The horse race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is now so close it may be decided not by the voters in the primaries and caucuses, but by the Democratic Party's superdelegates.
They are the 795 party elites -- free agents -- whose votes at the Democratic convention this summer in Denver, Colorado will not necessarily be bound by the will of Democratic voters.
For a party stung by Bush v. Gore and what many believed was a stolen election, it could get ugly.
Listen to an On Point discussion about the Democrats' presidential candidate race and the superdelegates.
How do you see this Democratic nomination battle being resolved? Democrats, how do you feel about your vote being overridden by a superdelegate?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 11
In a country that historically has produced unarguably the most amazing leaders, like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, are presidents / establishment dynasties (like George 2nd) really the best results our election processes can deliver?
I find myself deeply moved by Barack Obama's populist message of "Yes we can" and I am tempted to let down my guard and believe that after four decades of at best mediocre presidents, America, in my lifetime, could witness the ascension of another truly great leader.
But instead of "Yes we can" it may be more accurate to say "Perhaps we may be permitted to."
Democratic party rules permit convention delegates to change their vote at the convention based on their personal whim. So instead of simply changing the rules to disallow convention delegates from changing their vote, the leadership of the democratic party did something entirely un-democratic; they invented the Super Delegates to protect against a number of delegates succumbing to last minute "influence" and potentially selecting a non-establishment approved nominee. Of course Elaine Kamarck says super delegates were created to make sure leadership showed up at the convention - hogwash - but what other spin might you expect from a perfect example of a super delegate - one who will personally benefit from the election of her benefactor, Hillary Clinton.
Based on 60 million democratic voters, each super delegate therefore has the power to neutralize the votes of 18,400 individual citizen voters, which they can do based on their personal whim or for perhaps, last minute influence. There's no question which of the two leading democratic candidates is better able to provide the requisite last minute influence.
The right to vote is the only real power we average citizens have to reject the tyranny of corrupt politics that have dominated our executive branch and military-industrial complex for the past seven years which has brought us the destruction of lives, freedoms, our economy and our environment. While political parties should have some freedom to decide who gets to be their nominee, primary rules that do not select nominees through strictly one person, one vote mechanisms, will only lead to national elections where our power to vote has been negated once more by making us choose between pro-establishment candidate right vs. pro-establishment candidate left. The only real political contest is whether the party establishment will be able to usurp the power of the popular vote or not, as the democrats are preparing to do now. If they do, all that remains is who the special interest groups make the checks out to.
If the Democratic party does engineer an establishment-blessed nominee that is not the popular choice, than rather than have them witness Clinton's defeat by McCain, I would rather witness the final collapse of the democratic party to the phoenix like rise of a third party, led by Barack Obama. Even if it means temporarily swallowing the bitter pill of additional years of a republican controlled executive branch. Yes he can!