That said, I’m struck by the moral significance of the candidates’ positions on the power of superdelegates, as reported in a February 14 Associated Press article:
"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," Obama said recently.
But Clinton said superdelegates should make up their own minds. She noted pointedly that Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy have both endorsed Obama, yet she won the state handily on Feb. 5.
What’s not clear from the article is that Obama made his statement on February 11, before he pulled ahead of Clinton in the delegate count. In other words, he was willing to make that statement when sticking by it might mean conceding the nomination.
I don’t claim to possess the wisdom of Solomon, but my vote goes to the candidate who doesn’t want to cut the baby in half. Or cut the party in shreds, as the case may be.
Clinton's statement about Kerry and Kennedy is a red herring. They have the right to endorse Obama and to have voted for him in the Masachusetts primary. Under Obama’s philosophy, those activities should have nothing to do with what happens on the convention floor. Clinton’s statement takes for granted a system in which the votes of party bosses outweigh the votes of ordinary citizens. A system, as cynics will note, that works conveniently in her favor.
Perhaps Clinton’s statement is also one of principle. Perhaps she’ll stand by it even if the superdelegates “make up their own minds” to vote for Obama. Perhaps she honestly believes in a return to the machine politics that created the superdelegate system in the first place. I don’t know about anyone else, but I want the leader of the Democratic party to take a principled stand for democracy, not against it.
