I see a lot of stuff like this lately, usually coming from Obama supporters (I think I even saw an interview somewhere of Obama claiming the votes should decide- a clear attack on the super-delegates):
My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.
So, as much as I love and respect him, I don’t trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee — and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.
I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They’ve either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother’s case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn’t the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.
After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.
The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now — before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.
I read stuff like this and all I can think is- “Man, I have been down this road before.” The first thing this reminds me of us in 2000, when the conventional wisdom was that George Bush would win the popular vote, but would not have the electoral college win. I remember GOP hack after GOP hack talking about and working out the strategery for just this situation. Of course, if you all remember correctly, someone else won the popular vote and just the opposite happened. The second thing this reminds me of is Hillary’s blatant attempt to have the rules changed for the delegates in michigan and Florida, after everyone agreed those delegates would not count.
I am not suggesting you have to embrace the whole concept of super-delegates, I sure don’t and it seems like an antiquated way of going about things, but I think people should respect the fact that the rules were good enough for everyone when the race started, and they should be good enough for everyone to finish the race. If you want to get rid of the super-delegates, or change how their votes are counted, the time to do this is starting January 21st, 2009, as the Clinton or Obama Presidency are getting underway. Gaming the system right now, though, reminds me of the kind of thing the filth currently in the Oval Office would do.