Hear Directly From An Undecided Superdelegate
by mefck, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:39:33 AM EDT
Great blog on the web for those of you who don't know about it directly from an uncommitted superdelegate.
He/she plays things down the middle and gives users an interesting read:
On when to declare a preference:
I'm watching the numbers roll in after Senator Clinton's 10-point win. I've spoken to one network and one newspaper. Some rumors going around about some major Superdelegate shifts on Wednesday morning - that would be something if it were true, wouldn't it? (It's probably not true).
There is a lot of debate going on over on private DNC member listserves tonight. The main issue is a) do we make our leanings known now or b) do we wait until all of the states have had an opportunity to vote?
As of this writing, there is not a consensus.
On Michigan and Florida:
Last Friday I posted about the notion of some Supers waiting to see the final resolution on appeals put forth by Florida & Michigan before making a decision. This story issued today has me thinking about this idea again as well.
Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention, but they should not be allowed to play a factor in this nomination process.
Edit: The leadership of these states failed their voters. And it is disingenuous for that leadership to cry disenfranchisement when they knew the rules, they knew the penalties, and they moved forward anyway. Thus we should include the states at the convention, but we should not reward them by granting them leverage during the nomination process. The best solution to this is to seat the delegates and not give them a vote, or to split the vote allocations 50/50 for each candidate - in effect nullifying their votes.
My comments last week were as follows:
"...as much as I stand by my comments in that I don't want to see the nomination tipped one way or another by Supers, I would much prefer that Supers decide this thing than allowing delegates from unsanctioned Florida and Michigan elections to determine the nominee. That would be the ultimate injustice because it would be rewarding to rouge states, no matter who the nominee shall be."
The DNC rules which are currently in place came about from a commission which was created at the urging of the Michigan delegation in 2004. The recommendations of the commission passed with near unanimity in 2006, including support from Florida and Michigan. The law changing the primary date in Michigan was passed and enacted by Democrats, while the law changing the primary date in Florida was supported by nearly every single Democratic member of the Florida legislature...and it was endorsed by the Chair of the Florida Democratic Party.
My favorite comparison of the Florida and Michigan situation was made on the "Stumped" blog at the Washington Post:
I have a spirited 3-year-old boy. The other day I told him that if he really wanted to have a big cookie in the middle of the afternoon, he wouldn't be able to have dessert after dinner. Sebastian opted for the cookie, but then still threw a tantrum after dinner, acting as if his human rights were being violated when I told him we'd have to abide by his earlier choice.
Leading politicos from Florida and Michigan are acting a lot like Sebastian these days.