I don't know what you're talking about. The Adlai Stevenson administration was a Golden Age in America.

I'm not sure why you assume being a "check" doesn't mean "that delegates are free to vote by whatever criteria they choose." Much the way Congress and the President can check each other without reflexively opposing each other, superdelegates act as a check specifically by not being bound to any criteria but those they choose.

Lanny Davis argues that

For the sake of my digestion, I make it a rule never to finish sentences that begin this way.

Can we at least get the Obama supporters to stop harrassing already-pledged superdelegates? (I can't get my brain around the utter lack of loyalty and the willingness to stab someone in the back that it would take to switch after making a public pledge. It should not be allowed [IMO], least of all encouraged.)

"They've been sending e-mails, calling my cell and my home phone, and mailing letters threatening that if I don't go for Obama, they won't vote for the Democrat in the general election," Martinez said. "They say that since Colorado went for Obama, so should I. What I say to them is, following that logic, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should switch to Clinton."

And Lanny's point would appear to be, "Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome."

Since the standard has always been unpledged superdelegates can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason, why are you trying to intimidate them into voting for the majority leader?

Let's stop pressuring superdelegates to apply some arbitrary guideline you just invented that just so happens to help your candidate (at the moment).

For an even funnier view of this illogic take a look at David Wilhelm making a fool of himself this morning at: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178540.php

Re Adlai Stevenson: you've got to go back 80 years to find a Presidential candidate chosen in the smoke-filled rooms other than FDR, JFK, Adlai, and Hubert Humphrey. And for obvious reasons, the HHH pick wasn't exactly the old system's finest moment.

So Adlai was really the best third name Lanny could have come up with, without going back to (a) Woodrow Wilson, (b) pre-Roosevelt candidates that lost to the GOP nominee, or (c) the 19th century.

Lanny's point would appear to be, "Don't change the rules in the middle of the game or, more accurately, don't game the rules to change the outcome."

And mine would be, "besides some serious inside-baseball geeks, who the hell knew these were the rules, until just a few weeks ago?"

Pretty much everyone has 'known' that the primaries would produce a winner. Stupid us, we assumed that would be true even if the race were fairly close.

Now we find out you need to win over 62% of the delegates selected through primaries and caucuses to win via that process alone. If the race is 62%-38% or closer, the superdelegates decide.

I don't remember voting on this rule. Hell, I don't remember having a choice of which game to play: the Dems have a monopoly on meaningful left-of-center political participation.

My only means of protest, of expressing my unhappiness with this rule that I didn't agree to, is to tell the Dems to take their monopoly and shove it - to stay home on Election Day.

But now I hear that exercising that option is immoral, or makes me a bad sport, or something. (No, I'm not considering staying home on Election Day, but my anger at being gamed is still real.)

So it sounds like the defenders of this system are saying: my ass is theirs, whether I like it or not. I've got to accept their rules I never agreed to, and I've got no business walking out of their one-way deal, either.

It's like being a baseball player before free agency.

Well, screw that s**t. Either the Democratic Party needs to learn to be a small-d democratic party, or they have every reason to expect people to tell them to take their one-sided game and shove it.

So, Democrats: do you believe in democracy, or not? It's put-up-or-shut-up time. And if you decide you don't believe in democracy, then don't whine when those of us who do, start considering other options.

My only means of protest, of expressing my unhappiness with this rule that I didn't agree to, is to tell the Dems to take their monopoly and shove it - to stay home on Election Day.

Riiigghhttt! Stay home and help elect another Republican. This is true lunacy.

martind - you needed to keep reading.

BUT remember that while I've been voting for 35 years, Obama has brought a lot of newbies into the process, and a lot of his other supporters aren't necessarily regular voters.

Their 'we' isn't the Democratic Party. It's themselves and people similarly situated. Just as many of us were radicalized by Florida 2000, many of them might potentially be similarly radicalized by Denver 2008.

The Democratic Party needs to ask itself which is more important: the vaunted independence of superdelegates, or small-d democracy? Especially if putting superdelegates ahead of democracy would risk losing those voters in November.

Shorter version, adopting martind's style:

Riiigghhttt! Get a whole bunch of new voters to stay home, and thereby help elect another Republican. This is true lunacy.

lowtech:

Who are you trying to fool? Between:

"who the hell knew these were the rules, until just a few weeks ago?"

and:

"I've been voting for 35 years"

It's quite obvious you're not being truthful. Anyone who has been voting for 35 years absolutely should and would know that a nominee who enters the convention without the required number of delegates is not guaranteed the nomination. (Hint: That's why we have nominating conventions. Hint: That's also why we have superdelegates.)

This happened with Dukakis and Jackson, so you would appear to be less than truthful or a very uninformed voter. If the latter, I would suggest you not vote, please. (Snark welcome!)

"Pretty much everyone has 'known' that the primaries would produce a winner ..."

Laughably untrue (excepting the laughably uninformed). Why then, has Hillary been working the superdelegates since before the first primary or caucus? Just as Dean before her. Don't penalize Hillary because she was smart enough to foresee this possibility. Obama could end up with more superdelegates anyway so don't attempt to create some new standard for a superdelegate vote that never before existed (or threaten to leave or riot or something).

"I don't remember voting on this rule. Hell, I don't remember having a choice of which game to play ... My only means of protest, of expressing my unhappiness with this rule that I didn't agree to..."

You are, I can only assume, inadvertently making the argument of every soon-to-be-disenfranchised voter in the states of Michigan and Florida. Suggest you back off this track as it gives Hill just a few more delegates.

To suggest at this point that all superdelegates should vote with the nationwide majority or threaten to leave the party and note vote - is the precise definition of gaming the system and intimidation. To ex post facto attempt to develop some pseudo standards for voting that never before existed is wrong. The standard is that an unpledged superdelegate can vote for whomever they want for any reason whatsoever - let's simply leave it at that and quit trying to intimidate them into voting for (at this point) Obama.

I can't comment on this because I have a terrible cough.

HACK HACK HACK HACK :O

Please list all the democrats who would have beaten Eisenhower in 52. Should have been a walkover for a "decent candidate," right?

Hey, low-tech --

Given the nation's predicament; given the horror-freak show that is the Republican party today, to even think about or talk about staying home is nothing but lunacy.

sbj:
You are, I can only assume, inadvertently making the argument of every soon-to-be-disenfranchised voter in the states of Michigan and Florida. Suggest you back off this track as it gives Hill just a few more delegates.

Am I missing something? Didn't Michigan and Florida disenfranchise themselves by not following the agreed upon rules? Why are they so special they get to break the rules everyone else has to follow?

Peter K:

I was addressing lowtech cycle guy, who maintained that since he personally never agreed to the idea of superdelegates that it was somehow undemocratic and therefore he was going to vote for a Republican. The point being that anyone in MI and FL could make the same unsound claim.

I agree that those poor saps in FL and MI are just shit out of luck.

Didn't Michigan and Florida disenfranchise themselves by not following the agreed upon rules?

Yes, indeed, they did.

Why are they so special they get to break the rules everyone else has to follow?

Well, I think that's obvious. Hillary "won" those two, in her campaign against nobody. Therefore, they should count.

Adlai Stevenson was a good man, and nobody was going to beat Eisenhower anyway. There's no reason to bash on him.

lowtech:

Who are you trying to fool? Between:

"who the hell knew these were the rules, until just a few weeks ago?"

and:

"I've been voting for 35 years"

It's quite obvious you're not being truthful. Anyone who has been voting for 35 years absolutely should and would know that a nominee who enters the convention without the required number of delegates is not guaranteed the nomination.

Well, sure, what's the contradiction between that and what I said?

(Hint: That's why we have nominating conventions. Hint: That's also why we have superdelegates.)

This happened with Dukakis and Jackson, so you would appear to be less than truthful or a very uninformed voter. If the latter, I would suggest you not vote, please. (Snark welcome!)

Actually, it didn't happen with Dukakis and Jackson. Jackson merely refused to formally concede before the convention, but Dukakis clinched the nomination during the primary season.

When come back, bring facts. And logic.

Let's try this again, with formatting, and my username:

lowtech:

Who are you trying to fool? Between:

"who the hell knew these were the rules, until just a few weeks ago?"

and:

"I've been voting for 35 years"

It's quite obvious you're not being truthful. Anyone who has been voting for 35 years absolutely should and would know that a nominee who enters the convention without the required number of delegates is not guaranteed the nomination.

Well, sure, what's the contradiction between that and what I said?

(Hint: That's why we have nominating conventions. Hint: That's also why we have superdelegates.)

This happened with Dukakis and Jackson, so you would appear to be less than truthful or a very uninformed voter. If the latter, I would suggest you not vote, please. (Snark welcome!)

Actually, it didn't happen with Dukakis and Jackson. Jackson merely refused to formally concede before the convention, but Dukakis clinched the nomination during the primary season.

When come back, bring facts. And logic.

"Pretty much everyone has 'known' that the primaries would produce a winner ..."

Laughably untrue (excepting the laughably uninformed). Why then, has Hillary been working the superdelegates since before the first primary or caucus? Just as Dean before her.

If you'd taken a poll in, say, November, what percentage of the American people could have told you much at all about superdelegates?

It would have been down in the white noise.

Lately, the news has been full of stuff about superdelegates, so it's too late to take that poll now, of course.

But look: we're in the 99th percentile as far as awareness of this process is concerned. Just because you consider people who don't know these things 'laughably uninformed' means zip.

Don't penalize Hillary because she was smart enough to foresee this possibility. Obama could end up with more superdelegates anyway so don't attempt to create some new standard for a superdelegate vote that never before existed (or threaten to leave or riot or something).

Who cares about Hillary? I'm talking about the voters, the people the Democratic Party would like to vote for their candidate in the fall. You want to keep them? Then honor them. You don't? Then crap all over them.

I'm a small-d democrat. If you're not, and people like you are running the capital-D Democratic Party, then maybe I don't belong, and it's time to vote for someone else in November. Because I am, by God, a democrat first and foremost. If the party is going to allow elites to overrule the voters, then I, at least, need a new party.

"I don't remember voting on this rule. Hell, I don't remember having a choice of which game to play ... My only means of protest, of expressing my unhappiness with this rule that I didn't agree to..."

You are, I can only assume, inadvertently making the argument of every soon-to-be-disenfranchised voter in the states of Michigan and Florida. Suggest you back off this track as it gives Hill just a few more delegates.

Actually, I've been arguing that the FL and MI parties should hold primary-style caucuses on, say, March 25 and April 8, to make sure everyone's enfranchised.

To suggest at this point that all superdelegates should vote with the nationwide majority or threaten to leave the party and note vote - is the precise definition of gaming the system and intimidation.

That's me, LTC the Intimidator. I make a suggestion in a blog's comment section, and superdelegates everywhere are shuddering in fear.

To expect the superdelegates to honor the will of the majority of their party's voters is hardly 'gaming the system' except by some new and abstruse definition that you've apparently made up.

To ex post facto attempt to develop some pseudo standards for voting that never before existed is wrong. The standard is that an unpledged superdelegate can vote for whomever they want for any reason whatsoever - let's simply leave it at that and quit trying to intimidate them into voting for (at this point) Obama.

Oh, gimme a break. Choosing whether and how to exercise one's franchise isn't 'intimidation.' Threatening to break someone's kneecap is intimidation. There's a pretty huge difference.

My main point here is that the Democratic Party elites are moral actors, at least as much so as relatively uninformed voters. To consider the voters the only moral actors here is absurd.

It is the party elites' moral responsibility to consider the influence of their choices on the voting public - particularly, the choice of whether they should respect the primary voters' judgment or not.

If they don't think that's important, then why should the voters in question think the party is worth supporting?

"superdelegates were intended to be an "independent" check on the whims of those meddling voters"

I doubt they referred to voters as meddling at the DNC during the debate but superdelegates were indeed created to counteract the possibility of another McGovern. Superdelegates will vote for Clinton if it is close and Obama if it isn't.