Spring Break
REALITY CHECK: With no end in sight, will they save the day?
by David Litvak
Columnists | 4/29/08
Posted online at 2:53 AM EST on 4/29/08
The Democratic primary contest persists. Moving forward like some poor headless chicken, it has enough momentum to keep jerking forward but not nearly enough sense to pick a direction and stick to it. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois wins two primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York wins one, and very little changes. With her surprisingly strong nine-point win in Pennsylvania last week, Senator Clinton accomplished relatively little, winning by too much for Senator Obama to effectively claim a win and by too little to noticeably move the race in her direction.
With only a handful of states and territories left and with vitriol and animosity casting increasing doubt on Democratic chances in November, it has become abundantly clear that the Democratic Party needs a nominee to rally behind sooner rather than later. But a candidate will not manifest as his or her party's leader without the help of that powerful and surprisingly ambiguous group known as superdelegates. The superdelegates, for the good of the party, must act to field a nominee as soon as possible.
With just what powers have these superdelegates been gifted? For that matter, what is a superdelegate? There was no such political animal until 1982, when a commission headed by North Carolina governor Jim Hunt created the category. Superdelegates are, generally, party leaders, including state party chairs, senators, members of the House of Representatives, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee and so forth. Their votes may be cast at whim at the party's convention for any candidate of their choosing. The great power of the superdelegate comes into play this year because neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton will be able to attain the 2,025 pledged delegates necessary to win outright and will thus need the extra votes provided by the superdelegates.
What, then, is a superdelegate to do? This race has essentially come down to their discretion; it requires an ending, but the motivations behind the votes that move towards that ending are varied and unpredictable, depending on the superdelegate in question. Should these superdelegates vote according to the will of the people?
With only a handful of states and territories left and with vitriol and animosity casting increasing doubt on Democratic chances in November, it has become abundantly clear that the Democratic Party needs a nominee to rally behind sooner rather than later. But a candidate will not manifest as his or her party's leader without the help of that powerful and surprisingly ambiguous group known as superdelegates. The superdelegates, for the good of the party, must act to field a nominee as soon as possible.
With just what powers have these superdelegates been gifted? For that matter, what is a superdelegate? There was no such political animal until 1982, when a commission headed by North Carolina governor Jim Hunt created the category. Superdelegates are, generally, party leaders, including state party chairs, senators, members of the House of Representatives, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee and so forth. Their votes may be cast at whim at the party's convention for any candidate of their choosing. The great power of the superdelegate comes into play this year because neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton will be able to attain the 2,025 pledged delegates necessary to win outright and will thus need the extra votes provided by the superdelegates.
What, then, is a superdelegate to do? This race has essentially come down to their discretion; it requires an ending, but the motivations behind the votes that move towards that ending are varied and unpredictable, depending on the superdelegate in question. Should these superdelegates vote according to the will of the people?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Diana
Diana Dawson
posted 4/29/08 @ 12:41 PM EST
This is as succinct an evaluation of the race for the Democratic Party nomination as I have read anywhere. The practical solution you offer is the only one that will not further divide the party which in turn would assure a defeat for them in the fall. (Continued…)
FRANK TELLS
posted 4/29/08 @ 5:58 PM EST
I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. (Continued…)
David R. Zukerman Class of '62
posted 4/30/08 @ 12:26 AM EST
What with al the talk about money in politics, I think it can be generally concded that the aim of the political process is something other than the common good. (Continued…)
Post a Comment