Obama Release on Superdelegates
Party Leaders
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Said That Superdelegates Should Not Veto The People’s Choice. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who may be the most superdelegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver — gave an interview with Bloomberg TV’s Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for superdelegates: Don’t veto the people’s choice. “I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.” She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as superdelegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters. “I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” [SF Chronicle, 2/15/08]
Governor Schweitzer Said That People Ought To Decide This And That He Doesn’t Like The Notion Of Backroom Deals And Said That They Should Go On The National Popular Vote, The National Delegate Count Or What People In Their State Say. Governor Schweitzer: “I think the people ought to decide this. I just don’t like the notion of backroom deals,” he said. “What I don’t want to do is disenfranchise anybody — particularly new voters. People who have shown up because it’s a movement. They want to be part of the group that elected the first woman president, or the first black person to be president.” “Let’s have a transparent process. I don’t care or really know whether a superdelegate wants to decide where they go based on the national popular vote, or the national delegate count, when they get there, or wait and see what people in your state have said,” he said. Schweitzer said it was a matter of what would go on his tombstone: “I want them to say he loved his wife, he was a good father and he did the right thing as a superdelegate. I don’t want them to say that he was in a smoke-filled room, that people were twisting arms,” he said. [Politico, 2/15/08]
Donna Brazile Said That Superdelegates Should Represent The Will Of The Voters. Donna Brazile said, “We don’t wear capes…We can’t hear the sound of a pin drop miles away. We don’t drive Batmobiles… We should represent the will of the voters of this country.” [New York, 2/12/08] Daily News
Ø Donna Brazile Said That If Superdelegates Decide The Nomination She Will Quit The Party. Donna Brazile said, “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this.” [New York Sun, 2/12/08]
Clinton Supporters
Elaine Kamarck: The Superdelegates Are Not Interested In Overturning The Will Of The People. Superdelegate Elaine Kamarck, who helped write the superdelegate rules said, “The superdelegates are not interested in overturning the will of the people and they never have been, and there’s no indication they ever would…Now if the will of the people is a complete dead tie, then I think we’re in new territory and perhaps the superdelegates will play a role at that point.” [Indianapolis Star, 2/10/08]
Bill Nelson Said It’s Going To Be A Trainwreck Unless A Candidate Has A Majority By June 3rd Because “We Don’t Want To Go Back To Those Wheeling-Dealing, Smoke-Filled Back-Room Days.” “’It is going to be an enormous train wreck unless by June 3 a candidate has a majority,’ said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who is supporting Clinton. ‘I don’t think we want to go back to those wheeling-dealing, smoke-filled back-room days.’” [New York Times, 2/10/08]
Julian Epstein: If a Candidate Won The Popular Vote And Won The Delegates And The Decision Was Overturned By A Smoke-Filled Room Of Superdelegates, It Would Lead To “Civil War” Within The Party. Julian Epstein: “If there was a perception that one candidate won the popular vote and won the vote of delegates, and that that decision was then overturned by a smoke-filled room of superdelegates, I think it would lead to a civil war within the party.” [CNN, 1/14/08]
Paul Begala Said That Superdelegates Are “Super Ratifiers. That’s All They’re Going To Be, That’s All They Should Be… Because I Think They Are An Abomination Against Democracy.” Paul Begala: “These superdelegates are super ratifiers. That’s all they’re going to be, that’s all they should be, by the way, because I think they are an abomination against democracy. Because most of them are either elected officials like Congressman Becerra or they’re, you know, party leaders. They ought to respect the will of the people, because otherwise what do you do? [CNN, 1/14/08]
Independent Observers
Los Angeles Times: The Best Function Of Super-Delegates Would Be To Legitimize A Candidate Who Already Won The Majority Of Democratic Delegates. The bad news for Democratic voters is that many super-delegates are jumping the gun and making up their minds about which candidate to back, so the candidate with the most votes may not win the nomination. That would be a tremendous mistake. The best function of super-delegates would be to legitimize a candidate who already had won the majority of Democratic delegates. That’s what happened in 1984, when Walter Mondale had a narrow lead over Gary Hart going into the convention and the super-delegates backed the former vice president. Although this page firmly supports Obama, the Democrats have two worthy choices and do not need party bigwigs to decide for them. For the bulk of the super-delegates to commit now would be not only unnecessary, it would be undemocratic. [Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 2/14/08]
Tad Devine Said That If Super-Delegates Decide The Nominee There Could Be Widespread Dissatisfaction With The Party And Added That “If A Perception Develops That Somehow This Decision Has Been Made Not By Voters Participating In Primaries And Caucuses, But By Politicians In Some Mythical Back Room, I Think The Public Could React Strongly Against That.” Democratic Party strategist Tad Devine said if superdelegates decide the nominee there could be widespread dissatisfaction with the party. “If a perception develops that somehow this decision has been made not by voters participating in primaries or caucuses, but by politicians in some mythical back room, I think that the public could react strongly against that,” Devine said. [UPI, 2/14/08]
Paul Abrams: The Notion That Super-Delegates Would Change The Outcome Of 50 State Primaries And Caucuses Is The Intra-Party Equivalent To Bush v. Gore Where The Supreme Court Decided By 1 Vote That Bush Should Be President. Paul Abrams: “The notion that Superdelegates would change the outcome of 50 state primaries and caucuses ought to be absolutely outrageous to anyone who believes a) in democracy; and b) in change, i.e., that peoples’ voices will literally be heard. It is the intra-party equivalent to Bush v Gore, where the Supreme Court decided by 1 vote, in an unprecedented opinion that they indicated should not be viewed as precedent that George Bush should be president.” [Huffington Post, 2/9/08]
Josh Marshall Said That If Obama Ends With A Clear Majority Of Elected Delegates, The Idea That Those Remaining Superdelegates Will Break For The Candidate Who Won Fewer Delegates, Raised Less Money And Is Polling Worse Against The Republican Majority Simply Makes No Sense. Josh Marshal: “The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remaining to be won. We really don’t know what’s going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of elected delegates, the idea that those remaining superdelegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense.” [TPM, 2/15/08]
