Over at Left in the West, I've been thwacking wasp's nests with sticks by urging Montana's superdelegates to commit to voting with the outcome of the state's June primary. None would.
And then, lo! Kossak bajadude reported that Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer was rounding up the remaining uncomitted superdelegates and getting them to sign a petition to commit to supporting the candidate with the most delegates at convention time!
Naturally, I duly posted and commented on the contents of the Kos diary.
Two hours later, my phone rang. It was Governor Schweitzer.
"Did you think that sounded like me?" he said of bajadude's post. "That was awful wordy."
To make a long conversation a short story, Brian Schweitzer is not "leading" a campaign to get superdelegates to commit to any selection process. He is not circulating a "petition" that would bind superdelegates to the Democratic nominee with the most delegates.
He said he has neither the time nor the political clout to do so, even if he wanted to.
Instead, the Governor has been urging superdelegates he's encountered to make their decisions open, to make the superdelegate process a transparent process that reflects their electorate, whether they'll commit to their states' primary results, the popular vote, or the delegate lead.
"The last thing I want," said the Governor, "is to have accusations that it was decided by a back-room process in a smoke-filled room."
Right on, Guv.
Here's the thing: what is the best way to distribute superdelegates? By popular vote across the country? By a state's vote? Or what if a candidate is headed into the Convention with a delegate lead, but not a popular lead? Do the superdelegates throw their vote at the popular vote-getter and bring about a brokered convention?
And for states like Montana -- with a June primary date and a paucity of delegates, a state that's never mattered in a presidential election before, and might never again, it's probably good that our superdelegates don't commit before the primary. We want the candidates here, we want their ears for our issues.
So I don't know what to say. I don't think I want to get behind a push for committing superdelegate votes right now. I think I'm with Schweitzer and content to wait until after our primary to see how the land lies. Sure, let's keep it open and transparent -- and it should be obvious we've got his ear, too, so let's pitch in our voice.
Still, I admit I don't know jack sh*t about any of this. It's been awhile since the superdelegates mattered. (Since 1984? I was 15 at the time.) And I think whatever solution we come up with should have one goal: to preserve party unity through the Convention.
But, enough about me, what do you think?