But this week we saw an interesting wrinkle. From the New York Times yesterday:
The prospect that the nomination could be decided by party insiders rather than by the voters has stirred unease among many superdelegates as they weigh potentially conflicting loyalties to their constituents and to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.Democrat insider, political consultant, talk-show stalwart, and superdelegate Donna Brazile said, "I think, if 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this. ... There's no reason why we should decide this election. I feel very strongly" ("Situation Room," CNN, 2/6). Despite some controversy about Ms. Brazile's true beliefs about superdelegates (and she apparently corrected that statement to say that she would quit only the Democratic National Committee), she is not the only one expressing reluctance.
Several legislators said they would stay neutral as long as possible, hoping to be spared a decision. But, they said, they are prepared to step in and try to push the party to a decision as soon as the voting is over.
But these are people with votes. Did anyone in this party really think that there would never be a situation where the superdelegates would come into play? If not, then why do these people, who don't represent any actual voter, exist?
The only conclusion I can derive is that the superdelegate principle is to allow party insiders to hang around the convention, get on camera (not that there's much coverage, though you have to think that will change this time around), have a nice vacation in the Rocky Mountains. So what is the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment