Superdelegates? I Don't Think So.

Where are we, exactly, in the race for the democratic nomination?  

Obviously, it's a closely contested fight.  Obama has a lead of roughly 700,000 in the popular vote, discounting Michigan and Florida.  For those who have no problem with ignoring the agreed-upon rules and insist upon counting the two states votes as they currently stand, Obama leads by around 75,000 votes.  Or course, they have to get their minds around the pesky fact that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.  (I know, neither did Clinton, but she started this race with a huge lead in Florida, thanks to it's NY snowbirds and other seniors-laden demographics.  Obama would inarguably have closed the gap, as he does in all states, by putting his superior organization on the ground and talking to people face-to-face.)  And his name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.  Along with Biden, Edwards and Richardson, he agreed to forego the state as a result of Michigan's unsanctioned advancement of their primary's date.  Absent her three main competitors, Clinton "won" the primary, defeating "Uncommitted" by 15%.

Delegate counters are as finicky as Maseratis but Obama seems to have a lead of somewhere between 110 and 160 pledged delegates.  That includes 254 pledged superdelegates for Clinton and 216 for Obama.  Since February 5th, Obama has picked up 69 Supers and Clinton has shown a net loss of 2.  Out of 795 total superdelegates, roughly 330 remain publicly up for grabs.  

What do these numbers mean?  Basically, if this were a foot race, Obama has already made up the stagger as they enter the homestretch, Hillary's calf just cramped up and she has begun limping noticeably.  The Mark Penn departure is huge, and may continue to haunt her campaign.  The initial refusal to cut ties with him completely could very well just be postponing the inevitable.  It's hard to see what she gains by having his firm continue to advise the campaign at this point.   

This is not yet another call for her to drop out.  I've argued her right to stay in until she feels she's done for months now.  Hell, forget Clinton -- I've supported Nader's right to run throughout the past three elections.  But my question is this:

What's up with the Superdelegates?  And what master of irony so named them?  

There was a piece a couple of weeks ago by Jonathan Allen of The Congressional Quarterly on Truthout.org.  He says there are 104 superdelegates that are elected officials who have not committed either way yet.  Seventy-nine of them are from districts or states that have already voted, so their constituents' preferences are known, if that is an issue for them.

What the hell are they waiting for?  Susan Davis, representing a San Diego district that went for Obama, is still unwilling to choose:

"I hope we don't (have to influence the election's outcome).  No clear mandate at all in this district, so that makes my job probably tougher, not easier."

What do you mean, you hope you don't?  Then why are you wearing that Superdelegate costume?  Is it just so you can sit on the floor in Denver and rubber-stamp the will of the people?  Maybe land a cameo on The Daily Show?  Any old mortal delegate can do that.  

A Superdelegate is presumably wiser than the hoi polloi and blessed with a deeper insight into the party's future best interests.  Is she telling me that after 80% of the primaries and, what, thirty debates that she hasn't decided who she believes is the Democrats' best hope?  Either she's not coming clean or she's unqualified to call herself a Superdelegate.  She sounds like a wimp to me.  So do the rest of them.

Look, superdelegates were a crappy idea twenty-five years ago and they still are.  Either they vote in tandem with their constituents (in which case they're irrelevant) or they vote their conscience and risk overturning the will of the people.  It's a choice between two bad options.  Susan Davis and Robert Wexler and Corrine Brown and the rest of the undeclareds should go ahead and choose a side.  Clinton can run until August if she so desires.  But the professionals should have made up their minds by now which is the stronger horse.  If they didn't want that responsibility, they shouldn't have accepted the Superdelegate blessing.

Democrats need to stop blaming Hillary.  Criticizing her for not quitting is like castigating the scorpion for stinging the toad.  It's her nature to fight unreasonably.  She will obstinately continue to cling to the fleeting hope that the superdelegates will come to her rescue (and their senses) in the nick of time.  It's who she is.

If you want to blame someone, blame the Superdelegates.  They could end this tomorrow if they had the guts.  

Are The Dems Broke(ered)?

Two things are clear after watching the results from the Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries last night.  

First and foremost, the only thing of which I'm absolutely certain is that I have no idea how this is going to end, and I wouldn't turn my back on anyone who says they do.  CNN has Obama with 1321 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1186.  MSNBC scores it Obama-1307, HRC-1175.  And AP's calculations show Obama with a 125 delegate lead, 1275 to 1150.  I mean, these organizations have reporters, pundits, researchers, interns.  They've got the internet.  They've got Chuck Todd, for chrissakes, and they can't agree on a number.  Agree?  They can't even come close.  Given the variables in play -- the Clintons' inexorable refusal to to lose, the whims of the super delegates, Obama's reluctance to enter the fray, HRC's decision to go dirty, the closeness of the contest, the nature of the states she has won vs. those he has, the Michigan and Florida balls still waiting to drop -- it seems improbable that this doesn't carry forward to the convention in Denver.

Second, it's at least as easy to see this ending badly for the Democrats as it is to picture Obama or Clinton raising a hand in oath on the steps of the Capitol next January 20th.  Fractious conventions don't bode well for the party doing the arguing.  1952 was the last truly brokered Democratic Convention.  Adlai Stevenson defeated Estes Kefauver, Avril Harriman and Richard Russell in three rounds of voting.  Stevenson went on to lose to Eisenhower in the general.  As the Real Clear Politics article I  linked to points out: 

Both the Democrats (1952) and the Republicans (1948) lost after their last multi-ballot conventions.  Similarly the GOP lost presidential elections in 1912 and 1940 after bitter convention fights, while Democrats lost after multi-ballot conventions in 1920 and 1924.  More recently, the 1968 debacle in Chicago, featuring riots outside the convention hall and near riots inside, showed just how difficult it is for a badly divided party to win.

What may take place this summer won't technically be a brokered convention.  The party slapped a coat of whitewash over that seedy image of fat, old, white guys sitting around in back rooms, smoking cigars and drinking whiskey as they trade political favors back and forth like so many baseball cards.  Now they're called super delegates and they are distinguished party elders, looking out for the good of the Democratic cause.  Make no mistake about it, though, it would be a veritable auction to see who could sell their vote to whichever side offered the most pork.

Kathy Gill, at About.com, wrote an excellent summary of the path the Democrats have taken to arrive at whichever circle of hell they currently inhabit.  Super delegates were created, in theory, to nudge the nomination towards the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election.  To take it out of the hands of the unwashed masses, so to speak, and let more sophisticated heads prevail.

It's ironic, isn't it, that it was the Democrats who were so unhappy with their constituents' preferences, the likes of McGovern, Mondale and Carter, that they devised a way to make the process less democratic?  

Like it or not, this is the game as the Democrats have designed it.  It appears increasingly probable that neither Obama nor HRC will arrive in Denver with the required number of delegates to claim the nomination.  They will need the backing of the super delegates to reach the magical 2025.  The arguments for how a super delegate should cast his super vote are old hat by now.  Obama backers insist he must echo the wishes of his constituents and Clinton fans think he would be better advised to vote his "conscience" and back whichever candidate would best serve the party going forward.  

Both sides act like this matter is up for debate.  It's not.  Super delegates, also referred to as unpledged delegates, are clearly free to cast their support to whomever they choose.  The only incentive to mirror their constituents' votes is that what goes around, comes around.  Most of them will presumably have to answer to those voters the next time they run for office.  And, being politicians, it stands to reason that most of them will find that argument persuasive.

But, I say, if you're going to have the damned toys, you might as well play with them.  What's the point of reserving a hotel room for the guy if he's just rubber-stamping the people's will?  Either get rid of them and select the nominee on the basis of the way the people voted or use them as they were designed, as DNC member Elaine Kamarck called, "a sort of safety valve," to protect us from ourselves.  

It might all be moot, anyway.  A few more months of Hillary driving up Obama's negatives (along, ironically, with her own) and it won't matter which Democrat emerges in August.    

I know.  It's crazy.  The process is akin to turning the wheel of the RV over to your four-year-old as it barrels down I-95 and going in back to lie down and take a quick nap.  But this is what Democrats do.  Hey, if you enjoy the lockstep, become a Republican.