On the street corners of many a black congressional district, you would often hear soul-folks saying: “no big thing but a chicken wing”. This can be heard whenever there is a fuss about something or the other that soul-people think is being overblown. On corners of white congressional districts (and by white and black, I am only alluding to where the majority of the residents are of that color; that’s all), you may hear the same sentiments expressed this way: “much ado about nothing”. Well that’s how I feel about all this super-delegate noise, coming out from many tense corners of hot and heavy political competition; like the kind taking place between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- as they compete for the Democrat’s presidential nomination.
Look people, rules are rules. That’s it; period. Once you agree to play by the rules, then ethics dictate you are bound to abide by said rules. So here we have both camps talking all kinds of “stupid shit” about the super-delegates, in attempts at chicanery; they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And this goes for both campaigns. Both campaigns need to chill.
I personally believe that there should be room for super–delegates at the Democratic Party convention. I believe that they should be limited to no more than say 5% to 10% of all the delegates however- in that way their impact would be minimal. I believe that all members of congress (from the party) should be super delegates, and also presidents, vice-presidents, ex-presidents and ex-vice-presidents, governors and ex-governors of all states, and maybe a few select others: like a secretary of state and other high cabinet members and/or office-holders; that’s it. The problem with the super-delegates in this presidential cycle is that the composition seems arbitrarily drawn up that’s all. Plus the number seems too large; looks like about a fifth of all the delegates are super (794). Some of them are youngsters with no real political experience, expertise or accomplishments. Next time around the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should restrict that list to significant party elders/leaders, and lower the number too.
Super delegates were rightly created for exactly what is happening now: a semi-deadlock, as it relates to a clear winner of the primaries. What everybody should remember is that the process isn’t over. The purpose of the “supers” is to be the last line or firewall, for the expressed majority will of democrats-at the convention. Another aspect to this purpose is to do what’s obviously in the best interest of the party. In the past, party bosses would resolve deadlocks from behind the closed-doors of smoke-filled rooms, with all types of nefarious deals made amongst themselves. In the past many a presidential candidate claimed to have lost the nomination because of the “party-bosses”; for example Estes Kefauver in 1952-who lost the nomination to Adalai Stevenson. It is said that Eugene McCarthy lost the nomination in 1968, because President Lyndon B. Johnson exerted a lot of pressure on the party bosses, in order to get his vice-president (Hubert Humphrey) the nomination that year.
As far as the rules go I believe that the pledged delegates are bound (or should be) in the first round, to vote for the candidate who claimed them in the primary (some people dispute this as factual), otherwise the primaries and caucuses will be somewhat meaningless. The super–delegates however are different from the pledged delegates. Super-delegates could vote however they wish, which doesn’t mean that they are insulated from realities of the primary and caucus processes. It seems highly unlikely that the super-delegates will vote against the candidate that has won the most primaries and/or caucuses. It also seems unlikely that the super-delegates will vote against the candidate who has accumulated the most votes and/or pledged delegates during the lengthy process. If they do however, they will be within their rights given that there are no rules that restrict how they vote, why they vote, nor the criteria used in arriving at their vote. The simple understanding has always been that they vote in the best interests of the party (as arbitrary as that may be).
This may surprise many, but I do believe that if the supers were to vote en mass to give the nomination to Hillary Clinton: they will be within their rights. It will be akin to some pacifist going to a Legion post and burning the flag of the USA in front of many veterans. That protester may have the right to burn the flag, but he or she must know that such an act will probably have repercussions. So if he or she wakes up in some hospital bed a few days later, with many broken bones all over, then: repercussions did set in/lol. The supers must know that the wrong vote will bring repercussions. I am sure they do. And when the time comes for them to do their thing, they will show that they are people with intelligence, wisdom, common sense, and with a full understanding of what their historic roles are in the process. This whole episode is like the Y2K fears that were running wild before the turn of this century: unnecessary panic. And just like the Y2K episode, this too will turn out to be: no big thing but a chicken wing.
Stay tuned-in folks; we will be eating some chicken wings soon, to celebrate the nominee of our party/lol.