- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
About a thought I had on how Republicans are "gaming" the Democratic primary process to make the party (1) choose a weaker nominee and (2) extend the process so there is more bloodletting.
If this is true, and it actually "taints" the nomination process -- shouldn't the _independent_ votes of the superdelegates count even more? Shouldn't they be allowed to reach their own conclusions and "correct" for the Republican "gaming" that is going on?
Anyone have an argument against that?
It would seem to me, then, that _if_ both the pledged delegate and popular vote counts are close then the superdelegates would have a moral obligation to discount the "gaming" that went on and vote for the candidate they believed had the better chance of winning the election.
This, of course, would invalidate Obama's argument that the pledged delegate count is all that matters.
Your say?
