The superdelegates, he insists, should ratify the voices of the voters, rather than correct or control them. For these political professionals to exercise a judgment independent of the electoral process is to return to the proverbial "smoke-filled rooms" (now smoke-free, of course) where party bosses acted without any concern for what "the people" thought.I confess a certain schadenfreude where the Democrats & their Superdelegates are concerned. I enjoy hearing folks who've said Al Gore was the real president in 2000 defending their process, which, as Prof. K points out, exists for a reason:
when the Democrats created the superdelegate positions, they intended for party professionals to have an independent voice in the selection of the nominee. Their legitimate concern was that a candidate-centered nominating process—with primaries and caucuses open to anyone who, if only for the day, called himself or herself a Democrat—would leave the party exposed to insurgencies that either promised a general election disaster or didn’t reflect the core principles and identity of the party. If party identification is to mean anything, so the thinking went, those most closely identified with the party ought to have a voice in selecting its nominee.
Finally (look away, ninme, look away!) Michelle Obama's not looking too glittery, either, and this was before her comment yesterday about never being proud of the country before. Mark Steyn notes that for all their talk about hope, the pair of them are unbelievably pessimistic. Which the WSJ noted previously:
Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar. It's a downer.
