Of course, anyone who has been paying attention tothie arguments during this campaign, especially on this site, knows that Barack Obama's supporters have been adamant that the superdelegates should not use their position to thwart the popular will. There has been volumes written about the Clinton campaign's efforts to get superdelegates to support her, despite the heavy early results in favor of Obama. Many have threatened to leave the party, or to simply stay home on Election Day, should the superdelegates vote to deny the nomination to the candidate chosen by the American people.
Most clearly, this argument has coalesced around the idea that superdelegates should vote as their states have voted, or their congressional districts. Since most supers are elected officials, this line of reasoning seems respectful of the electoral will expressed by their constituents -- the ones they represent. However, with Clinton's huge rout in W.Va., one W.Va superdelegate has looked at the race, and expressed his disdain for the popular will.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann asked W.Va Congressman Nick Rahall if he would follow his own mind or the will of the electorate. Rep. Rahall clearly siad he would not be influenced by the votes of his constituents.
Rahall has previously declared his support for Obama. He will not be swayed by the opinions or votes of his constituents, and will continue to support Obama, including casting his ballot at the Convention for Obama.
No doubt, the members of this site, noted for their integrity and commitment to democratic principles, will roundly condemn Rep. Rahall for this declaration -- for his undemocratic choice to vote contrary to the voters in his state and district. I look forward to reading the ringing condemnations of this affront to democracy and all those who value democracy.
Let the outrage commence!