Let me explain.
Using Chris Bowers as an example here, we see that he is a Democrat, a local precinct captain, he holds a seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, and he has helped raise millions of dollars for Democrats and he has stated publicly that if the super delegates in the Democratic party decide the nominee against what the popular vote from the primaries and caucuses do, then he will quit the Democratic party...period.
Super delegates are seated based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials.
So, in other words, if a race is very close and one politician is shown to be the favorite by popular vote, but the super delegates vote for the other person, then the will of the party supporters...the VOTERS... can be negated and the super delegates can then select the nominee rather than the voters electing the nominee.
Another example is Donna Brazile,who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, and is herself a super delegate also made the statement, reported by ABC "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."
These statements are being heard all over the media and the blogosphere as well as on television shows, from Democrats that understand that if the Democratic race is close enough, it will be the super delegates that determine the outcome, not the voters.
If the super delegates vote as the voters in their individual states vote, then all will be well in the land of Democrats, but as the Democratic supporters are showing concern that the super delegates might back someone other than the "popular" candidate, tensions are rising and these types of warnings and threats are being seen more and more.
Recently Howard Dean. the Democratic National Committee chairman, declared that he was concerned how this race, being as close as it is, will fracture the Democratic party and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, also a Democrat describes, on the floor of the Senate, the potential "trainwreck" for the Democratic party as a whole if the deadlock is not broken soon between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Today I see a piece in The Telegraph, with a very interesting revelation, especially after Barack Obama just won Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana, and the Virgin Islands yesterday in a landslide as The Politico puts it.
From The Telegraph:
The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party's leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.
That is only one of the interesting things mentioned in The Telegraph, they also discuss what I have mentioned above about the "furor" already starting within the party:
Clinton aides believe that if Mr Obama does not deliver a knock-out blow before March 4, the advantage will swing back to her and she will argue for a deal in which uncommitted super-delegates unite behind her, to preserve party unity.
But the prospect of a deal behind closed doors, that could brush aside the views of voters in the primaries, is already creating fury in the party.
Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist, was the chief political consultant to Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 2000, put out an Opinion Editorial today, in the New York Times, with headline reading "Superdelegates, Back Off".
In yet another article in the New York Times, it shows how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, understanding the potential importance of those super delegates, are both "wooing" them.
This leaves two glaring problems for the Democratic party as a whole, one the super delegate issue and number two, the potentially bigger issue of Hillary Clinton convincing party leaders to apply pressure on Barack Obama to "step down" and how that would be seen by his Democratic supporters and the backlash that would hit the party as a whole if Pelosi and Reid were to accommodate Clinton.
This also would have the party elites seen as thwarting the "will of the people".
.
