Superdelegates Torn Between Voters, Party

CBSNews.com Reports: Clinton, Obama Push Different Visions For Party Leaders Who Could Decide Nomination

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

With the Democratic presidential race potentially coming down to the will of the superdelegates - the nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who can support the candidate of their choosing - the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing very different visions of how those still undecided should make their choice.

The Clinton campaign has suggested that superdelegates need to take a sober look at who they believe to be the best candidate - regardless of who ends up with an edge in delegates won during the primary and caucus season.

"The whole idea of superdelegates is they are supposed to exercise their independent judgment," Clinton said in New Orleans last month.

The senator insisted it would be a "disservice" to those who "have independent experience with candidates" not to allow them to use their experience as a basis for their judgment.

The Clinton campaign has set up a Web site, complete with embedded video clip of Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean seemingly agreeing with Clinton, to further make the case.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, has sent some mixed signals. But for the most part, they have suggested that superdelegates should follow the will of the people.

"We've got to make sure that whoever wins the most votes, the most states, the most delegates, that they are the nominee," Obama said last month. "I think it would be problematic if either Senator Clinton or myself came in with having won the most support from voters, and that was somehow overturned by party insiders. I think the people would feel as if the voters' voices had been discounted."

CBS News estimates that Obama leads Clinton among pledged delegates, 1,362 to 1,210. But among superdelegates, Clinton leads Obama 242 to 201. More than 300 superdelegates have yet to publicly state a position.

The superdelegate system was created in 1982, following a difficult decade for the Democratic party. Ten years earlier, Democrats had nominated George McGovern, who would lose badly to Richard Nixon in the general election. (Sensing that McGovern was too liberal to beat Nixon, many Democratic leaders tried, but failed, to keep him off the ticket.)

In 1976, the party nominated Jimmy Carter, who would go on to victory in the general election after a tough primary fight. But by the early 1980s, many Democratic leaders felt that Carter had been a poor president, according to Henry Brady, political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley. After having to back two straight nominees who many saw as disappointments, party leaders were looking for a way to have more control over the process.

"There was a feeling that they had gone to the extremes of a popular system and ended up with George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, and that was a mistake of the system," said Brady. "There was a feeling it had to be reigned in."

Superdelegates could also help head off ugly nominating battles by uniting the Democratic establishment around a candidate as early as possible. In 1984, when Walter Mondale wanted to make sure he had secured the nomination, he turned to the superdelegates to put him over the top before the party convention.

"The idea was to create a group of independent delegates who were free to coalesce around a nominee after a candidate emerged from the process with real strength," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who was Mondale's delegate counter in that race.

But the existence of superdelegates also created a potential perception problem. Democratic voters generally want the selection of their nominee to be as, well, democratic as possible - and the superdelegate system invited images of party bosses sitting in smoke-filled rooms, choosing their preferred nominee.

And even if the superdelegates were to try to follow the voters, it's not entirely clear what that means. Should they follow the will of their constituents, as Rep. John Lewis has suggested? (That might not be terribly democratic in the end, since superdelegates are not evenly spread throughout the country.)

Should they back the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if the delegate counts don't reflect the popular vote? (It's possible that one candidate could end up with more votes and less delegates because of intricate party rules.)

And how will they factor in the results in Florida and Michigan, where delegates are not being counted because the states held their primaries early, in violation of party rules?

In a Feb. 25th CBS News poll, a majority of Democratic primary voters said that the superdelegates should back whichever candidate gets the most overall elected delegates. But party leaders seem inclined to maintain at least some control of the system, even if it means risking alienating the rank-and-file.

The best hope for Democrats to extricate themselves from the present situation is for one of the candidates to land a knockout punch that would make superdelegates coalescing around a nominee more palatable to voters, Devine said.

"If Obama had won in Texas and Ohio, this thing would have coalesced, and people would have accepted it," he said. Instead, the battle continues for a victory or series of wins that would provide an opportunity for that to take place.

"It has to do with momentum, it has to do with who's peaking," said Devine. "And that's the way it's supposed to be. If Obama looks like he has a glass jaw, he's not going to win."

[b-easy63]

Please stop hyping this! Allow the process to unfold. Superdelegates should make their decisions based on many factors, and those factors are not flushed out yet.

Posted by zavatchen at 11:56 AM : Mar 10, 2008


NO!! It should be hyped and lambasted!! Super delegates SHOULD do many things--but they are not saints or paragons of virtue they are just people and when the back room deals and money and positions and favors pop up, they can behave no differently than any other greedy person offered a quasi legal way to fleece the system (cause they will be paid with donated money).

Jefferson, and Cunningham and any other politician with their hands out--do not happen in a vacuum.

[b-easy63]

.but they withdrew from lack of funds but not experience or abilities. O and C have tried to convince us they are the only choices. They are not and it''''s time to step back and take a realistic look.

Posted by Valjean7 at 11:39 PM : Mar 09, 2008


Dream on. They are the only viable choices, as chosen by the people. What are you suggesting, that all choices be disregarded so far and the sd pull a candidate of their own choosing out of their azzzes? Who? Edwards? You might as well shut the convention down and just hand McCAin the whitehouse then--because NO ONE except the losing people who were not in the 2 camps would want him and with about 2.5% of the Dem vote--guess who would not have a snowballs chance of winning in November. That elephant in the room is pink and a cartoon resulting from you imbibing too much to nurse your hurt for your losing candidate. Who ever that was.

[b-easy63]

Please stop hyping this! Allow the process to unfold. Superdelegates should make their decisions based on many factors, and those factors are not flushed out yet.

Posted by zavatchen at 11:56 AM : Mar 10, 2008


super delegates are a cheat. It is to control the votes of the people when the party would rather have someone more in their pocket. Just look at the process? Prone to payoffs, favors, positions? And yet buying votes was outlawed years ago. But since 1982, the Democrats say their votes can be for sale. And if they get enough--an SD can sell out their state and who cares what the voters want?

One man one vote. Not one man, one vote --unless you are a party insider, then one man, and a few thousand votes, one you can cast freely--the other you can sell to the highest bidder.

it is not only undemocratic--party politics aside, it is illegal and unconstitutional. Because all men are not created equal--if they are super delegates--they become super men and elitists.

[zavatchen]

Please stop hyping this! Allow the process to unfold. Superdelegates should make their decisions based on many factors, and those factors are not flushed out yet.

[b-easy63]

OBAMA DEMOCRATS AND SUPPORTERS, GET A CLUE.

Know what Obama means when he says he needs your help to get change: it means not just your vote--it means your support. How? STOP SAYING YOU WILL SUPPORT THE NOMINEE NO MATTER WHO IT IS. WHY?


1. If you will support the Dem nominee no matter what, why should the status quo not just put their candidate as the nominee and ignore the people''''''''s choice? (you''''''''ll vote for who they pick anyway)

2. If you will support the nominee no matter what, Why should Hillary run an honest, fair or even decent campaign? (even if she cheats, you''''''''ll vote for her no matter what)

3. If you will support the nominee no matter what, why should the SD not support the person who pays them the most or offers the best favors? (even if they ignore the true leader, you will elect who they tell you to no matter what)

Do you people even know who the status quo is or what it is? its not just corruption in Washington--it is YOU. It is who you choose and HOW you choose them. If you keep doing what you always do for the party--why should they change? Why should they stop the war? You''''''''ll vote for them no matter what.

Why should they fix NAFTA? YOu''''''''ll vote for them no matter what. Why should they stop backroom deals or stop fixing the elections so their best party pick can win? You''''''''ll vote for them no matter what.

People don''''t want real change. They want a magic wand to wave and things to be different--why they keep doing the same ol thing.

[valjean7]

The elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is that the Dems don''t have to select either O or C at the convention. Many early primary and caucus voters voted against both but those numbers seem to be lost. Many others would have likely voted against them if they had the opportunity and would still prefer another for their nominee. The looming stalemated convention needs to take all those voters into consideration. That''s where the Supers with their experience and more unemotional views can concentrate on selecting someone who can win the general election, not just the party vote...which neither C nor O seem to have been able to do. Spare us plurality numbers. Majorities are the rule and I''ll wage many regular delegates for either C or O would, in truth, prefer another...but they withdrew from lack of funds but not experience or abilities. O and C have tried to convince us they are the only choices. They are not and it''s time to step back and take a realistic look.

[arr967]

Well here we sit in the middle of a quagmire and for what? Greed, Power, Money? I don''t even know any more. There is one thing I''m certain of though, we have "Leaders" in our party that need to be put in the unemployment line. When leaders do not represent their Constituents and deny "The People" their choice what good are they?
The Super Delegates are playing politics with this trying to dump the whole problem in the voters laps, when the fact of the matter is they screwed it up. I will admitt there are certain news agencies that made this whole thing their agenda, and the solution to that is simple. Just turn off their channel and find someone with some integrity.
As for our party, it''s a little tougher but it can be done. You don''t need me to tell you who they are. Their names are made public and how they voted. Look them up and vote them out! If we''re not willing to admitt to ourselves the fact that we have people in our party who are not representing "The People" then we''re no better than the Republicans.

[eyzwidopn]

There are roughly 600 or so pledged delgates remaining to be allocated in the remaining contests. It''s probably safe to say that they will be evenly spilt between Obama and HRC, leaving the race effectively where it is right now. The super delegates can settle all of this following the Puerto Rico primary in June by the DNC calling on them to make their choice immediately following the PR primary, potentially putting either Obama or HRC over the top. Once the super delegates do this and the nominee is chosen, the MI & FL delgates can be seated at the convention in August without impacting the nominee selection which is as it should be due to MI & FL''s violation of DNC rules.

[kmccliment]

NEWS UPDATE:



Barack Obama must make detour through Mississippi while he%u2019s campaigning due to bad weather. Senator Obama was scheduled to meet with the Governor of Mississippi this evening but had to cancel as the Governor%u2019s mansion was hit by an F-1 tornado. Local authorities advise that no one was harmed in the F-1 tornado only the mansion was knocked off its wheels.

[erasmus6]

I have said before that you can''''t believe what the U.S. media tells you. When reporting about anything in Canada, they never get it right. Not only that, they are against Hillary.

They have obviously lied about Hillary talking to Canadian officials about NAFTA.

This is the REAL story from CANADA: "Hillary Clinton''''s campaign team has never told any Canadian Officials that their candidates anti-NAFTA statements are just political posturing, the Prime Minister''''s Office said Friday."

[vmcneal2]

Muslim Muslim Muslim Muslim blah blah blah blah. You bigots need to come up with a new game plan because this Muslim thing is getting kinda old. It just makes you sound silly.

[b-easy63]

Hillary''''''''s attack ads are further proof that she''''''''ll do anything to become the DNC''''''''s candidate. She''''''''s too polarizing with Repub''''''''s and Indies.

With the "3:00 AM" attack ad, she stole it from Bush Sr. The little girl sleeping in the ad is now a teenager. She said she wishes now to support Obama.

DNC: Do you want Chaos in Denver? I hope Denver has enough bulldozer rental shops to cover the PO''''''''d democrats if you pull the rug out under our feet.

Maybe Nader looks good after all Dean?

Posted by Liberty4You at 11:44 PM : Mar 08, 2008


the ad was actually lifted from the Mondale campaign in the 1970s. Just like her speech in Texas about America and her taking hits was plagarized from a speech of Bill Clintons and her comments about what was good for America was stolen from John Edwards. Hilary is all about pointing out comments that can be xeroxed--but fails to acknowledge when she herself is the biggest plagerist of them all.

[liberty4you]

The Super-delegates (Comic book heroes) won''''t dare to go
against the will of the people either way.

Hillary''''s attack ads are further proof that she''''ll do anything to become the DNC''''s candidate. She''''s too polarizing with Repub''''s and Indies.

With the "3:00 AM" attack ad, she stole it from Bush Sr. The little girl sleeping in the ad is now a teenager. She said she wishes now to support Obama.

DNC: Do you want Chaos in Denver? I hope Denver has enough bulldozer rental shops to cover the PO''''d democrats if you pull the rug out under our feet.

Maybe Nader looks good after all Dean?

[johnfrost-2009]

OBAMA IS Beast 666. He''s the Son of Satan in the flesh.
He has come from Africa to take your life, your children and your House.
Mabus is his name and He wants you to worship him even though he''s ugly with the purple lips of the Devil, all he says are lies and cheats to gain your trust. Then he''ll enslave you.
He will kill 200 million Americans!!!Mostly Whites but many Blacks too if they refuse to worship Allah, Satan himself, his father.

These are the signs he''s the Beast 666:

a.= He will be a *** child.Born out of wedlock.

b. He will be homosexual, an abomination to G-d( search Larry Sinclair)

c.- He will be a crack cocaine addict.( search Larry Sinclair in Google)

d.- He will have honey in his words and will lie, murder and cheat. Millions will follow him like hypnotized zombies.

e.- He will have the purple lips of Satan his father.

f.- He will have the booming voice of Hell his house.

G.- He will use Mind Control to enslave the souls of the Godless and millions will fall for his promises.

h.- He will make zombies out of all who follow the Beast 666, He will send them to kill for him.

[valjean7]

If citing a middle name given by parents is the best that can be done to poke a negative comment at a candidate it just shouts that they have nothing of value to say about them.

[valjean7]

The Democratic party contest is now who can beat McCain. Both O and C should concentrate their campaigns on showing they can push him around and beat him in the general election. Beating each other up now is beside the point. The one who wins the nomination will be the one who shows they can successfully oppose the GOP nominee and machine, including Bush...with Rove whispering instructions from stage right. And it could very well turn out that the Dems need to reach into their bullpen for someone strong and fresh enough to finish with a wins/save. Again, "IT''S THE WHITE HOUSE, STUPID".

[valjean7]

All those claiming if O or C is the nominee they''ll vote GOP. That could be a result changing number. It screams for the ballot to have a NO column and the highest net yes wins. One could help their traditional party win by voting NO against the other but without indicating endorsement of their party''s candidate...a very clear message to them. A way to vote honestly, How refreshing. And if the O&C division is that deep and wide the party needs to select someone who could bridge it. It''s time for reality...not emotion. "IT''S THE WHITE HOUSE STUPID." Or would you prefer your greater of evils in office for the next 4-8 years? Starve yourself because you don''t like broccoli? C''mon, grow up.

[vet_sk]

TheGateway1: "Liberal loons"? Anyone who voted for Bush not just once but twice has no standing to say anything about a president like Carter that did not bankrupt the country, get us into an idiotic war, and make us the laughing stock of the world. Our dollar is in free-fall and we''re in deep into a costly war. My god, man!
Are you one of the 1 in 3 Americans that think Bush doing a good job?

[vet_sk]

The supers are smart enough that they will not go against the person with the most pledged delegates.

The dems would lose for sure - as the Obama supporters would not just feel the slap in the face, but the punch in the gut. There is no way they would vote for someone who broke the spirit of the campaign.

[hawksprings]

Poor, poor superdelagates.
I think Mary MacGregor said it best in her 1976 Hit "Torn Between Two Lovers":

CHORUS
Torn between two lovers, feelin'' like a fool
Lovin'' both of you is breakin'' all the rules
Torn between two lovers, feelin'' like a fool
Lovin'' you both is breakin'' all the rules

You mustn''t think you''ve failed me just because there''s someone else
You were the first real love I ever had
And all the things I ever said, I swear they still are true
For no one else can have the part of me I gave to you

CHORUS

I couldn''t really blame you if you turned and walked away
But with everything I feel inside, I''m asking you to stay

CHORUS

Torn between two lovers
FADE
Feelin'' like a fool
Lovin'' both of you is breakin'' all the rules


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!