Never liked the idea of super-delegates. The story everyone tell tells to justify them is how Mondale won most of the primaries and most of the votes, but was 40 short of a majority, and it took the superdelegates to put him over the top.

What they don't tell you is that if there were no superdlegates, Mondale would have already had the majority. I suspect they will perform the same function for Obama should he be similarly situated. Professional pols will understand how the public will view any other result and act accordingly. But that doens't excuse their existence.

However, some of your points are a bit more specious.

Would you force Ted Kennedy and Steve Rothman to vote the way their consituents voted, rather than for Obama?

Just asking.

And Rangel's district voted for Hillary. It's not his job to be in touch with the black masses; its his job to be in touch with his constituents. He obviously is.

Estes Kefauver would have been the nominee in 1952 (it was Adlai Stevenson). Kefauver won 12 of the 15 primaries, the other three going to favorite sons. But he was short of a majority going into the convention, and an insider "draft Stevenson" movement following Stevenson's keynote speech eventually won the nomination en route to getting creamed by Eisenhower.

Eugene McCarthy would have been the nominee in 1968 (it was Hubert Humphrey). But McCarthy angered LBJ by nearly defeating him in the New Hampshire primary (McCarthy did get more delegates) and forcing him to withdraw from the race. LBJ was a vindictive type, and pushed the party machinery to back Humphrey, who was far from the Democratic voters' favorite, and who lost to Richard Nixon in November.

In both cases, the candidate who had the support of Democratic voters nationwide did not get the nomination because the party machine defeated them. In both cases, the Democratic nominee lost.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- superdelegates will not overturn the will of the people. The only way they will make the choice is if the primary/caucus season ends with Obama and Clinton tied, or close enough to being tied (say, within 20 pledged delegates of each other). All this chatter about superdelegates forcing a less popular nominee on us has become outdated, if not outright silly. It won't happen! Now let's move on.

...that the difference between 1952 & 1968, when mnay if not most states lacked an open process, and the current situation. Post 1968, party reforms opened the process. The adoption of superdelegates as we know them did not come into being until 1984, but has had little impqact on who gets the nomination. It has had far more impact as to who gets to go to the convention, which was probably mostly the idea.

I won't say this is a laot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but in the end it probably does not amount to all that much.

that may be a memory problem of mine.

1) I agree that the purpose superdelegates is to dilure the impact of primary voters. The institutional history of elected officials was put (as I recall) into place following George McGovern's 1972 campaign defeat. Democratic party rank and file nominated McGovern who then lost badly. Party careerists -- many of whom had not been elected delegates in 1972 -- created the scheme.

2) I do not believe we will see any change in the superdelegate structure this cycle. There is a danger that a Clinton, behind in the number of elected delegates, will be able to use her connections to win -- which is of course what the superdelegates were designed to do.

3) Those of us who are Obama supporters have to face the issue directly with our elected officials. My Congress Member, Nydia Velazquez, for example, is a Clinton superdelegate. My Council Member, Rosie Mendez was elected on the Clinton slate. I plan to argue to them the importance of honoring the choice of the party's primary voters. But we should remember, this argument cuts both ways. At the end of the process Clinton may have more elected delegates than Obama.

Dan: Your argument is contradictory. How can you argue that an elected Clinton dlegate vote for Obama? How is that manifesting the Democratic will?

Your claim is stronger with Nydia, but only so much; after all, Clinton did carry her district as well.

fair to Obama.

Rosie Mendez, has some duty, as a Clinton delegate, to vote for her. As did many Obama supporters in my neighborhood, I voted for Rosie M. as a delegate. I think her duty to Clinton should be only one (albeit strong) factor in her vote.

Nydia V. as a Super delegate has the freedom to vote how she chooses. She's announced (sad to say) that no matter how many delegates elected to the convention Obama comes with, she will vote for Clinton.

Both, however, should be asked (and will be asked by me) to rethink. If the effect of superdelegates is to undermine the primary election process, their duty to Democratic Party and to the democratic process should weigh in favor of voting for Obama at the convention.

Try out this argument with your delegates.

Are you kidding me? How can anyone think that its fair to give superdelegates the power to pick our President? I can only imagine how much one could gain just by being a superdeligate. Its almost like hitting the lottery except you wont have to pay any taxes, or be accountable. This should have never been a part of our election process and this is a perfect example of why some people dont vote anymore. Its time to stop letting the rich and powerful decide who runs this country. People are getting poorer, and feeling more hopeless than ever. Its time to let the people decide who is going to be President and give the underdog candidates fair air time so that everyones message can be heard, not just the rich. Im so tired of hearing the rich talk about what the American people want. They think the American people are the ones who make at least 2 million a year. Its time for the majority to speak up and abolish all the laws that we never got a chance to vote on.

First, it should be noted that one of the main reasons (probably THE main reason) that there are so many primaries and caucuses is the disastrous 1968 convention result.

Second, the number of superdelegates to the Democratic convention has crept up over the past few cycles; 16 years ago this would hardly be a discussion topic.

Third, I NEVER said that a pledged Clinton delegate should vote for Obama. Nor did I say that a superdelegate should automatically vote for the candidate who got the most pledged delegates, or that a member of Congress whose district voted for one candidate should vote for the other (I live in Nydia Velázquez's district).

I simply opined that the superdelegates, as a bloc, will not swing the vote away from a candidate who has a clear lead in pledged delegates. My rationale behind that opinion is that the times this happened (1952 and 1968) were disastrous for the Democrats in November, and party insiders don't forget. I hold firm to that opinion.

Assuming that one candidate leads by, say, 50+ pledged delegates after June 7 (the final caucus, in Puerto Rico, is on that date), there will be some superdelegates who choose to vote for Obama and some who choose to vote for Clinton. But it's virtually certain that enough superdelegates will be prevailed upon to vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, simply because that candidate has the most pledged delegates, to guarantee the nomination.

In other words, Democrats can be pretty stupid, but on this particular issue, at this particular time, they're not that stupid.

You may notice, however, that someone named Dan did say those things. It was to Dan Millstone to which those comments were directed.

But, as long as you're here, you're mixing apples and oranges. There were no super-delgates in 52 or 68; what there were were states with delegate selection procedures in which the voters played little or no part. That situation no longer exists. From 72 onward most of the delegates have been selected through candidat-centered public participation. Super-dlegates were a step back, but compared to most of our history, the present procedures are pretty damned Democratic.

Superdelegates and the electoral college are not Democratic and not American. Abolish all systems that give politicians more influence than the people in electing more politicians.