Sen. Barack Obama late last night picked up an endorsement from D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a super delegate who said he is what "our country, our party and this city needs at this turning point in our history."
Norton said she had planned to wait until closer to the general election to endorse a candidate. But "as a super delegate, I decided I had to speak up now to separate myself from the idea that is afoot for the first time that super delegates, especially those who have not announced their choice, could or should decide our nominee under some circumstances."
"The notion that a candidate who has not earned delegates could become the Democratic nominee for president is at odds with the democratic principles of our party reforms. Super delegates were never intended to allow the return of smoked-filled room, behind the scenes selection of our candidate," Norton continued. "I have carried a banner for a democracy of the District of Columbia too long to depart from principles of democracy within my own party."
"The idea that's been afoot for the first time..."? Bullshit. These rules have been in place for 25 years. This is just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of Barack Obama deciding it's a problem now -- now that he perceives the rules are working against him.
Where was Obama at any time in the past on this issue? Silent. Silent until he perceives it's to his advantage to change the rules. Then his camp whips out the platitudes like "principles of democracy" and fires up the Obamatronic masses to march on his behalf.
As to the question of whether superdelegates should overrule the will of the people - my answer is absolutely - yes. That's why they are there. To exercise independent thought and judgment.
One need only look at the 1972 George McGovern debacle to see why. McGovern carried one state and DC in the general, and never should have been the nominee. Democrat party seniors knew he'd lose - but it was the "will of the people."
Here's another reason:
"With Sen. John McCain cruising toward the nomination I'm wondering if my vote in tomorrows Virginia primary (Maryland and D.C. are voting as well - hence the Potomac Primary moniker) might have more worth elsewhere; specifically as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Having no dog in the Obama/Clinton fight I have no problem casting a ballot in the Democratic primary to try and get Hillary, who I consider the more favorable opponent for McCain in November, back on track for the Democratic nomination."
Imagine a scenario where the Democratic race boils down to one state primary deciding who becomes our nominee, Clinton or Obama, in... lets say...Pennsylvania.
Imagine a scenario where enough Republicans, like Kevin, switch registration and vote for Clinton, as Kevin advocates above.
Shouldn't the superdelegates look at that, and make the situation right by "ignoring the will of the people" and giving the nomination to Obama?
Obamatrons will bobble-head an enthusiastic Yes! on that point, of course, because the superdelegate rules are protecting their candidate of choice.
As usual, Barack Obama isn't thinking any further than the tip of his nose, envisioning that the superdelegate rules are working against him today, therefore ignoring (or just plain failing to grasp) the protection the superdelegate structure offers to the Democratic party.
Just more evidence that he's not a 'big-picture' thinker at all...
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!