An interesting piece in today’s Denver Post: “Democrats vouch for superdelegate system.” On a day where Hillary looks to make a comeback in the presidential primary with some critical wins, further muddling the contest between her and Obama, the possibility looms that the un-democratic superdelegate system will decide the party’s leadership.
So it’s interesting to see Democrat leaders in Colorado try to downplay a potential crisis to their confused constituents:
U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Golden, a superdelegate who supports Barack Obama, acknowledged that the large number of automatic delegates worried the Obama campaign because Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have had long-term relationships with so many party leaders.
But “at the end of the day, I believe Sen. Obama is going to get his fair share, and Sen. Clinton will get her fair share,” he said. “I’m not offended by the system.”
Their answers largely reassured Phil Karsh, a longtime Democrat who had asked, “What’s a superdelegate? Why are there superdelegates?”
“I had some feeling that a superdelegate got a vote and a quarter,” Karsh said. Still, at the Denver convention, “if the superdelegates were to decide it, we’d have a big problem. But I, frankly, think the thing is going to get decided (today).”
It sure looks like Mr. Karsh was “reassured” on the basis of the increasingly unlikely possibility that the race will be over today. Sorry, polling trends in Texas and Ohio don’t show it that way. Perlmutter and friends are doing their best on behalf of their party by pooh-poohing Mr. Karsh’s stated fear: “If the superdelegates were to decide it, we’d have a big problem.”
If Hillary defies last week’s punditry and wins 2 or 3 states today, it looks like the disconnect between Democrat leaders and the rank-and-file may grow. At least they may have something to share, though: the anxiety that the un-democratic superdelegates may decide the Democratic Party nominee.