Does anyone want to retract or amend their earlier statements?

As many of us argued in past posts (and I wish you would read those comments carefully), our opposition was not that superdelegates were going for Clinton instead of Obama, it was that superdelegates were in a position to decide the nomination in the first place. Anger was directed at Clinton because 1) she had more superdelegates but fewer wins and fewer votes and 2) her campaign admitted that its strategy was to win the nomination through the use of superdelegates -- actual voters be damned.

Isn't this precisely how we'd want the superdelegates to function?

The main argument that you and others have made in favor of superdelegates is that "In the end, they'll do the right thing. Trust them." But you have not explained why a system where the superdelegates have the power to overturn the wishes of party members is superior to a system where they don't. If all delegates were pledged you would never have a brokered convention, except in the rare case where you had three strong candidates. In such a case, all delegates could be released after the first ballot, not just the party elites.

I'm an Obama supporter, but my opposition to superdelegates is more principled than that. I don't support a party that doesn't trust its own members. I am not afraid of the Democratic masses, even though among primary voters I often find myself standing to the right of everyone else.

To settle this super delegate matter. Why not give the super delgate to the person that wins that state. Not precinct, district or whatever. Simple for example obamma won wisconsin-all super delegates go to him. Clinton won Massachesetts all super delegates from Mass. go to her. I bet kennedy, kerry, and deval would like that idea? right

But you have not explained why a system where the superdelegates have the power to overturn the wishes of party members is superior to a system where they don't.

I don't support a party that doesn't trust its own members.

Party members? Huh? First, what in the world is that phrase even supposed to mean? Hm--can't just be primary voters, since in some states they needn't even be registered D's. Second, aren't those superdelegates also "party members"?

People have been spinning this stuff to suit themselves for weeks now. It's all pretty damn tiresome, especially since anyone who wishes could go back to the historical record and see what the superdelegate scheme was all about to begin with.

Personally, I'm hoping that after Barack Obama wins the Texas primary next Tuesday and Hillary Clinton then announces that Texas doesn't count, either--and that she's going on to the bitter end--that the supers will stampede towards Obama. Someone needs to put an end to Sen. Clinton's delusions.

Her delusions? Wow.

I was under the impression they both needed to win. Silly me.

In response to Paul Gronke's post, here is an op-ed I wrote about a week ago. It never got published and complements Paul's thoughts....-RE

The Party Followers

By now many of us are tired of the news stories describing the complexities surrounding the Democratic party superdelegates. Political scientists , myself included, have provided pithy quotes to journalists, explaining how the party bosses once determined presidential candidates in smoked-filled rooms. What is missing from these analyses is a simple fact overlooked by scholars, journalists and the superdelegates themselves – in today’s YouTube world, there is no longer such a thing as a party powerbroker.

As I write, former presidential candidates Joseph Biden (DE), John Edwards (NC), and Bill Richardson (NM) have yet to endorse either Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton. Additionally, former Vice-president and 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore has decided that he will not endorse either Obama or Clinton, contending that he can act as an honest broker if neither nominee receives a sufficient number of delegates before their August convention in Denver. Throw in current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA), former Governor Mark Warner (VA), and a whole host of members of congress, including former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME), and what you have is a slew of party elites opting not to be leaders, but rather passive viewers and followers of the political process.

One cannot fathom Boss Tweed, James Farley, Sam Rayburn, Richard Daley, Phillip Burton, or Tip O’Neill, staying out of the political ring. To the contrary, these political giants sought to lead public opinion. They stuck their necks partly because they were unafraid to expose their political loyalties to their constituents, and partly because it was the only way they knew how to behave. To follow momentum or the latest polling trend, was, well, unseemly.

How times have changed. Today’s ostensible political leaders, while proving to be powerful and oftentimes successful legislators and executives, have opted to hedge their bets as if the presidential nomination were tantamount to a commodities trading market. They may want to be long on Obama or Clinton, but the political stock market is uncertain, so they hedge – not by shorting one of the candidates, but by failing to endorse either. They sit on the sidelines, cash in hand, staring at the political ticker.

This strategy suggests that by holding out, their endorsement will matter all the more as the campaign season progresses. But economists and political scientists will quickly note that there is a classic collective action problem rooted in this flawed logic. As more “leaders” opt not to endorse, then there is less incentive for each one to stick her neck out, creating less of an incentive for any one “boss” to show her cards. The result is a reticence to lead, and an incentive to follow the others, who are waiting for others to do the same. Furthermore, the failure to declare one’s preferences can only be interpreted by many citizens either as cowardice, or some back room political machination that the Democrats tried to eliminate with the primary process in the first place.

My unsolicited advice to all superdelegates and ostensible political leaders is simple. Show your cards, preferably before Tuesday (March 4th). There is no need to perpetuate the uncertainty of the process, unless of course you wish to be known as a party follower.

I said before and I will again, I want them all to stand down. The nomination should be determined by pledged delegates alone. I am an Obama supporter, but if he had fewer pledged delegates than Clinton I would say he should not be the nominee. I wish the party and the Clinton campaign would simply assert that principal and at this convention do away with the whole concept of the super delegate. That said, if the game is still round up the most super delegates then the more of them go to Obama, the better. But under no circumstances should he be the nominee unless he wins the most pledged delegates.. Period.. That's my position then and now.

I have a couple of ideas for fixing this nomination process, which I'm certain was the result of a conspiracy of the corporate media to keep them busy with news and gossip for many months longer than necessary. Cough.

First idea: if we must have superdelegates, at least give them a deadline to make a commitment to their preferred candidate within a fixed period after their home states vote or caucus. I'm thinking 10 days. Then they would at least know how their constituents felt, but would not be tempted to hold out for a Cabinet post or other perk at the convention.

We could even still do that this year. DNC could give the SDs in states that have voted 10 days to declare, then let the others decide when their home states do.

Second idea: drastically shorten the election season. Go to the four regional primaries proposed by the Secretaries of State. Even better, use those primaries as stage 1, to winnow the field to only those candidates who won any of the four regionals (forget about individual states here). If one candidate wins 'em all, they're the nominee. If there are two winners, have a national primary to select the nominee. If there are three, use a preference ballot (rank the candidates 1, 2 or 3, and reassign the votes of whoever finishes last to the candidate designated #2 on those ballots).

This whole thing is way inefficient and needs to be tightened up and made fairer. With the regional/national system, there could be public financing to level the playing field after some kind of threshold qualification using a poll.

Brokered conventions are bad ideas!

Dems have lost every election since 1968 where they had a brokered convention before then...insert dark music here.

It is necessary for the Democratic Party to have a united front before and during the convention in order to be successful in the election.

As we all are aware this election can not be lost. Just say no to brokered conventions!

Superdelegates are the smoke-free version of the old smoke-filled backrooms where the oligarchs and power-brokers ruled and made deals without regard to the people. There is nothing democratic about superdelegates even if it's a Democratic Party way of doing business.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Stop funding the terrorists!

No more Oil Wars!

Energy Independence Now!

Drill in Anwar.

Build more nuclear power plants

Use More coal.

Use more natural gas

Turn trash into energy

Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.

If France can do nuclear power so can we.

If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.

If Australia can do LNG power so can we.

Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.

Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the alter of our destruction.

Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

Hillary Clinton has held elective office for 7 years.

Barack Obama has held elective office for 11 years.

By the way, jacksmith, kindly take your "You might be an idiot" nonsense back to the so-called antidote to right-wing talk, from which it was presumably lifted and where it belongs.

You may not be an idiot, but you won't be as smart as you believe yourself to be if you accept a resume showing experience laced with malpractice.

You Might Be An Idiot! if you think that either of these candidates is a progressive.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/76208/

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02262008.html

I strongly endorse Aaron's list of links. I'm still a Naderite but will vote for Obama for pragmatic reasons. There is no chance of Nader winning. If a miracle were to occure and he was elected president he would be worse off than Carter with both the Democrats and Republicans bent on stabbing him in the back and undermining him at every opportunity.

With Obama there is a slim, very slim, hope that he will motivate the younger generation to aspire to what his rhetoric suggests and that they will follow through by demanding what Obama promised or implied. I wouldn't bet on it, but I'll indulge some audacious hope and give it a try. If Obama doesn't live up to his promises, then he will likely go down as another loser. If his supporters demand better of him, then he could become one of this nation's better presidents. Not much competition there.

With Nader it is important to parse things carefully. Yes, his policy positions are progressive, but has he ever shown the slightest interest in practical politics, or in building the sort of coalition required for the long-term growth and success of any political party? Not as far as I can tell. He pops out of the woodwork every 4 years to run for president, sneering all the while, then goes back to his cave. Criticize Clinton and Obama all you wish, but both of them have given a great deal of thought and attention to those nasty, boring details that Nader finds beneath contempt.

Joel: What you're doing here is repeating Rovian-like talking points. That Nader "comes out of the woodwork every 4 years" is a mindless repetition, like Swift Boaters redux.

There is no one I know who has worked more consistently for peace and justice than Nader. He does not "go away" after running for president, and you lemmings who are leading us over the cliff one more time as you did with Gore and Kerry should be ashamed of yourselves.

What you nay-der sayers ignore is that Ralph praised Kucinich and Edwards consistently (more than I would have), and he would not have run if right-wing Democrats had not destroyed their campaigns. Furthermore, Ralph's work with the Green Party did more to increase Green popularity than anything anyone has done before or since. Watch the Daily Show tonight.

It is quite comical really:

Obama claims that the popular vote should decide it, and the superdelegates should obey the will of the people, and then tries his hardest to make sure that SOME people, those who didn't vote for him, don't count.

Hillary claims that the people SHOULD count, but is more than happy to obey the actual party rules if the superdelegates run her way.

Seriously folks. Obama is a politician as much as hillary is. Get the stars out of your eyes; he's manipulating the process to his advantage as much as anybody, and a large portion of his support is based on blacks being racist and voting for someone who shares their skin color. Hillary does gain a boost from the racist whites, but it is not nearly as large in most states.