Your theory that superdelegates should honor primary and caucus results is wrong. The Superdelegates were created in the 1970s and 1980s to ensure that the Democratic Party is not hijacked by few fiery insurgents as they did in 1972 (McGovern), After the debacle in 1972 Democratic Leaders and officials did not attend the Convention. The DNC rewrote the rules in order to bring back the Party Officials back into the stream. The role of the Superdelegates is to ensure that we have the best winning candidate and not to endorse the primary/caucus results. To say otherwise is pure nonsense. Superdelegates are an independent voice. There is a rumor that Obama has been coralling superdelegates using money and position as incentives. I heard that the VP position has been offered to Gov. Neopolitano, Gov. Sibelius, Sen. Calire Macaskill, and Gov. Richardson.

Superdelegates should vote what is best for the Party and not what is best for a particular candidate.

But the reason that they were installed was as a means to resolve CONFUSION which could lead to an unpopular candidate.

When McGovern was nominated, there were 7 other candidates that had delegates, several had more than McGovern... and he eventually won the nomination very late into (I believe) the last day.

The superdelegates were given the clout that they have to help resolve a more speedy resolution to situations like that. Not to flagrantly over-ride the clear will of the voters in a one-on-one competition.

Regardless... The rules were set poorly and there is plenty of room now. That doesn't mean that the superdelegates are stupid enough to flagrantly over-ride the will of the voters.

On Tuesday, Obama will have the firm majority of the pledged delegates, at which time the "Pelosi Club" will all endorse him... He'll need somewhere between 30 and 60 more superdelegates (depending on the final results of the last few contests). Clinton, on the other hand, needs about 200 superdelegates to embrace her and openly shit on the will of the voters.

It isn't going to happen. This thing was won on March 4th.

I look forward to working with you in the late summer and the fall to change the direction of this country and prevent the policies of Bush from having a 3rd term. :)

"Superdelegates should vote what is best for the Party and not what is best for a particular candidate. "

Exactly. So why would it be best for the Party for the superdelegates to blatantly ignore the will of the majority of people who are its members?

Because Obama wins are mostly in red states, which will never turn blue in November. You must consider electoral vote states. Do you want to win the nomination or win in November? As it stands now, Obama is not likely to carry FL, Ohio, PA, CT, etc. Electoral maps show consistently that Obama cannot get 270. Should the superdelegates ignore that?

RM77,

I agree with your top post. Your opinion expressed in this comment is biased due to your personal support for Hillary. I don't doubt that you sincerely believe that only Hillary can win in November. I don't know what the outcome of the general election will be. I think that Obama can win, but the electoral map will probably not look like the one in which Bill Clinton won office.

We won't necessarily win this battle by using tactics that were effective in past battles. The electorate is changing. At any rate, I don't think that Hillary will be the nominee. I wish the Democrats had chosen Joe Biden, but I'll vote against John McBush.

Which maps are you looking at?

This one shows no reason for the gloom and doom. Obama will only get better after he is the official nominee and it becomes a direct comparison between him and McCain, with Hillary actively supporting Obama.

You are quite rght on the Supers history , RM77.

You will notice,though that most do not want to hear that. Especially those demanding Hillary quit.They know nothing about the History of the Democratic party.

The reason we have been losing elections is because the patients have been running the asylum. Clinton held them off at the pass in 1991.

they will if it means a win for the democrates.,the superdel.can change their mines in aug and don't count hillary out just yet obama has some qustions to answerfor the ones that being left out,miand fla.

Why are you blaming Obama for the fiasco in MI and FL? The decision was made by the DNC, not by Obama. Both Obama and Clinton agreed with the decision at the time -- and both promised to abide by it -- and both campaigned accordingly. Obama has consistently said that he would abide by the DNC's determinations on this issue -- even if the DNC changes its mind. Clinton, having fallen behind everywhere Obama was allowed to campaign, realized that she needed to votes of the two states that voted based on not much more than name recognition (which has proven to be her only advantage). Thus, Clinton hypocritically changed her position on MI and FL.

Obama has offered solutions to the problem -- and is continuing to do so -- but he is not posturing or issuing ultimatums on this issue. It is a DNC issue -- and a DNC problem. The DNC can and should resolve it -- and in a manner that is as fair as possible to everyone. This means that we should keep faith with the voters of MI and FL and not completely disenfranchise them; but is also means that we should keep faith with the other 48 states, which followed the rules, by not letting MI and FL get away with their scofflaw primaries. There must be consequences -- but the consequences should be different than the hamhanded decision to strip all delegates.

Beathan

@ RM77:

"There is a rumor that Obama has been coralling superdelegates using money and position as incentives. I heard that the VP position has been offered to Gov. Neopolitano, Gov. Sibelius, Sen. Calire Macaskill, and Gov. Richardson."

So why do you think that rumor-mongering has a place in this discussion? Arguments detached from known facts don't carry much weight.

Obama 08!

I heard, privately, that the position of Attorney General has been "offered" to about TEN, if not more, Dems who endorsed Obama early on.

Btw, "Homer Simpson Endorses Obama!" Just his latest 'celebrity" endorsement. Probably Paris Hilton, too.

You are very brave to put up this Top Post, given this week's events & the current outnumbering of pro-HRC posters on this Fray by those who favor "His Hopeness," the junior senator from Illinois.

"Paris Hilton Endorses Obama!" GO with it. "Rumor-mongering' is one thing, but you should remember that many of the people who KNOW these things are not speaking out for attribution right now. Pls. see my post below to RM about how many people have reportedly been offered the position of Attorney General by Obama or his campaign staffers.

I'm not sure that I understand the problem with a Presidential candidate discussing possible positions in an upcoming administration with qualified candidates for those positions. I would be upset if the candidate didn't engage in these discussions. How else will they "hit the ground running on day one"?

You are welcome to speculate about whether Obama or Hillary have tried to use these discussions as veiled attempts at bribery. I doubt that you have any evidence to back up this gossip, but idle speculation does no particular harm.

personally I would prefer to see the most qualified federal prosecutor nmed to the post. You know, someone who knows the Justice Deparment and has experience in federal prosecutions, rather than some political hack who got his jobs as a favor for political support. Haven't we already had enough of those in the last 7 years ?

Ron

They should vote for what the people want. I do not care what color the state is, we want Obama and we will get his to the white house. We will all pull together and make this happen as a nation that is united.