For those complaining about the superdelegates: those are the rules Clinton and Obama both agreed to

[ruggerson]

The party system for years has been a combination of pledged delegates and super delegates, who are free to follow their conscience.

Both Clinton and Obama knew this going in.

If one did not expect this close a race, that is not an excuse to say one will not abide by the party rules.

The Florida and Michigan delegates should not be counted for the exact same reason. Both parties agreed to this process and both should abide by it, unless the DNC itself rules otherwise.

If Clinton suddenly said that she wanted all the primaries to count as winner take all, there would be an uproar, and rightly so. That would put her ahead by about 500 delegates.

Point being, you don't change the rules in the middle of the game, or threaten to walk out if your candidate loses by rules all parties implicitly agreed to by their entrance in to the race.

If the superdelegates end up deciding this, it is because those are the Democratic party rules.

If you want to work to change the rules for 2012, that is honorable, if that is what you believe to be in the best interests of the party.

What is not honorable is to squawk about the party rules, because they may bring about an outcome with which you disagree.

[MaineDem]

1. Well said.

Thank you.

[LakeSamish706]

2. Yep, I agree with your post as well... The only thing that I would take exception to...

"unless the DNC itself rules otherwise" I don't think they should change the rules midterm either.

[Samantha]

3. "Changing the Rules in the Middle of An Election" is one of the

things that OUTRAGED people about the Bush* 2000 Florida debacle. Hillary has already been faced with the charge that she is too "Bush-like" -- if she pulls that same maneuver, and prevails, she will suffer the same consequences that Bush reaped -- a sense of illegitimacy, primarily arising from within her own party. Following that, the Republicans will indeed have a field day playing that against her in the General Election. It's a self-defeating ploy.

[ruggerson]

17. Actually

I see more Obama supporters griping about the superdelegates. My point remains, neither Obama nor Clinton should attempt to tell superdelegates that they must vote for the winner of the pledged delegates. That's not how the current system works.

[mirrera]

4. I agree...but...

I just finished having this exact talk with my husband. I said almost word for word what you said.

I then added that winning with super delegates is a bad way to win in this particular primary. One MUST look at who the voters are... for the good of the party.

The fact that close to 80% of 18-29 year olds want Obama and 80% of African Americans want Obama, is huge. We need both those communities, and not to put down the African American community, but my interest is in the young. They have been the missing/invaluable power over the last decade. Without the draft they did not disrupt our lives enough, without them in 2006 we would not have taken both houses.

They will inherit this mess, and they deserve a candidate that inspires them. If Obama continues to win their support Hillary ought to step aside for the good of the planet, not just the party. I think John Edwards did, for that reason. When he said he was allowing history to blaze its path, I do not think he was talking about putting the same power players in place as a decade ago. Hillary voters are savvy grown-ups. They know that any Democrat is better than a republican at this point in History.

The young? No offense to the savvy ones, and I credit them for driving this marvelous train, but the really young will go back to their digs and may not even vote. That would be a tragedy.

The GOP got to their hellish zenith through the young organizers. We want to save the planet through ours.

As Einstein put it,

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

[ruggerson]

5. There is no rule that says the super delegates have to mimic the pledged ones

the rules give super delegates the autonomy to choose whomever they wish to choose.

We can plead with and cajole them, but they are under no obligation to vote for either of the candidates just because they may happen to be a few pledged delegates ahead of the other.

[caligirl]

6. I strongly support you comment. these kids 18-29 deserve to have their day and

their candidate. the war costs will be on their backs and their kids backs it s their turn to have the choice about who will take them into their thirties and fourties as the leader of the country. This is another reason all 4 of us in my family support him.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. agreed

[Bjorn Against]

8. Were they given the option to disagree?

I don't like the idea of super delegates because it gives some people far more power than others. I don't like winner take all systems either, I think it should all be based on the popular vote. That is a democracy, a system in which people decide not party bosses.

And for the record I do not have a favorite in this race. I voted on Tuesday and my vote was cast for Kucinich, I am not taking my position based on which candidate it will benefit because I know my candidate is not going to win and I honestly have no preference between Clinton or Obama. I simply want a real democracy, not a system in which the party has more power than the people.

[ruggerson]

9. Then they should run in another party's nomination process

These are what the rules are. If we don't like them, we are free to try and change them. If you prefer no superdelegates, you can work to make that happen for the next cycle.

[Bjorn Against]

10. Not everyone can be involved on the DNC at the level in which those decisions are made

And considering the entire electoral system is set up to be a two party system favoring Democrats and Republicans it is not too easy to win outside of those parties. You make it sound as if it is far simpler for them to change the system than it actually is. I don't want political parties to decide how our elections are run I want the people to have more say whether they are members of the DNC or not.

[ruggerson]

12. I don't know what to tell you. This is the system we have.

And these are the rules that have been ratified by the majority in the party. The point of the OP is that it is wrong to try and change the rules after the fact, because the process is unfolding in ways one did not anticipate.

[Bjorn Against]

15. They weren't ratified by me nor by anyone I know.

They may have been ratified by the majority of the people at the DNC meetings, but they hardly represent a majority of the party as a whole. Just because those are the rules does not mean that those rules were arrived at in a truly democratic manner.

[samrock]

11. The math

If you remove the number of delegates from Michigan and Florida from the equation the odds of either candidate getting 50% +1 of the total is almost zero at this point... Sooo this will mean the super delegates will be needed to bring some one over the top... THIS will piss off half the party no matter which half it is. A divided party will be defeated by McCain.. Soo I see 1 of 3 options ...

1) Obama/Clinton, 2) Clinton/Obama, 3) Gore/neither Obama or Clinton..

I do not see #1 happening as we want there to be no doubt WHO is in charge as president and I just can not see that happening if Hillary is veep with Bill around... ( that assumes Hillary would take the veep slot .. which she might to make peace in the party).. I can see how #2 could lead to 16 years of democratic white house control.. BUT if this board is a true sampling of feelings then the egos involved would not let this happen.. #3 would take Mr Gore agreeing to do this.. which i am not sure he would.. Hmmmmm others thoughts????

[Medusa]

13. It's the Clintons--

rules don't apply to them--you didn't get the memo?

[newmajority]

14. I don't believe anyone is debating whether or not superdelegates ARE according to the rules

But rather, whether or not they SHOULD be. And given the origin of the rule, from what I've heard (a mechanism to give party hacks a way to veto the will of the people), it's a rule that should be changed.

But then, we've been saying that about the electoral college, electrofraud machines, and corporatist controlled primaries for how long now?

[stillcool]

16. Or you can sue!

as in Nevada..or refuse to follow the rules...as in Florida and Michigan. Or just screw with the elections...as has been done for how many years now? This is not about democracy. This is about usurping democracy...anyway you can.

[mmonk]

18. I can sqauwk rant and rave against anything undemocratic.

That being said, there will be no problem as long as one behind isn't given the superdelegates at the end of the day. The people in this country have been ignored long enough, particularly democratic voters. If they go against the voting choice of the people this time, the party will be mortally wounded IMO. This is a way party "leaders" can lean on members in office. I see no use in the practice unless someone through the process of being nominated is caught in something damaging.