Letters to the Editor
-
No way
Shapiro writes
But it is also shaky to argue -- as many Obama partisans do passionately -- that the pledged delegate totals from the primaries and caucuses should override any independent decision making on the part of the 796 automatic superdelegates (mostly members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee) who will ultimately provide the winning candidate with the margin of victory. Most Democratic voters will have chosen between Clinton and Obama back in February -- and they could have changed their minds along the way. These votes were a valid expression of sentiment when they were cast, but they lose their potency as an expression of the pure popular will as they age. The gap between Super Tuesday and the Democratic convention (more than 200 days) is roughly double the time between the November election and the presidential inauguration. If the convention were really designed to be a rubber stamp of the primaries, why not vote right before the delegates arrive in Denver? What was the reason for such early voting? All the Democrats had a plane to catch?
Although I do agree that "the rules are the rules" and they should stay that way for this 2008 primary (NO FL and MI revotes, superdelegates ARE independent, the inconsistencies from state to state with regard to voter eligibility), I strongly disagree with Shapiro about the prospect of the superdelegates throwing the crown to the candidate with fewer votes. Only the Democrats would do something so incredibly stupid, even though the rules allow. The supers ALSO have the option of NOT upsetting the result of the pledged count. It seems extremely unlikely that Hillary can win the pledged delegate count, and therefore if the supers were to crown her rather than Obama, who would have more delegates and most likely more votes, we would have an uproar of colossal proportions.
My criticisms of Clinton have not changed. I *do* believe that she places her interests above her constituents (Iraq War vote), her interests above those of her party, and she will push to the limit a scorched-earth policy to win via the supers. I maintain this is extremely sleazy, self-centered, and vain. The most recent email from the Clinton campaign, that Obama wants to disenfranchise voters in the remaining eight states, even North Carolina, is ludicrous. The arguments from the Clinton campaign as to why Clinton is the better candidate change as often as the days of the week. It's really laughable. Now I know why she does better with the less educated, because they obviously buy the crap.
However, Shapiro does have a good point about the protracted process. I've long told my mother (who is a devout Hillary fan-she fits that demographic of an older female voter waiting her whole life to put a woman in the White House regardless of the content of her character) that this long process benefits McCain, and that I would not be at all surprised if he won. After all, one should not misunderestimate the stupidity of the American people. It's a lot higher than any of us thinks.