- yet he's losing the superdelegate "vote". So he certainly has the most to lose. But Obama supporters like myself are arguing a more principled point. I want the superdelegates to confirm the real delegate count, not overturn it, no matter who is ahead. I first said that before Obama took the lead in real delegates.

Those who are downplaying this issue, or patting on the head those of us concerned, are in danger of making a huge strategic blunder. I have never voted for a Republican in my life and I will be happy to support either Clinton or Obama in November. But if the superdelegates change the outcome of this nominating process, I'm going to think long and hard about whether to support my party's nominee. Elections matter, even if the leaders of our party don't like the outcome.

Jenni, can you show me one of Oregon's superdelegates who, when running for office, talked about their role as a superdelegate? Just because someone is elected to an unrelated office doesn't give them credibility to overturn the votes of Democratic party members.

You don't think they will overturn the votes -- and neither do I. But why is it even an option? And if you think they SHOULD go with the will of party members, why not just come out and say the superdelegate system is bad? So far, the main argument is "Don't worry, they'll do the right thing." What I want to hear is someone argue why they should have the power to do the wrong thing in the first place.

By the way, Oregon's superdelegates are: Hooley (Clinton) Kulongoski (Clinton) Blumenauer (Obama) Wu (uncommitted) DeFazio (uncommitted) Wyden (uncommitted) Meredith Woods-Smith (uncommitted) Frank Dixon (uncommitted) Jenny Greenleaf (uncommitted) Wayne Kinney (uncommitted) Gail Rasmussen (uncommitted) Bill Bradbury (uncommitted)

Frank Dixon (uncommitted), Gail Rasmussen (uncommitted)---I'm a political junkie and I don't know who those people are! The others are elected officials or elected to party office (DNC members, state chair). Has the system changed so that the state uncommitted delegates who are not party officials are chosen before our primary and our delegate selection process?

Eric, the idea that Obama is only winning caucuses and not primaries is ridiculous. He has won the following nine primaries:

SC, AL, CT, DE, GA, IL, MO, UT, LA

After Tuesday, when he wins three more, he'll have 12 primary victories -- the same number as Clinton.

As for where he's winning, the question is not whether he'll capture the Democratic voters that Clinton is capturing. That is almost assured. It's whether he'll put into play states that Clinton will never compete in.

Miles ... According to the green papers.com, as of February 6, Hillary Clinton had a 415,669 popular vote lead. Obama may have done well this weekend, but he certainly didn't make up that kind of deficit in a couple of caucuses (as I posted previously, the difference in Washington and Nebraska combined was only about 24,000 votes) and one small state primary (Louisiana).

I say the "fix" still rests with "we the people".

Its time to pull together in support of the strongest candidate.

The candidate who has won 19 States.

The candidate that will put the South in play and win were McCain can't.

The candidate that by the end of February will have won ten contests in a row all over the U.S.

The candidate whose map of victories looks like a map of the U.S.

The candidate who can win the Independent vote, and yes also win the support of many Republicans.

The candidate who beats McCain head to head.

That candidate is Senator Barack Obama.

And we are the fix.

These "elected" party officials. I don't recall when they took their oath of office it included their taking on the responsibility for choosing the presidential nominee of the Democratic party, nor was that defined as their duties in the voters pamphlet. It is certainly a specious argument that because they were elected for other duties they were delegated the right to choose our nominee for us.

My request as a constituent and member of the Democratic party to those who are Oregon super-delegates is to stand down and not commit to any candidate, and if that becomes required, to second that candidate who has been chosen by the voters of Oregon. Otherwise those who are uncommitted should stay uncommitted and those who have committed to a candidate should withdraw their commitment until this matter is resolved in a way that restores trust to the Democratic voter, and integrity to the Democratic party rules and structure.

According to the green papers.com, as of February 6, Hillary Clinton had a 415,669 popular vote lead.

Here's the transcript segment from Meet the Press:

Adding up all the votes each of the candidates has gotten thus far, Obama 8,228,000, Clinton 8,028,000; 48.4-to 47.3. Obama has won 18 states, Clinton has won 10 states. One, New Mexico, still too close to call.

Thank you Miles--that is what I remembered.

I don't like the idea of a brokered convention, I have my favorite, but here's the deal.

Whether you like it or not, these people were elected, and they are Democrats. You may have voted for them, or not. If it is the DPO end of the deal that's offending you, you have been invited repeatedly to be a part of solutions and either you have stepped up or you have not. If you were active in the DPO, you have had an opportunity to choose these people, if you were not active, you have been invited. You have been pled with to come and play with us.

There is not elite inside DPO that's running things, anyone of these folks could as easily be your neighbor no matter where you live and some have exactly the same kinds of problems you do, like not much income and now laid-off (absolutely true of a Super Delegate). It does not get much more grassroots, plain folks than this - except, they gave enough of a damn to try to do something and you...you whined? You can just back your damned disenfranchised train up. You elected or could have elected these people, your choosing not to is your deal, not some act of treason.

Jenni, you are providing excellent information. It can't be provided too often. Chuck, I agree with you about being involved. I was a state central comm. member 20 years ago.

However, if you add up everyone who has been a pct. person, a state or district cent. comm. delegate or alternate, a county party officer, or any other party activist in the last couple decades, they will still be a fraction of the total voting population. Parents of small children (I have 2 grandnephews--one a bit over a year old, another a few days old) have other things to worry about than politics. So do other people with busy lives. An educational service of a blog like this could be to provide more of the nitty gritty information such as Jenni provided so that anyone reading this blog could learn about the officers of the party and how they are selected.

That's one end of the problem. The other end is that if Tad Devine (who, among other things, counted delegates for Mondale) and Donna Brazile (campaign manager for Gore) are expressing discomfort with some of what is happening with superdelegates, they are not doing so because they have not been active in politics.

AND, never forget, there are people who have been active in party politics for a long time---that doesn't mean they always like the results of party elections. They may have been active and dropped out long enough ago that they don't know the current name of the vice chairs. So let's quit the generalizing. It would be more useful to provide information to people so they can make their own conclusions.

And if you really don't like the process, express your dislikes to those who can do something about it---DNC members and the Rules Committee. Find out if Oregon gets to choose national convention Rules Comm. members during state delegate selection.

I read a post like Chuck's and I wonder if he even read the other comments.

Let's repeat. This has nothing to do with WHO the superdelegates are. They could all be Mother Teresa's, it still wouldn't change the fact that they should not have the power to override the votes of Democratic party members in terms of who we want to nominate for president.

What I hear you saying Chuck (and Steve and Eric and Jenni) is that you do believe a handful of people should have that power. Except you don't seem to have the guts to say it directly, you wrap it in bromides like "They were elected" and "They'll do the right thing" and "They've been part of the process for a long time" -- all of which is irrelevant. It's the wrong way to run a party. The sooner the party leaders recognize that, the sooner they can figure out a way to avoid disaster.

Miles, I suggest you talk as soon as possible (offline--preferably in a conversation, if not in an email or other form of communication) with our DNC members, and find out if the Oregon delegate selection process also elects Oregon's members to the national Rules Comm.

Then find out who the members of the State Dem. Rules Comm. are and have the same conversation with them. They are the people most likely to be able to change the current system.

Although this issue may be fresh here, I've been blogging against the inclusion of super delegates for quite some time. These are not bad people, and as stated by many, most were elected to positions of responsibility. I'd love to see them represent us at the convention. However that is not the issue. Let them represent us as pledged delegates, if their preferred candidates garner sufficient support. The argument that this is the party's nomination, not a general election, does not hold water. The voters ARE the party. Were a situation to arise in which the super delegates, who represent 20% of the convention votes, tipped the nomination to the candidate who was behind in pledged delegates, it would spark divisions in the party that could be too deep to heal.

So it looks like in this discussion that the party insiders are making the case that they are the real party and that the registered Dem. voters are not the party. As such they, party officials, decide in the end who the nominee will be through their chosen super delegates, because what really matters is not a democratic process, but but that party control rest in the hands of those who really are the party, namely them. And those who "aren't" the party should not complain about the lack of democratic process because we should have known all along that it was rigged process. I have been a precinct rep. but it never occurred to me that "I" was the party. So I guess these attitudes are something of a revelation to me and should be more widely know to voters when they make their choices. I guess John Edwards was right. It's a rigged system,from the party all the way to Washington.

I read the comments.

Let's get a couple things straight, Will of the voters,

In any form of election it is an expession of the people who have cared enough to Vote

In a caucus the people who care enough to come out and participate in the process, a rather time consuming and potentially frustrating process, get counted. This is a slice of the voters, generally a small fraction of the registered voters.

In a Primary your participation may hinge on several conditions, whether you bother, what the rules concerning participation are, finally the mechanism (vote by mail, absentee, ballot box, electronic machine) and all of these have an effect. The Oregon Primary will be closed this year, as it has for the past several cycles, the requirement is a (D) on a registration form.

Any election format provides for some pitfalls, it is a human exercise in a contentious process, there will be failures in fairness or perceived failures. In certain regards the caucuses are fairest to the Party, people who care tend to pay attention and not play eenie, meenie, minee... and vote for strongly held convictions. This is an expression of strong support and organization, the stuff that translates to General Election work. The pitfall is obvious, those who don't care enough to do it, aren't included, making this a small percentage.

Vote by mail has some participation strong points and weak points, accusations of fraud & coercion (mostly BS, but...) a devaluing of the value, it is plainly easy, forgotten ballots... I like OR's mail-in system, but...

Every system has flaws and strong points, the appellation super delegate creates a perception of elite out of the gate, they are uncomitted delegates. They are voter representatives in waiting. You elect these folks or could. Pete DeFazio is suddenly an elite so-and-so who shouldn't be trusted with the will of the voters? What exactly is his job description? To do that?

If the percentage of active (in this state) DPO's offends you, where were you when the County Party held its meeting? I don't get just what I want at DPO, I've been on the losing end of quite a few votes, I'm still there. These folks aren't that different from Caucus voters, they are the ones who care enough to participate. From the person who just has a (D) after their name, there are a lot of vote levels, you elect the PCPs, the County officers are elected by PCPs, the delegates to State Central Committee are elected by PCPs and those delegates elect the Central Committee officers who end up being super delegates, the election string may be involved and you may not participate directly in the selection of those, Chair, Vice, DNC Committee People, but all along the way you have been begged to participate. You refuse to play and then call the players an elite? They are your elected representatives acting in a democratic manner, following your decision to place them in a position of responsibility. Do you propose to state that the fact that active County membership numbers of 0.5% of registered voters is the fault of those who beg you to make it better? What were you doing for one Thursday (??) a month from 7PM-9PM that was soooooo important? You've been pleaded with to make your voice heard, but... PCP's have phone numbers, their addresses are published, they are known or should be. We ran for office to represent at the most basic level what the Democrats would have a responsible represntative express, our names were on your ballot - for your neighborhood.

I don't know who the State Chair, etc will support. I voted for this slate and I trust them to think deeply and carefully. I know who I'd like them to support, but I gave my trust to them, now I have to live with it. These people made their cases to the County and to me as a delegate, I reported honestly to my County and made my considered reccomendations, and as a free agent I still reflected my County's wishes. One way or another in my County you voted for me to do so.

This State will apportion 2/3 (approx) of its delegates with a direct vote, the rest will have been elected by you in one form or another.

2. "The only ones concerned about this are Obama supporters trying to ensure his victory." Well, I think Obama supporters are more concerned than Clinton supporters because he has won more of the popular vote, has won more states, and has won more real (pledged) delegates -- yet he's losing the superdelegate "vote".

There is also the point that many people consider the Clintons to be ethically challenged, and they are disturbed by the thought the Clintons might win in an unfair manner when Obama supporters would like to see the "nice" guy win for a change.

Can anyone tell me what percentage of the superdelegates earn $50,000.00/year or less like 80% of the voters?

What percentage of the SD are African American, Asian, Hispanic, &/or women?

Are the super delegates required to reveal their votes at the convention?

I agree with Jenni's concerns:

I do think they should look at the super delegates process and make some changes. Maybe they should move all the elected officials (governor, Congress, etc) into the PLEO (Party Leader Elected Official) category since so many of them already pledge themselves to a candidate anyway. "Party leader" means officers of county parties, officers of the state party other than chair and (in this case, male) vice chair, officers of the Congressional Districts, etc. "Elected official" is any elected official - city council, county commission, legislator, etc., but does not include PCPs.

I'm hesitant to make the DNC Committeeman and Committeewoman and the DPO Chair and Vice Chair pledged delegates.

You never know how things will work out from one election to the next. In one state in 1984, lots of people had signed up to be Hart or Mondale delegates in advance of the primary. Hart won so many votes that in order to fill the Party Leader slots they ended up in some cases choosing pct. people because so many Hart supporters did not hold party office.

There should NOT be pledged party officers, or we could end up with a mess like the guy in Washington State stopping vote counting before getting to 100% of the vote. One of the best county chairs I ever knew kept the peace during a contentious primary by letting no one know how she was going to vote in that primary.

"You refuse to play and then call the players an elite?"

Of course. We want rights, not responsibilities.

(1) Telling others what to do, (2) expecting them to do the work ('cuz we're too busy paying for our choices, or no one has begged us hard enough yet), then (3) whining when we don't get our way ... is the American Way.

And it's working really well for us, ain't it?

Looking at the truth: Your handle sounds like a loren parks political ad. Beat up on Chris if it makes you feel better, but he makes good points without being snarky. You act like you're all involved and so you own the football and the game. Don't forget who's paying for the field. I'm with Chris, if Democrats can't be democratic, I don't want to be a democrat.

paul g. said: But arguments about disenfranchisement or inequity are both irrelevant and are undermined by the many other ways that the primary process is very poorly representative of the party.

The primary process and most other political processes are very poorly representative of the people.

The duopoly not only fails to represent its own membership, but shows profound contempt for them whenever stress is sufficient to reveal the true power dynamics.

Here's a challenge for those who I think are beginning to see the light: Don't wait for your party "leaders" to betray you one more time; leave now and work from outside to create fundamental change. Choose representatives of yourselves, not "leaders" who represent interests that are opposed to your interests.

You Democrats understand very well that Republicans consistently undermine their own interests. You need to see that the same is true for you.

The problem with most organizations, including those that are supposed to be structured democratically, is that they all too frequently evolve into autocracies with leaders having little regard for the members.

Unfortunately, Bill if the Republicans win, the U.S. will continue its slide into bankruptcy and women can forget about any control over their own bodies.

I wrote: The problem with most organizations, including those that are supposed to be structured democratically, is that they all too frequently evolve into autocracies with leaders having little regard for the members.

SC wrote: Unfortunately, Bill if the Republicans win, the U.S. will continue its slide into bankruptcy and women can forget about any control over their own bodies.

I was not referring specifically to the Democratic Party but most organizations run by people which would include the Republican Party and other political organizations, unions, religious organizations, many 501(c)3 groups, and others. This is simply an aspect of human nature that applies across the spectrum with few exceptions.

<h2>As for the issue of superdelegates, the one indisputable fact is that it is controversial which makes a good argument that it is a flawed system that needs to be changed.</h2>