From Wiki:

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to accord some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

The Republican Party has 123 similarly automatically appointed delegates, members of the Republican National Committee, who wield roughly one fourth the voting power of the Democratic superdelegates.[1]

In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held.

[edit] The 2008 Democratic National Convention

The 2008 Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 796[2] superdelegates, although the number is not final until March 1, 2008. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee.[3] A list of superdelegates can be found here.

A candidate needs a simple majority of the combined delegate and superdelegate votes to secure the nomination. Democratic delegates from state caucuses and primaries number 3,253. This means that the total number of votes is 4,049. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025.[2] Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for approximately four fifths (80.4%) of the Democratic convention delegates.[2][4] Note: All numbers in this section assume that Michigan and Florida's delegates are not counted per current Democratic National Committee rules. If those rules are changed before or during the convention, the numbers above will change as appropriate.

[edit] Criticism

The Democratic Party is often criticized during election cycles for conducting primary elections in a non-democratic fashion, since superdelegates are appointed by the party and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. There have been repeated calls to eliminate the superdelegates from the primaries to more accurately reflect the popular vote. [5]

I don't really think he was calling you a racist. I think he was suggesting that, in the exact same way that you can't discern Obama's mind when he looked the other way from Clinton--that is, whether he was snubbing her or simply distracted or whatever--he (stackey-dackey) can't discern your reasons for "not trusting" Obama; so to call Obama rude (when you don't know his heart, esp. as regards to that snub scene) is like to call you racist (when we can't know your heart on the race/trust connection). Does that make sense? That's how I took it.

~A fellow English major

I realize I'm getting annoying... but I just read Deadhead's (now-starred) early letter with a fine-toothed comb, wherein s/he spells out the precise mathematical mechanism needed for either candidate to capture all the delegates needed to win the nomination....

AND THERE IS NARY A MENTION of the superdelegates, which constitute 1/5 of the delegates necessary for getting that majority. His exalted formula is incomplete.

Will somebody please listen to me? This is important! All that impressive math? Completely wrong, b/c he didn't count the superdelegates, which equal 796 out of the 4049. So close to a full 40% of that magic 2025 that each candidate needs could theoretically come from party insiders, NOT voters.

She was just giving an interview to Chris Wallace the other night. She's the only Dem in general to agree to work with FOX (Edwards joined Obama in his boycott). Now that it's just her and Obama left, it would do serious harm to FOX to completely erase the Democratic side of the national election. I don't know how FOX could even claim to be "news" at that point.

I totally get the argument that getting on and fighting might be a better solution (Remember Bill Clinton a year or two ago with Chris Wallace? He got all red in the face and read Wallace the riot act.) But isn't the jury now in, given the evidence? I mean, doesn't their pitiful downturn indicate that the partial Dem boycott is working? And wouldn't this be a great time for Hillary to join the bandwagon? She is often vilified for putting herself before party--winning at all costs, etc.; here is a chance for her to demonstrate team loyalty. I would honestly think the world of her if she made this move.

I know he's not with FOX (officially) but while we're at it: What a blow to Limbaugh's brand that Republicans seem to be choosing McCain, the guy he has publicly denounced. This is huge--perhaps the end of an era. I have always considered Rush Limbaugh more instrumental in the rise of the right in this country than any single other person or institution (something I think his ego would gladly accept). Could his influence be fading...?