I'm interested in getting comments from DailyKos members regarding when "will of the people" should be followed .
I frequently read opinions here and elsewhere that the "will of the people" should be followed regarding who the super-delegates should endorse and vote for at the Democratic Convention (assuming that the process still needs to be resolved after June 3). For example, Nancy Pelosi has clearly expressed this viewpoint.
The argument basically centers around who is finally leading in the popular vote totals as this would be representative of the "will of the people" (and clearly we can't use state-based results since there are too many delegates acting contrary to the wishes of the voters in their own state [Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc, etc, etc...]. So, let's assume that majority rules when it comes down to driving the actions of our politicians who are in a super-delegate role.
If this is the case, then isn't it highly hypocritical of Nancy Pelosi to suggest this when she failed to follow the "will of the people" when it came down to the IWR vote. Or should we withdraw support of Barack Obama since he spoke out against the war and showed that he doesn't care about the "will of the people" either.
I say this since polls showed that the American people supported the war against Iraq at something like 62% in the weeks prior to the war and that 72% supported the war immediately upon its start. This sounds like a clear majority to me and wouldn't if be fair to say that invading Iraq represented the "will of the people"?
Or are our political figures expected to exercise some independent judgement on things without being driven by the "mob"?