Nancy Pelosi favors Barack Obama and it is obvious in her public statements, no matter how she tries to deny it and Harry Reid, who has managed to publicly show more objectivity in his public statements does "seem" to lean toward Hillary Clinton.
Long story short, neither Clinton nor Obama can acheive enough delegates needed from the primaries and caucuses to win the nomination...which is where the superdeleates come in. They will be the determining factor and as I explained in a previous piece:
Bottom line here, a super delegate is "check" against the "we the people" voters. Giving the party elites a chance to change the outcome for their party, should they not agree with the "peoples' choice" if a race is close.
Whether supporters like it or not, this is why superdelegates even exist.
If the Democratic superdelegates believe a candidate cannot win the general election against John McCain, then they can thwart the will of the people and "select" the candidate they do think will win. (It is doubtful they will do this, but it has been a worry for a while now for Democratic leaders)
Recently Nancy Pelosi made the statement that Democratic superdelegates, "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season."
That public statement favors Obama and it caused Clinton supporters to shoot off a highly charged letter to Pelosi.
The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"
"Superdelegate" is an term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.
Today we see, via The Hill, that Harry Reid seems to be on the opposite of the fence as Pelosi on the issue of superdelegates.
The Nevada Democrat has not come out against the superdelegates voting to overturn the candidate with more pledged delegates, Clinton’s best path to the nomination. Reid is also less concerned about the primary dragging on into June.
“I think superdelegates have the opportunity, the ability and the right to vote for whoever they want, and I think that’s what they should do,” Reid said last week on National Public Radio.
Having superdelegates that have the power to overturn the will of the people isn't popular, and many Obama supporters would say it isn't right, but Harry Reid is right on this point.
As long as the Democratic party has superdelegates, under the rules of the party, the superdelegates have the right to vote for who they think can win in November.
The theory might be flawed, the ultimate power given to the party elites might be wrong and if the superdelegates chose to do so, they would risk fracturing the party in a manner than could damage them for years to come.
Right and wrong isn't the issue here though.
The issue is the rules and having such an archaic system to begin with, but they DO have it, it was put into play for just that reason and just because "some" members of the party supporters don't like those rules now that they could come back and bite them, doesn't mean those supporters, Pelosi or Obama can change the rules midstream.
It is a case of "you made your bed, now you lie in it".
With the recent flap over Obama's longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the public and the superdelegates have come to see that Obama doesn't do well under pressure, he gets angry, frustrated and hasn't handled any major controversy well, which is something the superdelegates must take into account in deciding if they think Obama stands a chance in the general election against John McCain.
It is doubtful that the majority of the superdelegates will risk fracturing the party in a major way and most, even if just privately, have picked their candidate of choice and the reality is, all the major controversy involving Obama as of late, probably happened too late into the game for it to be factored into any specific superdelegates ultimate decision.
The endgame is in November and where months ago, most Republican supporters would have relished having Clinton as the opposing candidate, many are starting to see that Barack Obama, may indeed, be the easier of the two for John McCain to beat.
.
