It's all about delegates. It's always been about delegates. In 1948, Spencer Tracy ran for President. Now such a thing couldn't be repeated today, because Hollywood had him run as a Republican. You think things are in the hands of the party bossess today? Consider the following exchange:
Southern Politician: I can personally guarantee fifty-five delegates for Mr. Matthews.
Mrs Matthews (eagerly): And how many electoral votes is that?
Southern Politician: Oh, ma'am (chuckle), this is the Republican convention!
Look, it's not my fight, so at some level, the most senior Democrats in each state could pick a slate by fiat and I wouldn't care. But while, if I were an activist, I might relish the thought of finally ridding my party of this troublesome beast (and his beastess), I really can't see anything immoral about superdelegates voting their consciences.
For one thing, that's what they're there for, to keep the party from going off the rails. If they provide the margin for one candidate over another, victory in November would cover a multitude of sins. Of course, the superdelegates are hardly infallible. Created in 1980 to prevent another Kennedy insurgency, they helped choose Mondale over Hart in 1984. And as we all know, Minnesota still hasn't gone Republican since 1972.
Arguing some sort of moral obligation to abandon or endorse based on a separate vote smacks of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Now, I have to admit to a certain schadenfreude in watching this longtime Democratic pastime finally turn fratracidal. But again, it's hard to see why there's a moral obligation to abandon one's own best judgment, especially when exercising that judgment is considered a duty of the office-holder.
In fact, should the nomination not be decided by the convention, the superdelegates might well choose to "honor" "democracy" by seating the Florida and Michigan delegations, possibly pushing Ms. Hillary over the top, without ever actually having to endorse her.
One side point. On Backbone Radio last night, Mike Littwin made some comment about how Democrats in this state think that victory relies on not being too partisan. I don't think anyone's going to accuse Ken Salazar of not being partisan, not after the way he used the Attorney General's office to his party's advantage. But to argue that not taking sides in an intramural fight is somehow "less partisan" is kind of silly. Does anyone think that Bill Ritter is going to endoorse John McCain if Obama's the nominee?
Then again, let Mrs. Matthews have the last word: "You politicians have remained professionals only because the voters have remained amateurs."
