Posted on 08/02/2010 3:00:09 PM PDT by Schnucki
A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback.
Before 2008, your average American might not have known what a Democratic Party superdelegate was. But that year these mysterious party insiders became a feature of the daily news cycle as the fierce presidential-primary battle swept across the country. In a neck-and-neck race, the party confronted the very real possibility that these unelected delegates to its national convention might support Hillary Clinton in sufficient numbers to give her the nomination, despite Barack Obama’s slim but indisputable lead among pledged delegates, who are assigned by the results of state primaries and caucuses. The prospect of Democratic insiders taking the nomination away from the first African-American to qualify for it threatened to seriously damage party unity, and prompted a move to reform the Democrats’ nomination process.
But recently a party committee quietly tossed out a plan to take nominating power away from the superdelegates—former presidents, current senators and Congress members, members of the Democratic National Committee, and other party luminaries such as labor leaders. The superdelegates currently have automatic seats at the convention and are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they please.
After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
The answer to your question is “YES”!...red
Superdelegates = The Democratc Elite!
Superdelegates are the perfect system for the American fascist party.
Once again, it’s the “Democrat” Party not “Democratic”. Sheesh.
Superdelegates wouldn’t be necessary if dems didn’t insist on an even more ridiculous artifact of elections during their primary process; proportional allocation of delegates.
Obama thought he could lock up the nomination before 2012, looks like Hillary is not going to let him.
VERY creepy. He's not African American, he's just American, and even that's up for debate. And did he really qualify for it?
A lot of the elite democrats had their doubts about him. Insiders like Rangel and Maxine Waters were Hillary Clinton supporters. Power was more important to them than race, if you can believe it. Clinton had an outside chance to win the nomination based on elected Washington democrats even if Obama won the popular vote.
Too close for Obama’s taste. As you have seen, elected Democrats aren't eager to have their transfigured President come stump for them. If it becomes apparent he can't win in 2012 and Clinton goes in for another primary fight they are in a tough spot. They might jump ship to the Clinton camp and throw her the nomination. Remember, Obama's clout the first time around came from Ted Kennedy. That's gone.
This change would prevent all that from happening. Obama wants to strip the super delegates of their vote because Clinton can't beat him in the popular vote.
This is all IMHO, and I won't claim to be able to think like a democrat clearly (it hurts).
Superdelegates = Obama’s Ace in the hole
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.