Campaign 2008: Superdelegates and Mitt Romney's Underwear

In response to my Midnight for Mitt entry, a commenter wrote that I should stop blogging about trivialities and start writing about something important like the superdelegates and Obama’s attempt, the writer claimed, to do a kind of end run around the rules to get them. Frankly, I don’t see what could be bigger than Mitt’s dropping out of the race (at least I didn’t write about his magic underwear or affinity for corpses), but the superdelegates as well as Obama’s wiley ways are certainly important issues, probably bigger, even, than Willard Mitt Romney’s underpants.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the anonymous commenter:

Who cares whether Mitt Romney is out of the race. There is more interesting stuff to blog about. For example, yesterday, the Obama campaign accidentally released (leaked) a memo to the press projecting the delegate count at the end of the primary process. It’s not clear how they came up with the numbers, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps a crystal ball. Either way, the campaign seems to be lamenting the fact that the nominee will be decided by the super delegates. Apparently, Obama believes that this does not bode well for him. Naturally, he would like the press to take up this issue and cry foul on his behalf. And so they did.

The issue was discussed on all the political talk shows and before long, the country will be convinced that allowing the super delegates to determine the outcome of an election will be a great calamity akin to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.

The writer goes on to say that Obama is making, in his or her mind anyway, a brazen and unfair play for the superdelegates by putting the DNC on notice that the superdelegates should go to the candidate with the popular vote, that the press sucks for being not only receptive to but magnifying such hogwash, and that I should be outraged at Obama’s naked political grab instead of writing about Mitt’s Underoos. Or something like that.

I certainly see why someone supporting Clinton, as the writer clearly does, would want the superdelegates to cast their votes for the candidates they currently support. In a NY Times article yesterday which identified the superdelegates and their allegiance to Clinton or Obama based on the candidates’ own lists, Clinton retains a healthy lead. Many of these delegates had pledged their support well before the race was tight and no doubt Clinton has based at least part of her overall strategy on getting these (and perhaps foregoing a real play at some of the caucus states).

I also see why Obama would do what he is doing. Why wouldn’t he put these party dandies on notice? He wants to win, doesn’t he? And if he does win the popular vote and is ahead in pledged delegates won fair and square in the primaries and caucuses he would have a pretty good argument that the superdelegates should go for him. So, it makes perfect sense to me that Obama would make a public play for these superdelegates and let them know that Obama voters anyway aren’t going to let their candidate win the pledged delegates and the popular vote only to let the party operatives deliver victory to Clinton like gods from the machine.

In the end, Obama’s public courting or even threatening of the superdelegates isn’t any different than Clinton’s attempting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates or any of the other strategic maneuvers the candidates are making. Like all the Democratic candidates, Clinton agreed that she wouldn’t campaign in these states, and that their votes would not be counted. In short, both candidates are doing what they can to win the primary. At this point their battles are reasonable and do not threaten the Party in any significant way. This could change, though, and, in a worse case scenario, there could be a legal challenge about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters (the DNC’s treatment of these states amounts to nothing less than this) and Obama or his surrogates could drive his supporters into an acrimonious and divisive battle over the superdelegates. In either case the only people profiting would be the Republicans.

None of this addresses the question as to whether Clinton or Obama is the most electable candidate, a concern of the commenter who apparently fears that the manipulation of the superdelegates by Obama could leave us with a candidate ripe for trouncing in November. Electability should be an issue, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for wanting to have his head be the one on the chopping block.

Sometimes it’s just more fun to write about Mitt’s under garments.