My Email Exchange with Party Insider on Superdelegates

I just had an email exchange with a regional director of the Democratic Party that has me a little disturbed -- but I'm not sure whether or not I should be!

I won't say his name or where I live because I don't want to identify him.  Suffice it to say I'm in California. I don't know this man too well, but I've seen him at several MoveOn-sponsored events, and I am on his mailing list.

His email was in response to the MoveOn petition to urge the "superdelegates" to not overturn the wishes of the voters.  He didn't like it, and his critique took the form of a response to each part of the MoveOn email. I'll put the MoveOn statements in normal type and his response in italics -- and my own comments (if any) in bold.

Dear MoveOn member, You've probably heard about the "superdelegates" who could end up deciding the Democratic nominee.

There is no such thing as a "superdelegate".  That is just a nickname.  They are actually called unpledged delegates, and there are several varieties.  They do not "decide" anything.  They each get one vote, just the same as everyone else.

( More beyond the break ...)

Who are the superdelegates? Most of them aren't elected—they're state party chairs, retired politicians, and Democratic insiders.

False – Almost all of them are elected in one way or another.  State party chairs are elected.  Congressional representatives are elected.  US senators are elected.  State governors are elected.  Members of the DNC are elected.

They control 40% of the votes needed to win the nomination.

False – there are 4,049 convention delegates, of which 796 are unpledged.  That equals 19.65% of the total number of delegates.
I think he's right on that one; I think MoveOn got the percentage wrong.

The reason they exist: to make sure the party establishment approves of the nominee.

False – The reason they exist is because the Party operates 24 hours a day.  Not just once every four years.  District level delegates are elected on one day in a four year period.  But almost all of the unpledged delegates are there for the entire four year period.
Well ... that's why they exist as party operatives, but not why they exist as unpledged delegates.

Congressional representatives, US Senators, and state governors are the legislative and executive parts of the party and deserve a vote.  That includes past presidents, past vice presidents, past speakers of the House and majority leaders, and past senate majority leaders.

Members of the DNC are elected in each of the 50 states.  They run the bulk of the party operations, including traveling to four DNC meetings per year.  They also deserve a vote.
Well .. He's not exactly denying that they exist to approve of the nominee.  But he seems to be saying they SHOULD get to do that because they work so hard for the party.

This is about democracy, pure and simple. Whoever you support, we can all agree the Democratic nominee should be decided by Democratic voters.

We can all agree that the rules have been in place for a long time.  And we can agree that everyone knew what the rules were before they decided to run for president.  And we can agree that everyone should abide by the rules.

In the long run, the Democratic Party needs to reconsider this undemocratic system, but for this election, we need the superdelegates to do the right thing.

If the Party needs to reconsider the convention makeup, there are procedures to do that.  Trying to change the rules in the middle of an election is not the way.

The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice.

All delegates should abide by the rules.  District level delegates were able to decide for themselves which candidate they supported prior to running for a seat at the convention.  Unpledged delegates are just as entitled to their private decision as any other delegate.  They should vote for the person they believe will make the best nominee for the Party, and the best President of the United States.

OK ... am I the only one who finds this a little disturbing?  He seems totally oblivious to the undemocratic nature of the superdelegate process and is only concerned that the "rules" are followed.

Here's the email I sent to him in reply:

I think MoveOn is concerned that even if Barack Obama wins the delegates assigned from the primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton will win the nomination because of the superdelegates.

If this happens, it will be a disaster for the Democratic party, even if it is perfectly legitimate from a procedural point of view.  There will be a firestorm of protest -- take my word for it.  Go to DailyKos and do a search on superdelegates, and check out the responses to this possibility. There are people who are saying they will not vote in November.  Some say they will even quit the Democratic party.  Believe me, the Democrats do NOT want to lose these supporters, who are the base of the party.

I may even leave the party if this happens, and I've been a Democrat all my life.  Plus, we are signing up many new people who are new to the process and voted for Barack Obama.  What message will it send to them if, in spite their candidate garnering the most popular votes, a different candidate wins because of some arcane party rules?  They will likely be discouraged and may drop out of the process altogether.  Do we want to lose these idealistic new voters?

This is quite different from if Hillary wins the majority of the delegates in the primary/caucus process.  Democrats will accept that -- what they won't accept is if she wins SOLELY because of the superdelegates.  Trust me ... we don't want this to happen!

.. and here's what I got in return:

Is your solution for the Democratic Party to violate it's [sic] own bylaws and bow to the threats of people like these?

In Nevada, Hillary got the most popular votes, but Obama got more delegates because of arcane party rules.  Will Obama cede these delegates to Hillary? He shouldn't have to because everyone knew the rules before they ran for president.

If these rules need to be changed, then people like yourself can offer testimony to the DNC rules committee to change the bylaws for 2012.

Well that really ticked me off, especially the "people like these" (US!) part.  Here's my final response:

"People like these" are the heart of the party!  These are the "netroots", who played a very large role in getting Democrats elected in '06.  The energy and passion of these people is a GREAT resource, which should not be squandered!

I do believe the rules need to be changed for 2012 -- but we can't wait that long.  

Lest you feel I am exaggerating the feelings of Democrats -- check out these letters to the editor in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/...

With all due respect -- I think you party insiders can lose a little perspective and get wrapped up in your own world of party procedures and rules.  I understand and respect that you have devoted many hours of your lives to the working for the party, and I do appreciate it.  But that should not give you the right to supercede the will of the rank and file voters.  That's what democracy is all about!  It's not about party insiders -- it's about the people, whom the party insiders are supposed to represent!

I agree with the first letter writer in the NY Times letters to the editor -- after all the trickery and flim-flammery of the last several elections, voters are FED UP with slick maneuvering of this sort!

(And by the way, I ALSO disagree with the way the votes were divvied up in Nevada because of arcane party rules!  I think Hillary should have gotten the most delegates.)

Am I wrong to be angry?  I do appreciate the hard work people like him put into doing the "grunt" political work.  And he is truly the nicest man in the world; I like him very much!  But I have to admit I am disturbed at his "blind spot" here!  How can he not be concerned about the "superdelegates" overriding the will of the people??

•  Tips/flames?

  What a thorny issue ... sigh

  by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

  •  It's really not that thorny.

    I believe what we're seeing across the board is the fact that the antiquated, arcane, and unnecessarily complex way that the Democratic party operates is being played out on a big -- and ever-expanding -- screen.

    Caucuses where people pool in corners and then switch corners? Superdelegates? Disinfranchised voters in states, held hostage by the timing choices of others? Two-tiered primary and caucus systems?

    This is NO way to run a democracy, and the Democratic Party establishments must be getting some sense that the wind is blowing in an unfavorable direction.

    by Melody Townsel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:28:49 AM PDT

    •  It's ludicrous.

      Two-tiered primary and caucus systems?
      Ahhhh Texas.
      At the state convention in 2004, we were supposed to elect people to attend the national convention. Some of our duly elected delegates got cut off at the knees when the Kerry campaign workers showed up with a list of people they wanted. They got them too.
      Kerry, who never set foot in Texas (that I know of, or at least had some chance of affording).

      by northsylvania on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM PDT

    •  Every state should have primaries

      There are certain lessons that can be learned from this year.

      1.  Every state should have a primary, not a caucus.  Caucus are unfair to persons with disabilities, persons who work during those hours, persons who cannot drive at night, persons who don't understand the rules, people in the military, etc.

      2. The allocation of delegates in each state should be based upon a clear and fair system - such as 1 delegates for every 100,000 registered Dems in each Congressional District.

      3.  If a state decides to have a primary, it should not be allowed to also have a caucus.

      4.  The elections should not be scheduled too early in the year because winter weather can make it harder for people to vote.

      5.  The DNC members/power brokers of the party can have first dibs in being delegates.  However, their vote should be limited to reflect the will of the voters in their state, at least on the first ballot.

      I personally don't have a problem with members of Congress and Governors being superdelegates because they are directly elected.

      by JPZenger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:30:49 AM PDT

      •  Sounds good to me

        Maybe we can make an exception for Iowa re caucuses ... they will kick and scream if forced to forgo their beloved caucuses, and they are so traditional there.

        I like the idea of limiting the vote of party insiders on the first vote.  That way, they can exercise independent judgment ONLY if there is truly a standoff.

        by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

  •  Do what I did refuse to donate to the DNC

    that what I did. And I told them they are entitled to their one vote in the primary just like the rest of us. And that without the rank and file they could not win elections because we do all the grunt work. How hard do they work. They go to cocktail parties and write the big check. Do you really think these 795 super delegates could win an election without us. We make the calls, gather signatures for petitions and get out the vote. Until they no longer exist I will not give them another penny. I will only donate to individual candidates.I suggest that you all do the same if you do not agree with it.56

    by ronnied on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:51:15 AM PDT

    •  Yes, refuse to funnel $ to State National Commit

      Yes, if the superdelegates would refuse the follow the majority of the elected delegates, then they should be informed that people will redirect all of our donations away from the National and State Dem. Committees.

      We can easily give our money directly to candidates of our choice, without going through the middlemen who collects a share of the cash for their own organizations.

      by JPZenger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:33:06 AM PDT

  •  I empathize with both of you.

    Rules are rules and must not be debated in the middle of the process -- I agree with him on that.

    (Which is why FL and MI should not be seated.)

    On the other hand, you are requesting that he honor the will of the people as expressed by the pledged delegates -- your request is not changing the rules in any way!!

    by Bronxist on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM PDT

•  He's using the term "elected" rather loosely.

  In my state -- Maryland -- party chairs and DNC members are indeed elected, but not by the people.

  They are elected by people like me -- state Central Committee members -- who are in turn elected during a primary election.

  Now, FWIW, a State Party Chair in a state that has a Democratic Governor -- like Maryland -- gets asked by the Governor to serve, and the state Central Committee acts as a rubber stamp of that pick.

  So yeah, they are elected...but not like pledged delegates are elected.

  by wmtriallawyer on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM PDT

  •  yeah isn't Nancy Pelosi's daughter a

    super? Who the hell elected her to anything?

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM PDT

  •  Good points ...

    ... and anyway, I think the main issue is, the pledged delegates have to reflect the will of the people.  The superdelegates, elected or not, are independent agents and can vote as they wish.

    And, I know those are the rules ... but a career politico like this guy should at least have some awareness of the political consequences of things!

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM PDT

  •  that may be so in *your* state...

    ...but not mine.

    Governor Gregoire had absolutely nothing to do with the election of Dwight Pelz to head the Washington Democratic Party.  She exerted, and exerts, little if any influence on the party apparatus.

    by N in Seattle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM PDT

    •  Interesting...and good to know.

      Traditionally, for instance, if we have a Democratic President, the DNC chair is hand-picked by said President.  Same goes for a lot of states.

      Good to know that not every state is that way. More democratic that way if you ask me.

      by wmtriallawyer on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM PDT

  •  Elected by people elected in an ignored race

    The will of the people can certainly be more easily seen from their direct votes, vs. the votes of people who were selected from a group of people who were elected in local elections that most people didn't pay any attention to.  

    In PA, the County Dem Committeepeople were listed in a far corner of the ballot that many people didn't even see.  It was those people who picked the state DNC reps who became Superdelegates. Those superdelegates then get to pick some of their friends as other uperdelegates - and those superdelegates weren't even elected at the County Committee level.

    by JPZenger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:24:04 AM PDT

•  your acquaintance

  is clearly protecting his "turf". I'm not sure that engaging with him directly is going to change his mind. That business of "everyone being elected" is kind of a technicality. Only some of the superdelegates are elected by normal voters in normal elections in which a full population participates--I assume the rest are "elected" by party insiders?

  Here's what's interesting, though. These arcane rules have been around for a while and nobody's been hiding them. What's been a valid criticism of the Clinton campaign is a valid criticism of everyone. If anybody thinks these rules are too obscure or unfair or undemocratic, why are you only saying so now, midway through the primaries? Why didn't anyone complain in 2004, or 2000, or 1992?

  In past elections, the arcane nature of the rules didn't matter because one candidate was winning, regardless of how things got sliced. And I am pretty confident that that will happen in 2008 as well.

  But if people don't like the rules, the time to start changing them is immediately after the primary is settled. They have been changed many times before--they could be changed again.

  by JMS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:26:58 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    We've got to change the process.

    However, I think MoveOn's purpose was not to change the rules mid-stream, but to urge the superdelegates to do the "right thing" and not overturn the will of the voters.

    I hope you are right that it won't matter because one candidate will have enough votes without the superdelegates. But even if that happens, we should get this rule CHANGED before 2012.

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:33:45 AM PDT

    •  I'm confident

      that the SDs will go with whoever wins the most pledged delegates. It's what they've always done, and Clinton simply doesn't have an inducement big enough to get them to change that.

      Given that's the situation, it may not be necessary and is perhaps a little counterproductive for MoveOn or masses of Obama supporters to demand anything from the superdelegates. If I were a superdelegate and inclined to go with the winner anyway, too much pressure would probably turn me off (which is what I think is happening with your acquaintence)--not enough to go against Obama, but enough to be irritated with the netroots or certain activists.

      by JMS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM PDT

      •  yep, yep, yep

        At my Legislative District organization's meeting last night, someone tried to introduce a resolution demanding that Washington's superdelegates (meaning, of course, Murray, Cantwell, Inslee, Dicks, and Sims) take the caucus results as their principal decision-factor at the convention.

        Thankfully, the thing was tabled until next month, so I didn't have to speak out against this silliness.

        It'll be moot by the third Tuesday in March.

        by N in Seattle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM PDT

  •  re:I Agree

    And as long as has a solid lead in pledged delegates--and it's getting extremely difficult to see him losing that solid lead--we don't have to worry.

    I say that because, for all the bluster from outright Clinton supporters or SDs like this one protecting what he sees as his own vote, there is no way that the SDs will hand Clinton this nomination if she is clearly behind.  Just no way.  It would divide the party, very possibly costing us the presidential election as well as the elections of some of the SDs themselves.

    Of course, there are solid leads and solid leads.  Obama has to have a lead beyond the reach of MI and FL delegates, just to keep things simple.  And it will help greatly if he wins outright in OH and TX--both the popular vote and the delegate count in TX, so there's no crying about these "undemocratic, arcane rules."

    Smaller-fry SDs may posture; the folks to watch are the national figures.  Pelosi has come out strong on the right side of this issue.  Schumer and Rangel, who both know how bread gets buttered, hinted that they know it, too.

    Finally, Occam's razor is helpful here.  What's the simplest explanation for how SDs will make up their minds?  (1) Back the obvious winner of the primaries and caucuses, who also happens to have a massive movement supporting him, a better chance in the general, more money, less baggage, and a greater likelihood of providing coattails; or (2) buck all of that and wreak intraparty havoc, all for the sake of -- ?  Also, ask folks whether they'd rather have this nomination battle ended in the first week in March or in August.

    by deminva on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

    •  DNC members

      About half of the superdelegates are state party leaders and such DNC members.  They love the 50-state strategy, and they are very well aware of the difference between Obama and Clinton with regard to its future.

      by N in Seattle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM PDT

•  Really sad

  The "establishment" will not yield that easy. If rules are rules, then Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated. Obama will carry the day, if everybody sticks to rules.

  by sajit on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:29:51 AM PDT

  •  In any event

    I don't think this even matters anyomre.  Is anyone else really concerned that Hillary will win by Super Delegates?  I'm not anymore.

    I've always felt that we in the Obama camp needed to back off of the superdelegate battle (although feeling free to petition them at will, as that seems to be the game with them), while demanding that Hillary back off of Michagan and Florida.  Rules are rules, and we all know about them, or at least we do now.  So, we work to change it!

    We can't really ask Clinton to back off of MI and FL and still tell Super Delegates they are obligated to vote for anyone.

    Fortunately, they are political beasts, and will get behind the will of the people for their own self interest.

    by Particle Noun on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM PDT

•  You're Talking Past Each Other.

  He is accurately stating the rules, which leave the decision to the discretion of the superdelegates.  You are arguing that the superdelegates should exercise their vote with deference to the views of the voters.

  My view, he is willfully misconstruing your argument, which is annoying.

  by jhooversnyder on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank you!

    That's exactly what I'm speaking to -- the political consequences of all his persnickety rule-following.

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM PDT

•  Reread your percentages

  Supers are 40% of the delegates needed to win
  They only comprise %20 of the total number of delegates

  2025 votes need to win. 795* of those delegates could be (probably wouldn't be) but could be part of the 2025. That's where the 40% comes from.

  * with the passing of Tom Lantos there are only 795 super delegates.

  by Oreo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM PDT

  •  OK, gotcha

    Good point .. but a little misleading I think. (Since, as you note, they won't all be voting as a block.)

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM PDT

•  Superdelagets are there

  To make sure the people dont fuck up and elect the wrong person,

  I dont even vote cause I know the superdelegates know whats best for me so it keeps me from having to think to much.

  by ThomHartman on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM PDT

•  For more on superdelegates...

  Check out the blog I work on 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. There's a superdelegate link on the top left.

  We're also a part of the Superdelegate Transparency Project that Bowers announced here last week. STP, like MoveOn, is working to make the nomination process more people-centric.

  by Oreo on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:39:05 AM PDT

•  you are wrong to be angry

  First, it's simply wrong to try to change the rules in midstream.  The stupid MoveOn campaign is just as wrong as the Clinton effort to seat MI and FL delegates.

  Second, the superdelegates will not be a problem.  They were never going to be a problem.  That's because half of them are DNC members, whose only real interest in the matter is to find the strongest candidate to win the election.  Yes, some of them might choose based largely on their personal likes/dislikes, but the vast majority will do what's best for the party.  Period.

  Third, if you're an Obama backer, you should be happy about the DNC-member superdelegates.  Not only do they support Dean's 50-state strategy ... they run it, they embody it.  And they know full well that Clinton's first party-related act as president would be to dismantle the 50-state strategy (her second act would be to ask for Howard's head on a platter).

  by N in Seattle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM PDT

  •  Well I hope you're right n/t

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM PDT

•  I'm an Obama Supporter

  And I think he's absolutely right.

  by stephdray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:32 AM PDT

•  I don't have a problem with the guy, personally

  All of his points are procedural, and I agree that we do have to either respect the existing rules, or get more involved in our local parties to change them. Many of the "unpledged delegates", here correctly asserts, ARE elected, and therefore are beholden to a body of elected people - again, all the more reason to volunteer for your local democratic party - currently run in many places by tired and relatively conservative baby boomers.

  It's when people start BENDING these rules that we will have room to raise the roof.

  by 4democracy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:43:51 AM PDT

  •  Baby boomers conservative?

    I'm a baby boomer and certainly don't consider myself conservative, nor are most of my baby boomer friends.

    Nevertheless ... good point, we should get more involved.

    It's true most of them may be elected, but many are elected only by other party officers -- right? -- who might not be as willing to hold them to account as ordinary rank and file Democrats.

    I still think the superdelegates are a bad idea. It was set up in order to keep the "fringe" lefties from having undue influence on the choice of a nominee (a la McGovern).  Well there really isn't much of a "fringe" any more on the Democratic party.  We are all fairly mainstream.  I think it's an idea whose time has passed.

    by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM PDT

    •  shhh...

      I'm trying to get the young folks involved in the party - and this is a great motivation.

      by 4democracy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM PDT

      •  Aghh! You mean ...

        Your old road is
        Rapidly agin'.
        Please get out of the new one
        If you can't lend your hand

        ... ?

        Oy.  :)

        by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:44:57 PM PDT

        •  Ooohhh.. Channelling Dylan

          Sad thing is,  you win - I got nothin' that holds a candle to him.

          I surrender.

          by 4democracy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM PDT

          •  Awww

            It IS hard competing with boomer-era rockers ... they kind of broke the mold (especially Dylan!)

            by cedubose on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM PDT

•  I hope to god there are petitions...

  asking the Democratic Party to do away with superdelegates entirely.  i can understand how party insiders view all this, but it's also easy for them to lose sight of the fact that we are like customers to their business, and if we stop being a regular customer they are out of a job.  the impression i get from this guy's correspondence is he's rather detached from the voters and views us as numbers and data instead of real people (just like a certain Clinton advisor we all know and love).  this is not a healthy side of the Democratic Party.  just as a 50-state strategy was a healthy way to reconnect with voters nationally, listening to us weirdos on the internets is healthy for party insiders because we represent some of the most passionate and active individuals the Party.  the procedural things i would ask for as changes in 2012 would start with eliminating superdelegates and giving party insiders some other privelege that doesn't offer the opportunity overturn the will of Democratic voters.  even if it means we make a bad choice, they should have to live with it, sorry.  that is the drawback of democracy; sometimes we get stuck with a George W. Bush.

  and of course the other big changes i would ask the party to dedicate itself to are (honest-to-god) campaign finance reform and popular vote representation in the electoral college.  

  by cardinalzen on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM PDT

•  For what it’s worth.....

  ...establish 5 regions of ten contiguous states each.  Rotate the order of primaries for each POTUS nominating cycle. Allow two weeks between primaries.  Eliminate the caucus system and the supers.  
  If the Democratic party isn’t democratic, then  WTF are we?

  by carver on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM PDT

  •  bingo

    If the Democratic party isn’t democratic, then  WTF are we?

    We'd be Republicans, which is exactly why these issues need to be resolved by our party and with our president.

    by cardinalzen on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM PDT

•  The superdelegates aren't inherently evil...

  They exist to give the party elite some power to manage the election, in case of a potentially disastrous schism.  They exert influence not only thru their vote but also thru their potential vote.  In other words they act as a buffer between the nomination and the primary process, which has its own strange behaviors (caucasus can be overrun by a particular group, regional demo "machines" can be non-representative, i.e. Richard Daley 1st in Chicago).

  Of course it is possible to take a process that is designed to mediate the will of the people and make it become a process that can subvert the will of the people (i.e. the presidency of GW).

  Times have changed and the whole process could be overhauled, thus undermining the need for this kind of mediation, and Hillary seems quite capable of using the process to subvert the people's will.

  I believe this is all part of a larger battle between the DLC and Dean's 50 state strategy, between the actual members of the party and the pro-corporate elite that inhabits much of the leadership.  I hope that this election succeeds in moving the party away from the big money and back to its base.

  by rubine on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:10:45 AM PDT

  •  about half the superdelegates are...

    ...DNC members.  

    Methinks they have a rather positive view of the 50-state strategy.  And they know what Clinton would do to the strategy were she to become POTUS.

    by N in Seattle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM PDT

•  All delegates are equal, but some are more equal

  All delegates are equal, but some delegates are more equal than others.

  On the average, a vote by one superdelegate is equal to the votes of 20,000 Democratic voters in a primary election.  Yes, that's equal all right.

  Another thead today on www.dailykos describes how delegates who were elected to vote for Obama in Nevada are being called multiple times to vote for Clinton by the Clinton campaign.  Those aren't superdelegates - they are actually supposed to represent the voters in their area.

  The rules vary from state to state on whether elected/pledged delegates need to vote to follow the will of their local voters. For example, in Pennsylvania, some of the pledged delegates are only obligated to vote for the winning candidate in the first ballot.

  by JPZenger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

•  Just imagine

  Democrats taking control of the Democratic Party and demanding Democracy.

  Never!

  by SecondComing on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM PDT