The Super Delegate morality play

Jack Kelly:

...

The Democratic National Committee, in its wisdom (rather, in the utter absence of it) created 796 super delegates (more than the elected delegates in California, New York and Pennsylvania combined) and made them free agents.

Having guaranteed that in a close race it would be the super delegates, not the voters in the primaries and caucuses, who would select the nominee, many Democrats are arguing for an ersatz form of democratic legitimacy. Super delegates are morally obligated to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses, they say.

But why is this more "democratic" than to have the super delegates vote for the winner of the primary or caucus in their state, or to vote for the candidate with the higher standing in public opinion polls when all the primaries and caucuses are over? Because only the first unambigously benefits Sen. Obama.

If super delegates choose her over him, Hillary will have "stolen" the nomination, pundits argue. But unless she's threatening to take a tire iron to the kneecaps of super delegates who support Sen. Obama, this isn't true.

The super delegates may choose wisely or foolishly, courageously or cravenly. They may choose the candidate they like the best, or fear the most; the one they think would be the better president, or the one they think is the more electable. But any choice they make is legitimate, because the DNC made them free agents.

The revelation that Sen. Obama's pastor is a foul-mouthed bigot makes him unelectable in November, Sen. Clinton argues. He wouldn't have done so well in February if voters had known then about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. (which they would have, if the journalists covering the Obama campaign had done less cheerleading and more reporting).

Sen. Obama, moreover, built his slim lead by winning mostly in states where Democratic prospects in November range from slim to none. It is she who has won most of the big states where Democrats must prevail, Hillary argues.

If Sen. Clinton's opponent were Barry O'Bama, charming Irish-American pol with the gift of gab, these arguments would have more resonance. But, as columnist Bob Novak notes, the super delegates "fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base." Geraldine Ferraro, who Sen. Obama unfairly likened to his racist pastor, was right. Sen. Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he weren't black.

Many who suspect Sen. Clinton is right about Sen. Obama's electability still would rather nominate him than her. Better to lose an election than to split the party. Besides, if angry blacks stay home in November, Hillary won't be electable, either.

Caught between a rock and a hard place, many Democrats hope Hillary will go quietly into that dark night. But few can name instances when the Clintons have put the interests of others ahead of their own.

...

If it is still close as Super Delegates commit those who wait the longest will reap the most benefit. Some who commit early are hoping to get credit for swinging momentum. Forget it. It will be the ones who push one or the other over the edge who will be remembered if teh candidate wins in November. The more people tell Hillary she should drop out, the more they will be ignored as long as she has a chance. Since I want to see both lose I would like to see them both keep on doing what they are doing.