In 2004, I submitted my nominating petition as a delegate pledged to Howard Dean in the afternoon of the Wisconsin primary. The next day, upon coming in third in this progressive state that gave Robert LaFollette Sr. and Robert LaFollette Jr. national influence for a sixty year period, and John Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern decisive victories, Howard Dean withdrew from active campaigning but urged his delegate candidates to keep going.
I kept going and was elected delegate ten weeks later after John Kerry had clinched the Democratic nomination. My election was a minor national news story, something on the order of the Japanese soldiers who kept fighting long after Japan had surrendered.
I made clear to anyone who asked that I would vote for Dean unless he released his delegates, and then, unless there was a clear and compelling reason to the contrary, vote for John Kerry. I told this to the media, my fellow delegates, and the Kerry campaign itself. It is a measure how wrapped up John Kerry's nomination was that the less than burning question of whether Kerry would carry the Pennsylvania delegation 179 to 1 or 180 to nothing absorbed a surprising amount of attention.
At the Democratic National Convention, Dean called a meeting of his delegates and announced that he saw no reason for him to get a single vote. He said he would be voting for Kerry and campaigning for Kerry and other Democrats. He urged all his delegates to vote for Kerry, and patiently answered question after question about the differences between his positions and Kerry's positions and his public debates and private discussions with Kerry.
I went on the convention floor fully prepared to vote for John Kerry. As state after state voted, it was clear that Dean delegates were voting for Kerry, John Edwards delegates were voting for Kerry, and some Kucinich delegates were joining them. Kucinich, like Dean and Edwards, had released his delegates, but unlike them had issued the rather ambiguous under the circumstances direction to "vote your conscience."
It suddenly occurred to me that, if I chose, I--now functioning without any legal barrier as a de facto superdelegate-- could name the third place finisher at the Democratic National Convention. As I looked around the Pennsylvania delegation, it occurred to me that there were no shortage of people there who might gain a boost with the honor of getting a vote for President and coming in third for President. And there were no shortage of people back home or around the country who could gain at least minor distinction with a suprise third place finish for President at the Democratic National Convention. I smiled broadly as I thought of the vast power--at least the power of surpise--that I could potentially wield.
But then the euphoria faded. I was overcome by the knowledge that I had been given a responsibility by the voters to try to nominate a future President of the United States. John Kerry had come in first place in my Congressional District and in the state of Pennsylvania by a large margin.
There was no question that he would be the nominee.
I had not been elected to show creativity. I had not been elected to give a boost to a friend in politics or to get some media coverage. I had been elected to execute a limited but important responsibility--to cast the vote that would most help the Democrats regain the White House. Neither John Kerry nor the Pennsylvania Democratic Party needed a story about a protest vote for someone else; what was needed was a demonstration of unity of purpose.
And so, I voted for John Kerry as I had said I would.
I tell this less than earthshaking story because I briefly experienced a bit of the euphoria that some superdelegates appear to feel four years later: they are free to do as they please and no party rule or law can stop them from ignoring the will of the people.
But just I felt the pull of responsiblity, so will most or all of them in all likelihood. Nancy Pelosi's statement that superdelegates should not seek to change the outcome of the primaries and caucuses is--in my judgment--merely an opening salvo by a leader of the superdelegates to insist that their power carries the burden of responsibility to the Democrats of their constituencies and nation.
The mission of the Democratic National Convention is to nominate a Presidential nominee who can actually get elected. Nominating a Presidential candidate the people have rejected is totally counterproductive. I would be surprised if the talk of the powerful superdelegates who can do whatever they feel like does not increasingly lead to powerful repudiations.
The more superdelegates ignore the will of the people, the less likely there will be superdelegates in 2012 or thereafter.