While what the author may contend, "There's nothing in the Democratic rule book that instructs superdelegates on how they're supposed to vote or what they're supposed to base their thinking on" may well be true -- i don't have quick and ready access to the Democrat Party Rule Book -- but that doesn't mean there isn't firm and direct guidance on how the Super Delegates are to vote. There is.

During the creation of the system, the Super Delegates were created for this very situation: a convention where none of the potential nominees had sufficient votes to gain the nomination. The Super Delegates are there to select the nominee in the best interests of the party. That was generally regarded at the time and I think remain so today to mean the candidate with the best chance of winning the election. That is the case that Senators Clinton and Obama need to make, not just to the Super Delegates, but to the party at large: I will WIN!

I don't care how reasoned the argument for one of the other is, if it leads to a less electable nominee. Frankly, though I voted for Obama in the California primary, I would happily vote for Clinton. Winning is the SOLE criteria for decision by the Super Delegates.

Agree that winning is important, but if one person has a supermajority of pledged delegates (say 65%) but is not close to the 2025 number, is it right for the supers to override? If not, where do you draw the line?

Also, there's such a thing as winning the battle but losing the war. The democratic party tried this smoky-backroom thing in 1968 and ended up with Richard Nixon for a term and a half.

What I'm getting at is that superdelegates will also need to take into account the health and well being of the democratic party. If the chose someone marginally "more electable" someone who won by some objective measure, they're going to pay a hefty price down the long road. People do have choices other than the Democratic party. The Independents are the largest growing "party". The Greens loom on the horizon. Some other progressive party might spawn.

McMaster is definitely on the right track--a new one, not the worn out, keep the pot boiling, media groove.

John Dickerson of Slate, has, along with pundits and posters, tirelessly sounding this refrain:

"Exit polls show Obama has support for his argument. Roughly two-thirds of voters in the four contested states said that superdelegates should vote with the people and not their own priorities."

So help me with this:

Which "people" ? How do you count those who "voted" in caucuses? What about those (like me) who will be writing John Edwards' name in on their ballots in Indiana? If Hillary catches up and surpasses Barak in the total popular vote (however you count it), but remains behind in delegates, have "the people" spoken?

What about Hillary and Barak supporters who are suffering from buyers remorse in June? Shouldn't superdelegates consider this factor in their "vote with the people" decisions? And I won't even bring up "the people" in the insignificant states of Michigan and Florida.

Do the Democrats want to win in 2008? If they do, Howard Dean, DNC gray beards (to be chosen by each camp), and Obama and Clinton should sit down together now. They should establish tight rules on how the campaign should proceed. At least seven points should be agreed, let's call this the:

SEVEN POINT AGREEMENT (SPA)

1. candidates should be encouraged to let the campaign play out to the last primary,

2. Michigan and Florida will be required to abide by the party rules already in place or split their vote, 50-50,

3. both candidates [and this is key to the whole shabang] will agree to run the final primaries against McCain, not each other,

4. the superdelegates will be the deciding force should neither candidate gain enough delegates through the primary process,

5. both candidates, should they prevail, agree to offer the vice-presidency to the other candidate to accept or turn down,

6. the terms of this agreement will be made fully public as the means used to enforce its terms,

7. should either Clinton or Obama refuse the terms offered, the DNC should publicize this refusal as an act that puts victory over McCain and the Republicans in great jeopardy.

This may very well leave the decision up to the superdelegates. But by following this SPA (or some variation of it), the candidates, the voters in the remaining primaries and the inevitable polls will demonstrate to these superdelegates just who is truly most electable. It will put and keep McCain on the defensive. It will underline for the voters in November which party is ready to rise above personal ambitions for the good of the nation.

Consider the alternative. The rumors and realities of back room deals. Walk outs by irate Clinton or Obama supporters. A dead-locked convention running on and on before a dazed and then incredulous electorate. FOX and every kook with a radio talk show or a blog hammering away: “These people want to run the country?!”

Not good for the party, the candidates and especially for the country which needs to turn out of office every Republican lick-spittle to ever utter the name “Bush” with even a hint of respect.

Remember what this election is about. Discuss and advocate SPA as the only way.

With this close of a race, I would be very wary of a superdelegate who would override the pleged delegate count because he/she knew who was capable of winning in the fall. The case that each makes is strong. I'm an Obama supporter, so I won't pretend that I'm not biased, but I think that with the case each is able to make (Hillary is good with the blue-collar base in big states/Obama energizes new voters and independents), the superdelegates should defer to the pleged delegates. I'm also not saying that, were the superdelegates to overrule this and give the nod to Clinton, this would be "illegal". I'm just saying that Obama supporters would feel cheated if this happens, just as Clinton supporters most assuredly would.

I'm missing something, what's the point of having superdelegates if their purpose is to select the person with the delegate lead? Seems in that case they would be redundant an irrelevant. So the system must have been designed to do exactly what people are complaining about, that is to select someone that's not leading. That seems to me to be the current rules, and where you stand on whether it's good or not, seems to be dependent on who you support.

What a system!

Your argument is nonsensical. We dont know who's going to win in a general election or which nominee is more likely to win. People can only make predictions and give opinions.

Therefore we have to rely on an objective system. The best thing we have is the earned delegate count. It would be undemocratic to let individual superdelegetes have as much voice as thousands of actual voters. The superdelegates have no special knowledge or ability to predict the best candidate. This is why we rely on the people. We go with what most people think (whether they are right or wrong).

Very Solomon-like. Good post. I would add one item...a "real" last debateafter all the primaries and just before the convention...with the caveat that ONLY real issues facing the country be discussed/debated rather than all the electioneering fluff.

I have a grave concern here with a great many of the posters and in general, Obama supporters. I support and respect Obama himself much more than a lot of (not every) the public masses. Why? Because other than getting swept up in lofty and wishful goals, a soothing voice, eloquent words, many of "them" cannot actually offer a substantive reason why Obama should be President, and why he IS qualified to be such. He has had 2 years only at the Federal level of government. And this notion of his good judgment and his anti- Iraqi intervention, it is a moot point. He was not actually IN the Senate at the time, in a very real and serious position to have to personally vote on the resolution. He was not privy to the intelligence reports provided to the Senate by the Bush Administration. People need to face the facts here: Bush provided false and fabricated intelligence data to obtain the results he wanted. But to listen to Obama "supporters", Hillary is apparently the ONLY one responsible for getting us into Iraq. Make no mistake - Bush bamboozled the entire Nation in 2002 & 2003. At least Hillary, among other Senators, has acknowledged that they regret their vote, and would not do so knowing what they know now. How many of us cannot say the same thing about our life choices? It is about growing, maturing, and learning from our mistakes. Would that BUSH & Co. would have shown some ability to learn from errors, but they have ego, pride and manipulative agendas to satisfy.

The author of this article was not intending to patronize anybody. He was merely pointing out the obvious. There are 2 layers of rules here thanks to our "backroom" career (Democrat) politicians. With both layers, they subvert the "will" of majority opinion/voters. Senator Obama prides himself on a populist platform...that our country should operate from the ground up, not the top down. However, since he thus respects and adheres to this D.C. rule making, he is acquiescing to "top-down" governance. Instead of making a stand for Michigan and Florida voters - the little people - against the Democratic games between State and Federal bureaucrats, he just blithely followed the process of discounting TWO ENTIRE STATE'S worth of voters - PEOPLE.

First of all, why in November should anyone in Michigan/Florida support Obama after he didn't care to fight for us in the Primaries. Both states had no say in his (or Hillary's) nomination.

Secondly, Obama and his supporters continually proffer fact that if Obama has the lead in delegates, than the Super-delegates would make a moral and social error in choosing Hillary, because it would go against the people's wishes? Hang on here! Obama is already partaking in such a [flawed] system - there are states that Hillary won by the majority/popular vote, so why should the Delegates overturn that? Please, justify it. Obama folks want their cake and eat it too, and then they want more dessert! Why do I say this? Because as I just indicated, they are all for the state-level AND anti-democratic delegate system overriding popular vote, but then they do not want the National-level delegates to do the same thing! I must be crazy for not understanding this.

Thirdly, it is very peculiar and intriguing to me that the masses of Obama supporters are so enthusiastically cheering the thrown away and dismissed voters in Michigan and Florida...would they feel the same if Obama had won the "fake" primaries in those states? NO. They only want Michigan and Florida to not count, because Hillary did win the majority (fake) vote there. How ironic, and very sad. For all the grandiose rhetoric about every American's rights and votes to count, my Fellow American's are happy to throw 2 states away. Imagine if YOU lived in either state: one would be furious and irate at being thrown away.

Now, do not hide behind ignorance and "rules". Understand this: the state legislators in both states went behind the backs of their populace, and moved up the primary dates. This is a small group of politicians playing games. Then, the DNC "punished" the State folks for doing that. But WHO gets punished truly for this? The average citizen who was caught in the middle. Now, explain to me how this is right, fair, or in-line with the ideals and speeches of Senator Obama?

I am waiting. Also, my email is joekool96@msn.com I would greatly like to have discourse regarding this.

Respectfully,

Scott T. Shier

P.S.

When will people (Citizens) start holding our Bureaucrats responsible for these so-called “rules” which they feel are arcane, anti-democratic, and subversive to our Rights? If Hillary were to win the nomination, I would hope that Obama voter’s came down hard on the DNC and demanded the “rules” to be changed. We, the People had no say in these back-room rules. STOP saying rules are Democratic by dint of being rules. This is what America is about: when rules are harmful or bad, we CAN and Should change them!!!

Important issues have been missed in both the Dickerson article and many of the comments posted about it so far. First, is the impact of the trojan voters. These cannot be well counted---and discounted---because they do not show up accurately in the exit polling. What are they going to tell the pollster, "I am a Rush Robot!" They are not required to wear their allegiance on their lapel.
If the superdelegates are assigned to mediate the anti-democratic and anti-Democratic abuses in the race, they must give attention to this issue. Also, the Ohio and Texas votes were skewed by the Obama's Canadian revelation and not by the similar but later revealed Clinton Canadian revelation.
If superdelegates are intended to play God, they should make adjustments on these issues and others. If they were to give the nomination to Clinton despite these factors, then Clinton should honor the popular "will" by giving the VP slot to Rush Limbaugh or his designee. He could have been her most valuable ally. If he and others on the right-wing talk show circuit are allowed to be the Democratic kingmaker by skewing the results of the rest of the contests, then bring it out into the open, and put him on the ticket.
Next, what about the subtle playing to racial fears in the 3 a.m. spot and other tactics (repudiated or not). A penalty should be assessed for this behavior---if the superdelegates are God and they are responsible for Democratic Judgment Day.
The hatchet tasks are always the work of expendable surrogates who can later be "denounced and rejected," or viewed with alarm. That is a given, known in advance, but the objective is accomplished as intended with the targeted constituencies. The perp is left to laugh in his or her martini. The Shaheens and the Ferraros are the 527---Swift Boat--- equivalent in the primary election. Even Bill Clinton has played the Agnew role; he had to, even if he did not want to, because Hillary did it for him---for decades. This is not cynicism; it is realism based on experience.
All this should be considered if the superdelegates are intended to protect the best interests of the party serving as the party's Supreme Court. The question is: are they going to ratify the old politics, or are they going to reach for the new politics and standards the watching world can admire. There are interests at stake and Clinton serves a different group than Obama does. These divergent interests should be put on the table by the superdelegates, so the voters can understand them. Otherwise, they cannot be held accountable for their behavior.
The superdelegates would want to be accountable if democracy is important to them and the interests of the nation come ahead of their service to special interests. The world is watching to see what they do, and if they do it wrong, more than the Democratic party will suffer. U.S. image in the world will suffer from the Democratic hypocrisy just as it has from the Republican.
If, at the end of the process, the party is badly weakened by the long months of divisiveness, then the superdelegates would need to try to find a mutually agreeable unity candidate if one can be found. He could not be like John W. Davis in 1924 who represented the conservative faction only. Maybe George Mitchell, for example. Al Gore would probably not qualify even if he is willing---too much complex emotion there. Tom Daschle might be a VP candidate, but so could many others.
The needed unifying presidential candidate might be hard to find because everyone would have to agree that this is the best way out---under the circumstances. The first Democratic requirement is victory in November. That might be difficult to achieve, but the superdelegates are supposed to know better than others how to keep that focused. More wisdom might be demanded than would be possible.
The work could be an example of the superdelegates playing their role with the wisdom of Solomon, but it also might be worse than Boss Tweed. They could go either way, and the longer they hide their cards, the more suspicions grow about their preference. If many of them did not want to be free to broker the election, like Henry Clay in 1824, more would have taken positions already. After all, they are free to change if they must, so they should make the process honest and transparent by declaring their allegiance immediately---if not months ago.
If they are just keeping the party in suspense, unconstructively, until August, they sustain an Orwellian proposition that all delegates are equal, but some are more equal than others---for their own whimsical benefit. We understand the preference to protect their elite prerogatives because this was the fearful, anti-democratic Democratic answer to the anti-democratic Republican expediency of winner-take-all-primaries. Now, the challenge is to show better than that.
Either the superdelegates want to keep the elite in control, or they want to be like Jefferson and put their faith in the good sense of the people. One way inspires the people of the world and the other way repells them. It is that simple.
The views of the world are more important to the U.S. future right now than the views of people in the United States, and the views of Democrats. Yet the Democratic party acts like it is a private country club where the superdelegates are the management committee and the owners of the preferred (class B) stock.
As long as superdelegates maintain their controlling position, they might as well be saying (as Stalin reportedly did) that the vote counters matter more than the voters. The superdelegate system is not just a modest check on the process, like the Electoral College; it is more onerous and far more elitist than that, and it distrusts the dangers of democracy much more than anything the most fearful Federalists put into the Constitution. It is elitism on steroids, and people are right to mistrust it.
Don Patterson

There is nothing more important in November than a Democrat becoming President. Whoever is the most likely to beat McCain, is the one we need to nominate, irrespective of who has the most pledged delegates. That's what I said six months ago, and that's what I say today.

I dont see where you actually replied to the contents of my post.

Try shilling someone else ...is the Clinton campaign paying you anything for this repetitive posting?

And how are superdelegates going to determine who is more likely to beat McCain?

Millions of voided Democratic primary votes voided by a party committee, one Texas Democrat is counted as worth twice as much as another Texan who lives in another part state and "super" someones who get a voice independent of the voters.

These fools are too incompetent to run elections. The law needs to step in and require that primary votes are counted on a one-person one-vote basis. Within those bounds, these happy combatants can flit about adversarially cutting each other's throats without offending basic American values like every citizen matters, his or her vote should count and should count equally.

Superdelegates are just another way for the party to step away from simple democracy.

It is all wonderful and good to say “little people” good, superdelegates bad.

(And, by the way, where is a full list of the names and backgrounds of these bad, cigar chomping, power hungry, venal, backward thinking and fatally scarred war horses that are the superdelegates? What monsters! What usurpers! What puppet masters! And oh, who are they? How long and in what capacity have they served the Democratic party? Do they not understand the “youth vote" because they don’t have “The Weakerthans” on their iPods? Do they not understand the "African-American vote" because they haven’t seen “The Birth of a Nation” lately? Do they not understand the "gender oriented vote" because they never heard of Robin Morgan? And is that necessarily a bad thing?)

No one can argue with the observation that many, many voters in the primaries have demonstrated again and again that they are poorly informed about the issues, the candidates programs and about what the hell all this mess is about in Florida, Michigan and with this superdelegates business. And that’s why there are superdelegates.

THIS IS NOT THE GENERAL ELECTION. THIS IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION. THE PURPOSE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IS TO NOMINATE THE CANDIDATE THAT CAN AND WILL SINK BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INTO DANTE’S 8TH CIRCLE OF HELL, THE ONE PREPARED FOR THE “COUNSELLORS OF FRAUD.”

[Go here and get the plan that will achieve this.]

Today we hear from big Florida money that if there isn’t a “do over” they want their contributions to the Dem party back. If this kind of influence leads to flawed mail ballots, jerry rigged firehouse votes, computer games delegate distributions or any other kind of “compromise” that breaks the rules the DNC agreed to play by, where are the “little people” in all this?

The refusal to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations will not keep the “little people” from voting for Obama or Clinton in the general election.

Only this picking at the scab of the messy primary process, incessantly and in public, until it oozes and bleeds, will achieve this. Only the acquiescence of rabid supporters of O and C to the cynical media’s never ending need to find and bloat the sensational, going nowhere, non-issues of race and gender, will succeed in turning off voters in November 2008.

It's so clear, so reasonable, so reachable, that something like THIS is needed now. But who wants to be reasonable and reachable while slights, imagined and (insignificantly) real are being dealt to MY PERFECT CANDIDATE. The Me Generation lives!

ASK YOURSELF WHY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IS PUSHING SO HARD FOR HILLARY TO BE THE NOMINEE. RUSH, TUCKER, BUCHANAN,GEORGE WILL---ALL OF THEM ARE DESPERATE TO FACE HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION RATHER THAN OBAMA.

THEY HAVE SEEN HILLARY BLOW A 20-POINT LEAD AGAINST OBAMA AND THEY HAVE SEEN HIM PICK UP 20 POINTS TO GO AHEAD OF HER.

IF THE SUPERDELEGATES IGNORE A 53-CONTEST AND OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, THE REPUBLICANS WILL BE USING HER TAX RETURNS, BIG BILL'S COMMUNIST DONOR LIST, THE WHITEHOUSE TRANSCRIPTS WILL BE THE NEW FALL SCANDAL, MCCAIN WILL MENTION, AS BARACK HAS NOT, THAAT HILLARY HAD 8 YEARS TO GET A HEALTH PLA.N THROUGH.

ONCE THE MILLIONS OF IDEALISTIC YOUNG PEOPLE, BLACK PEOPLE, AND ALL THE OTHER NEWLY ENFRANCHISED SEE HOW THE SUPERDELEGATES HAVE RUN ROUGHSHOD OVER BARACK'S TRONG 200+ ELECTED DELEGATE LEAD---ALL TO SERVE THE CLINTONS' DESIRE FOR A THIRD TERM-----THESE VOTERS WILL NOT BE KNOCKING DOWN THE DOORS TO VOTE FOR ANYONE IN NOV. MAYBE NADER. 2000, ANYONE? 1968?

THE SUPERS SHOULD THINK SELFISHLY FOR A FEW MINUTES. THE KEY QUESTION FOR ME IS WHY ARE ALL THE REPUBLICANS POUNDING THE DRUM SO HARD FOR HILLARY? THEY ARE VERY VERY ANXIOUS TO FACE HER, NOT BARACK, AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOTS OF AMMUNTION. THE REPUBS KNOW WHO HAS THE BEST CHANCE TO WIN---THAT IS WHY THEY ARE TRYING TO GET HILLARY TO DEFEAT HIM NOW.