What a surprise! Hillary boosting MYDD loves superdelegates.

Apparently, DC insider Obama "liked" the super delegates when he was donating $700K to them.

So can we look forward to an end of the discussions about Clinton's superdelegate strategy?  This whole debate would never have arisen if a) Clinton supporters hadn't started putting forth arguments as to how the superdelegates should ignore a potential Clinton loss among pledged delegates, and b) Clinton had not conflated her superdelegate total with her pledged delegate total, in order to appear as the frontrunner.  Moreover, I think that a majority of all people here agree that the superdelegate system should be scrapped following this campaign because it may invalidate the popular choice for the nomination.

I love how Dean is being praised for his leadership on this issue while his handling of MI and FL, a much more critical gaffe, is merely brushed over.  What spin.  I never thought that people who claim to represent the Democratic Party would be so willing to disregard "the 'will of the people,' whatever that is."  Medieval monarchs couldn't have said it better.

Anything that disenfranchises voter is wrong to me. That includes taking away all the delegates from the people in MI and FL as well as superdelegates.

And I do understand the reasons they exist. And they are good reasons. But the best intentions doesn't make it right.

I really hope that the entire system can be reexamined after the election is over. And that the importance of the people can be more firmly established within the rules.

No discussion of pledged delegates should proceed without counting the MI and FL votes as-is. Unpledged deleagtes from MI should go to whomever is the nominee.

I guess Bill Richardson didn't get the memo. He's on the "will of the voters" team.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekin review/17broder.html" bandwagon.  

His comments are sort of vague, just like Dean's were. Hyper partisans will say they are wildly pro Obama, but they look more nuanced to me. But they

I think we are all reading into these statements a bit too much. Dean is the head of the DNC and as such must stay neutral. His statement was as neutral as possible.

If this is Hillary's best path to the nomination, then this race will be over on March 5th.

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&a mp;date=2/16/2008&id=35716

Ouch.  Cmon Zeitgeist, don't disappoint me. Give me your thoughts on the tactical brilliance of her retreat.

'rfahey' above has it exactly right.  There was little talk of superdelegates until the Clinton campaign failed to pull off a big Super Tuesday win, and then proceeded to lose to Obama in so many states that it became apparent that their only hope of winning was to get a bunch of superdelegates to come over to their side.  That's when we started to hear a lot of yakking about superdelegates.

What About Obama's Super Delegates? Are they onboard with "the will of the people"?

This one seems to not like that idea... unless it is "the will of the people for Obama"!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/14/2049 6/2579

And why is a pretty generic statement from the DNC chairman worthy of this long rant?

The major paper in the Wisconsin has endorsed Obama.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx ?id=718696

He's also gotten the (Ohio's) Cleveland Plain Dealer and (Texas') The Dallas Morning News.

(Texas) The Houston Chronicle just endorsed Obama.

Defeated Republican (anti-war) Senator Lincoln Chaffee just endorsed Obama.

One of McCain's (Cabinet level) Policy Advisors has announced he cannot work against Obama, and will resign from McCain's campaign if he is nominated.

SEIU national of course and UFCW, both endorsed Obama.

Pollster.com has put Obama in the lead nationally. Three days after Gallup showed him in the lead.

If you care about winning the next election the best way to help is to push this trend hard and make Obama the OVERWHELMING favorite.

Although this is now likely, it requires your all out sleep deprived and coffee fed efforts to make it real. Lets win it all in Texas.

I'm one Obama supporter who has never been particularly concerned about the superdelegates. I do think it's stupid to include them in the delegate totals. The ones counted have endorsed, but they haven't voted yet. It's unlikely that a plurality of them will end up voting the way they endorsed.

There may be some long-term issues about their role in the process. From what I understand, they were put into place explicitly to prevent the Party from nominating a "McGovern"-type candidate, i.e. one too far left to win in the general. They haven't had to exercise that authority yet, so it hasn't been an issue.

But I'm also a strong believer in not complaining about the rules in the middle of the game. As of now, they have votes, and whatever they decide will be legitimate. I also respect them, even the unelected ones, because they are the ones who have spent years building the party.

"in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party."

- can be interpreted anyway you like.

I haven't seen any dissing of Howard Dean.  The blogosphere isn't responsible for the mess-up over the superdelegates.  The party is, and the Clintons are. Claiming mysterious, unnamed superdelegates started with the Clinton campaign if not Clinton herself (or himself). A disorganized response from party leaders -- functionaries and members of Congress alike, many of them superdelegates -- have added fuel to the fire.  If there is no hanky-panky, then the pledge of the superdelegates en masse to stay out of this until the appropriate time makes the most sense of all.

One thought about the superdelegates, though, and that's this:  The superdelegate system, created to keep the party "centered," has done just that.  Which is why so many life-long, devoted Dems, self included, have left the party -- because it has moved so far to the right, to the corporatism, to the establishmentarianism, and into the territory of what 3 decades ago was the territory of center-right Republicans!  It has become a scaredy-cat party, made up, during this primary season, of many voters who swear by Kucinich's platform but wouldn't vote for him because... well, he's just too too McGovern!

I like this site since it seems like it's the last bastion of Clinton support on the web.  What's the post of reading comments that you agree with?  Are there any other political blogs out there with such a pro-Hillary slant?

Good for Dean to standup for himself, the DNC and the role of superdelegates.  I prefer a primary process that strictly looks at the winner of the popular vote, but...  ...oh well.

But Dean did blow it big time.  So did Obama.  Dean stripped the FL & MI delegates to pander to Iowa and NH.  He's the chair and he had the right, but he needs to accept his role is this delegate and GE disaster.  Anyone can make tough guy decisions - that is what Dean did, but few can make smart decisions.

Obama pandered to Iowa and NH by removing his name from the MI ballot.  I'm sure this pandering worked and gained him a few points in Iowa and NH.  He benefited from it.  Now that he receivied that gain he wants to complain about not getting potential delegates in MI.  MI delegates should get seated.  Hillary receivies hers (a reward for not pandering and being on the ballot).  Obama should get squat.  The uncommited delegates go to no one.

Todd thinks everyone should chill on all of the public hand-wringing about superdelegates. But IIRC, coverage of this issue began with, and has been driven by, the HRC campaign's stated intention to win the nomination with superdelegates even if they don't win the pledged delegates.

As an Obama supporter, I'm willing to drop the issue for now if the Clinton campaign is.  But I don't see that happening, since it's difficult for them to make a credible case for how they can win the nomination without winning a majority of superdelegates. So, though I'd like to see it go away for now as much as you would, I doubt that's going to happen.

Let's try again. Todd asserts:

"[Dean] comes in decidedly against the 'will of the people' side."

after reading but not comprehending what Dean said:

"Their role [superdelegates] is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party. I am confident that they will carry out that duty responsibly and in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party."

The highest value of our democracy (and our Party) is...democracy! Other high values include transparency, fairness, and due process. I'm pretty sure "just because the candidate's spouse used to be president" and "because Mark Penn says only significant states should count" and "because he's from Illinois" aren't the highest or even high values.

If anything, what Dean said reinforces what Nancy Pelosi said, albeit in the soothing "neutral" language of a party chairman. Dean may also be echoing Chris Bowers who has written extensively about how "values" should govern the nomination process. If you read his posts at OpenLeft.com about values, you'll find that he also concludes that superdelegates should ratify the democratic (small d) outcome, with the best available measure of that outcome being the number of pledged delegates, because that policy upholds our values.

But as I've said before, we can all relax because numerous superdelegates have said the same thing: the pledged delegate winner will win, and there's no way the superdelegates will go against the public. This isn't the 1800s. If your preferred candidate is behind in the pledged delegate count, call off the dogs and get back to reality.

When did DFA or MoveOn ever demonize the superdelegates? They're simply asking that the unpledged delegates don't overturn the winner of pledged delegate count.

Also, Dean's quote of "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party." is completely vague. I actually interpret it to mean the exact opposite of "they can vote for the loser if they want". I take it to mean "in the best interests of the Party, superdelegates should affirm the winner of the pledged delegates count".

if Dean wants my respect back he also has to seat all Florida and Michigan Delegates
and respect will of the people of these 2 great states.
And by the way: it will not be enough to get my respect back:
Dean has to acknowledge his mishandling of reforms of primaries:

he did nothing about eliminating early primaries and caucuses when IA dictates to the nation what to do;

and he did nothing about those stinky anti-democratic caucuses which have to be eliminated everywhere;

and Dr. Dean did nothing in order to create one national Primaries.

Todd you should really look into who some of these people are before you start praising superdelegates as "activists". And to compare Howard Dean, who was elected to his position, with superdelegates who appear to own their superstar status even if they leave office, doesn't make sense.

Here in NV, one of our superstar delegates is Yvonne Atkinson Gates, formerly a DNC member but hasn't served since 04, and formerly a County Commissioner but she stepped down under an ethical cloud last year. And her judgement is supposed to represent the "best interests of the party and the country"?

I don't buy it. I can understand the "can't change rules midstream" argument. I can also understand the "nominations need not be democratic" argument. But neither of those seem to be actually the arguments you are making.

Unless you feel that the issue is defending the rules from an attempt to change them (as Ickes is clearly doing with Michigan and Florida; having voted to deny them delegates chosen prior to Feb 5 but now arguing they should get delegates chosen prior to Feb 5) or unless you are arguing (as former ex-President Bill Clinton did today) that the Party does not need to nominate the candidate preferred by its voters, then I don't see the logical (as opposed to political) basis for defending the potential that super delegates might of their own volition change the outcome of the electoral process rather than (as they were originally intended) confirm it more quickly.

In Dean's recent mass emails I like that he has been asking ALL Dems, regardless of passion for HRC or BO, to target McCain.  It would be nice to see more of this and I think Dean is exercising great leadership so far in this tough battle.  

I have never understood why BO supporters think they can claim Dean.  Sure BO may have been against the war but he did not fight it out on a national stage the way Dean did.  Frankly, I don't really believe BO would have voted against the war had he been seated in the US Senate at the time of the vote.

I was, or I should say AM, a huge Deaniac and now am a strong Clinton supporter.  I am particularly swayed that way because I think she will really be the toughest on healthcare and is most likely to achieve 100% coverage based on her plan.