This interesting article from the NYT describes the ongoing process of lobbying for support from the superdelegates who might eventually decide the Democratic nomination.
Here’s my contribution - a letter that I just sent to my local congresswoman, who is currently a superdelegate who has endorsed Hillary Clinton:
Congresswoman Woolsey,
I was quite surprised to read in the Press-Democrat that you were endorsing Hillary Clinton, after choosing to endorse Dennis Kucinich in 2004. As a founding member of the “Out of Iraq Caucus,” it seemed odd that you would choose to back the Senator who has voted for the Iraq war at nearly every opportunity, when several other candidates in the race had stronger anti-war credentials.
Your endorsement seemed even more unusual after the Iowa caucuses, when Kucinich, the man you previously supported, threw his second ballot support to Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama.
Your rationale at the time of the endorsement was to state that you are “looking at who can get us out of Iraq. That has to be somebody who is electable."
After the California primary, in which more of your constituents voted for Obama than Clinton, you pointed out that although Clinton had not secured the Democratic nomination, she had a “solid lead.”
What you didn’t say was that Clinton’s “solid lead” was based entirely on endorsements from superdelegates like yourself, rather than from pledged delegates from voters in the State primaries and caucuses.
And even that lead is rapidly shrinking!
The presumptive GOP nominee is now John McCain, the man who has suggested that we could be in Iraq “for 100 years” and who jokes about “bombing Iran!” Head-to-head polling shows that Obama fares much better against McCain than Clinton does, for several reasons: First, Obama appeals to many of the same independent voters that might lean toward McCain. Second, conservative voters who tend to distrust McCain, absolutely despise Hillary Clinton!
If you really want to get out of Iraq, how can you still consider casting your vote, as a superdelegate, for Clinton, in opposition to the majority of your constituents, when your vote could possibly enhance John McCain’s chances of victory in November?
Well said! I was hashing this over in my mind all evening about these super delegates. Since they are establishment people can we as voters know who they all are? They just jump on bandwagons without a reason. They should have to explain their choices to their constituents, and not be able to impose their will on the nation otherwise what is the point of voting and caucusing. I wish Obama would get Texas and Ohio. That would do it!
ReplyDeleteCheck the "Hot Links" section on the right. The last link is to a complete list of superdelegate endorsements. At that site, there is also a list of undecided superdelegates.
ReplyDeleteAs for Texas and Ohio, I think a near split of the delegates would do it, since that would leave only Pennsylvania as a target large State for Hillary to make up the complete gap.
Ultimately, I think Chuck Todd at NBC is right that if Obama wins the most pledged delegates and is leading in the national head-to-head polls against McCain, then the superdelegates will have to support him!
Have you noticed that no matter what Obama does Hillary alway has the higher number of delegates. When he has a big win, she must go get more super delegates just to keep herself first. With all these wins in all these states, he never gets ahead of her.
ReplyDeleteAre some of the super delegates pledging a vote that they can't change later.?
ReplyDelete