Since Murray and Cantwell are supposedly our representatives in government, they should choose according to the will of the voters.

I like what Jim McDermott did ... No endorsement until AFTER the caucus is over.

Considering the way caucus rules work, Obama probably outcaucused Clinton by MORE than 2-to-1. For instance, in our caucus, the vote was 75-12, but since 12 is more than half of a single delegate, Clinton got a delegate, 4-1. Obama got 87% of the caucusers, but only 80% of the delegates.

Of course, if people without access to caucuses had been able to vote, the percentages could have gone in the other direction -- maybe 60-40? Who knows?

Yet another way in which caucuses suck ass.

COMMENT DELETED (THREATENING)

We remove comments that are off topic, threatening, or commercial in nature, and we do not allow sock-puppetry (impersonating someone else)—or any kind of puppetry, for that matter. We never censor comments based on ideology.

@2 - If Clinton had been apportioned more than half of a delegate in a mail-in primary, wouldn't the same situation occur?

It works both ways. I'm an Obama supporter but I loved Clinton's retort in today's NY Times:

"if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Exactly, Polka. Super delegates should be pressed now to agree to support whoever wins the most delegates -- now, before we know who that person is.

The rules and the process have been in place, have been known, for some time. Rare are the complaints until it looks like the rules and the process are not in one's favor.

@4 doing it precinct by precinct compounds the statistical errors, doing it by a flat state wide percentage the error would only occur once rather than thousands of times, which could amount to a substantial difference

@7 well duh, thats when you notice them, nobody cared about super delegates in 2004 because they were irrelevant, Kerry had the nomination sewed up so early that it wasn't a relevant consideration. it is times like these that put pressure into changing the system.

you don't change a system until you notice its broken

I'm an Obama supporter, but I gotta say to the Slog/SECB: get that shit @ 3 off this page. It adds nothing and undermines real dialogue.

@8 - When it occurs thousands of times, it averages itself out. Obama gets some extra delegates here, but Clinton gets some extra delegates there. Statistically speaking, there's really no difference.

I've already asked the Slog admin folks to zap that comment, Clarity. They're not glued to Slog 24/7, though, and odds are good that something similar -- or worse -- will go up immediately after we zap that comment.

I can't see most superdelegates throwing their support behind the Dem candidate that got fewer delegates and/or less % of the popular vote. Some will hold out, of course. I some that are pledged for Hillary would indeed switch if the national momentum and "people have spoken" spirit lies with Obama in a month or so. And vice versa.

I know the Clintons are calling in favors with their superdelegates but if the national view is Obama won I think they would want to avoid tarnishing the party with nepotism stain going into November. And vice versa.

What's hilarious to me is the original 1982 idea that superdelegates would "protect" us dumb voters from bad candidates. Then, the new process promptly nominates Mondale and Dukakis! Good move!

I'll be good. I promise.

I'm just feeling particularly snarky and irritable today.

You forgot Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, and Ron Sims...all 5 pledged their super delegate vote to Clinton before the caucuses. Rather than go with the national trend, I believe these 5 should go with the trend of those who vote for them, namely their constituency. If they represent those who vote for them, they should do so a the convention as well. If they don't represent those who elected them, why the fuck did we elect them? I wrote to each of the 5 last night asking them to change their stance to reflect the peoples wishes.

I'm an Obama supporter, and have no problem with super delegates voting proportionally to their constituents. So, it means that both camps will lose some and gain some. What I'd really like is for the Dems to overhaul the system, and go to a popular vote. I won't even comment on WA's antiquated caucus. However, if yesterday's vote wasn't to the liking of state's party bosses, they will get rid of the caucuses. I agree with Hillary that caucuses are not fair. Maybe she can beat some sense into her super delegate, Ron Sims.

"Of course, as the NYT points out, super delegates were created to thwart the will of the voters:"

Seriously, the levels of corruption in this process we like to call "democracy" is fuckin disgusting. How can it be called fair, when the will of the people is known, a bunch of washington insiders, can be bought, bribed, etc in order to sway the vote in favor of the "plan".

Its obvious what that plan is too: Make Clinton the nominee, lose all the Obama supporters in the process, who will become disenfranchised and not vote in November. Once Clinton goes again the MCain and Huckabee ticket, the GOP supporters will come out in droves to defeat the "evil harpy" Clinton.

We then get 4 to 8 more of the same, if not worse.

Of course the superdelegates matter now and didn't before. It was a non issue before. Cantwell and Murray should change their endorsements but they are probably waiting to see what happens. I have a hard time believing that, especially with what happened with Gore, and all the new interest in the party, they would remain with HRC. That would be a catastrophe. I did notice at my caucus, however, that all the old guard dems were a little bitter about prObama. We should let them know what the right thing to do is. :)

As for Clinton "calling in favors," that already worked at the caucuses. Im in Bremerton, where Norm Dicks has a freakin building named after him for all the pork he's shovelled our way. People stood up at the caucus and said they were going with Hillary just because Norm said so. Check this out for all the super delegates, and who they are endorsing:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

10% of registered voters participated in the goofy caucus system (which does not require any proof of voter registration or address to participate), hardly a solid indicator of the will of the people. Hence the need for the "independent judgment" of the super delegates.

Agreeing with Mahtli69 @1. McDermott handled this perfectly. I don't begrudge an elected official like Gregoire or Ted Kennedy the platform to stand up for the candidate they believe in, but all this keeping score over superdelegates at this point is profoundly undemocratic.

I'm not a big fan of Donna Brazile, but I like what she said on CNN: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this." (She later qualified that statement to say she would merely quit the Democratic National Committee.)

If one candidate comes out of the primaries with the clear edge in votes and rank-and-file delegates and the other candidate finds a way to steal the nomination, there will be hell to pay for the Democratic Party.

Any candidate whose victory at the DNC relies upon superdelegates rejecting the will of the regular delegates will face a credibility crisis straight out of the gate against McCain. It would be a potential kiss of death in a race dominated by calls in both parties for populist change.

When Clinton tries to grab MI and FL everybody cries foul: She's trying to change the rules mid-game! (Regardless of whether it disenfranchises voters)

And now that the rules could potential work against BO the call is: Change the rules! Change the rules! Don't disenfranchise the voters!

Check out the link I posted in #19 (top left corner of the page), right now Obama has about a 50 delegate lead. Factor in the pledged super delegates, he's behind by about 50. It's already tipping the balance.

Oh yes, now that Obama is losing in superdelegates he wants to change the rules.

Why a uprincipled crybaby.

Superdelegates were created because McGovern lost the 1972 election so bad if was a fucking nightmare that led to Watergate and thousands MORE DEAD in Vietnam. So let's not over romanticize the will fo the voters.

Shit if we followed the will of the voters we would have one big monster national primary and guess who wouldn't won that?

If you think superdelegates should follow their state, you are opportunistic unless you also agree that:
1. Hillary gets ALL superdelegates from CA NJ MA NY. Because she won those states.
2. Hillary gets ALL superdelegates from NV. Because she won that state in the "votes" though not in the delegate race.
3. Maybe Hillary should get ALL superdelegates from ALL states that voted on superTuesday because she WON more votes on supertuesday.
4. She should get ALL superdelegates from FL and MI because she won those states, too.
5. MO: if there is a recount and it flip flops then Clinton gets ALL superdelegates from MO, too.

6. IF you think superdelegates should follow the state, what's up with this winner take all approach anyway instead of proportional?

To go argue that Cantwell and Murray should change their vote and ignore/dismiss/reject all these other questions shows that the Obama folks are just as into good old fashioned dirty old style politics as anyone else.

Opportunistically, shamelessly and without principle.

Because you're picking and choosing your principles to get the predesired outcome.

I didn't hear Obama complain about superdelegates at all until he started losing the superdelegate race.

And another thing:
I never hear the Obama folks complain about DC residents' lack of rerpresentation.

That is a real, actual lack of representation whereas superdelegates are apportioned to every state and each candidate has a fair shot to go get 'em.

And we never hear about Obama folks decrying the fact that PARTY INSIDERS NOW INCLUDING OBAMA want to disenfranchise the 2 MILLION VOTERS in FL and MI who never agreed to not have their own votes count.

Sounds like the Obama side is clawing and scratching and crying and using any argument possible to win at all costs.
When it helps Obama to be more "democratic" oh he's for democracy. But hwen it helps Clinto to be more democratic it's the opposite.

"Change" indeed. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I'm loving Frank Rich in The New York Times. He's gone from eviscerating the Bush administration for its phoniness and shamelessness to eviscerating the Clintons for their phoniness and shamelessness. And Frank Rich does not see the matter of superdelegates being resolved in a dignified fashion. I mean, if his column today is headlined!:
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

Last week, [Howard] Dean became sufficiently alarmed to propose brokering an “arrangement” if a clear-cut victory by one candidate hasn’t rendered the issue moot by the spring. But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

Fair's fair? Then while he's at it, Dan should be obligated to quote this, from the same article:

“But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry.”

Shouldn't the point be made that Obama would need to give up his problematic super delegates as well?

Superdelegates are politicians. If Obama goes to the convention with a sizeable lead in earned delegates, the supers will wisely support his candidacy even if it means shifting their allegiances from Clinton. The danger, of course, is that Hillary and Bill Clinton are notorious for holding intense grudges against those that challenge them, even within their own party. See the NY Times article on Jim Cooper's treatment after he brazenly offered an alternative health care plan in 1993.

"The Cooper Concerns" by David Brooks, New York Times, 5 Feb 2008.

Didn't I make that point by suggesting that Gregoire should be asked to agree -- in advance, meaning now -- to support the candidate Dem voters prefer? Even if it's Clinton?

I'm not a rabid O backer. I'm practically an agnostic compared to, say, Annie Wagner. But I think the SD issue is screwy -- screwy whoever it screws, Obama or Clinton.

mikkomaus @23:

When Clinton tries to grab MI and FL everybody cries foul: She's trying to change the rules mid-game! (Regardless of whether it disenfranchises voters)

And now that the rules could potential work against BO the call is: Change the rules! Change the rules! Don't disenfranchise the voters!

unPC @25:

Oh yes, now that Obama is losing in superdelegates he wants to change the rules.

Why a uprincipled crybaby.

And how exactly does Barack Obama want to change the rules? Please tell us.

The superdelegates can do whatever the hell they want to. They are free to cast their 795 votes unanimously for Mike Gravel. But they're also free to reflect the collective will of the Democratic primary voters.

Hey, if Obama comes away with the majority of votes and pledged delegates, the superdelegates are also free to deliver the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton and, in the process, deliver the Democratic Party into the abyss.

I can absolutely guarantee, if you think Hillary Clinton is divisive now, a Hillary Clinton who managed to steal her party's nomination will be absolutely radioactive.

Kids, none of this is news. John Aravosis whines and bitches about the super delegates (which are not very democratic, that's true), as if they're brand new, when this process has been used for 25 years.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here, beating whoever the Republicans nominate. Fighting among ourselves is pointless. Taking your toys and going home is not the answer no matter who the nominee is.

Calling Cantwell and Murray names is not only misogynist, it's silly. They have a vote at the convention, that's the way the game works. They also have a right to support Hillary if they want to.

Finally, whining about democracy when you have a caucus (which is about the most undemocratic process there is) is just stupid. Primaries have their problems but 47% of the people of California (where I live) voted, in SF it was 88% for registered Dems (Obama carried SF).

What was your caucus turnout? 10%? Maybe? No one really knows since you don't have to prove you're a registered Democrat or even a registered voter! And if you had to work during the caucus, oh, sorry you're disenfranchised. Here, you're entitled to take two hours off work (paid) to vote. Perhaps that's true in Washington, too, but apparently not for caucus since that's not 'voting.'

Everyone needs to get down off their high horse, take a deep breath and beat the Rs. That's the bottom line. Nothing else matters.

unPC doesnt care if the democratic party splits because of super delegates. he/she just wants a clinton nom. wait till obama has the lead in super delegates and then he/she says something about obama not uniting the party by dropping out of the race or some absurd shit.

Some decent points in post 25, though I did not suggest super delegates following the state blindly, I suggested they follow their constituency, namely those who elected them. For example, Norm Dicks does not represent the state, he represents his congressional district...which is overwhelmingly pro Obama despite his endorsement of Clinton.

Not all super delegates represent the whole state they happen to be in. If the supers look at their own voting area, and follow that trend, then won't they be broken up proportionally very near to what elected delegates are? Wouldn't that mean the candidate nominated by the people would actually get nominated? Is that such a bad thing?

and really, how can you dispute what obama said? if he leads in elected delegates and super delegates push out HRC, it will not be good for the party.

Mike Friedman @31:

Calling Cantwell and Murray names is not only misogynist, it's silly. They have a vote at the convention, that's the way the game works. They also have a right to support Hillary if they want to.

Mike Friedman, the commenter @3 is a serial troll on this blog. Please don't consider his comments representative of anyone.

I agree with you that Cantwell and Murray have a right to support Hillary.

Hey, it's a free country. Murray also has the right to send ridiculous pork-barrel projects Boeing's way. Cantwell has the right to vote to bleed our nation by invading another sovereign nation without provocation. And they both have the right to do their small part to make John McCain the 44th president of the United States.

unPC is actually a Republican. Ignore him/her.

Is there a list of the super delegates? I understand that some are not directly elected by the people but party insiders. I think Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, etc. are super delegates. How would you divide their vote?

There's a link to a super delegate list in post 19. I think non-elected super delegates should probably vote for issues, I.E. Gore going with who he thinks is stronger environmentally, Carter for homeless/povery/housing issues.

@30 cressona.

Barack has had a couple of different views on this over the past couple of days.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/08/649765.aspx

florida and michigan knew the consequences of their actions. they did it anyway. they can go suck on a lemon.

mikkomaus @39, Obama wasn't referring to "some unwritten, unenforceable rule" because he actually wasn't talking about changing the rules in the middle of the game, the way Hillary has been all too happy to do in Nevada, Michigan, and Florida. It may be hard to comprehend a trained lawyer not wanting to lawyer things to death, but it sure sounded to me like he was talking about a little thing called moral suasion.

But you know what, if the Clintons want to lawyer this thing to death, they are welcome to. In fact, I encourage it. Please, Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, Terry McAuliffe, and minions, keep fighting the fight over superdelegates.

What is Obama's position on Girl on Girl lovin'? Does he think it's "hot"?

I suspect that Mistriss Maria and Milf Murray will switch votes come election. After all, once you go black, you never go back. (I can't have been the first to point out this astute observation.)

What is Missogany? And what does it have to do with Hillary stealing the election?

Looks like SuperDelegate/Senator Patty Murray has taken down her email contact info on her official site. I guess we're all making the wrong choice, and she's tired of getting thousands of emails every day telling her that she's behind the times. I respect her decision to support Clinton, but if removing email contact in the face of constituents who disagree with her is OK, she is not getting my support next time around.

@42:
You have it wrong. Once you go Barack, you never go back.

everyone should read this written by Frank Rich:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021008A.shtml

Thanks for the clarification @45!!

The fact that Super Delegates may determine the Dem nominee sucks. Do the math. WA Dems estimated 200,000 people participated in the caucuses yesterday. 80 delegates will be awarded based on the results. That means each delegate represents the will of 2,500 people. Are these "super" delegates so super that they are equal to the will of 2,500 people? I'd love to think that Patty and Maria would do the right thing and reconsider their pledge to vote for HRC but given how many times Hillary has helped in their fundraising for their senate campaigns, I find it not likely. That's the problem. The Dems can claim the Super Delegates have the best interest of the party at heart but it really comes down to personal favors owed.

Gabriel @ 15 --

Rather than go with the national trend, I believe these 5 should go with the trend of those who vote for them, namely their constituency.

To date (and even conceding the remaining February states to Obama), no variation of this proposed SD mandate gives B.O. the nomination.

@44:
I stand somewhat corrected. The form for sending an email is still live (http://murray.senate.gov/email/), but the link to that form is gone from the "Contact Patty" page. Still not sure if it's intentional or not.

Another problem to be pointed out is that delegates earned do not neccessarily correspond to the popular vote. Clinton won California by about 10%, yet in the end Clinton and Obama will probably split the delegates from CA equally. In the same vein, Clinton won the vote in Nevada, but Obama was given one delegate more than she.

So let's not forget that the superdelegates aren't the only inegalitarian part of this process.

I know that the super delegates give media commentators something to talk about incessantly, but I just don't believe that it will turn out to be an issue at all. For the most part, they are elected officials who will look at the final delegate count and make a politically expedient decision.

What few people are talking about is how the pledged delegate numbers that we're looking at right now are still just an estimate of what will happen once they move form precinct to legislative to congressional to state conventions. The same goofy math that apportioned delegates not exactly proportionally at yesterday's caucuses will play out over and over again.

Let's see what happens in the next month as more people actually vote. If one candidate starts to win a lot of states or popular vote, this thing will clear right up on its own.

Sounds like unPC's pissed off because Hillary had her ass handed to her yesterday. My caucus had three times the people that the 2004 caucus did and my precinct went 80 percent for Barack Obama.

As far as the superdelegates go your explanation is total bullshit. The Superdelegates weren't created until 1982, ten years after McGovern lost in 1972. And what did the first group of super-delegates do, well they showed what great judgment they had by supporting Walter Mondale in the 1984 election. You remember Wally Mondale don't you. He's the guy who got resoundingly bitch fucked by Reagan, lost the electoral vote in every state but his own and came within 3,800 votes of losing that.

Wow, that sure shows some great judgment on the part of the super-delegates and the party-insiders doesn't it? They went for the single most boring and stupid candidate to ever run for office, a do-nothing, know-nothing, completely lacking in anything resembling charisma senator from Minnesota who's only qualification was that he had spent lots of time kissing ass and carrying water and making sure that white dairy farmers continued to enjoy lots of government subsidies.

As far as all of the blather about the caucuses being undemocratic please shut the fuck up. Seriously, if you can't commit to spending two hours on a Saturday helping pick a party candidate then I have to question your commitment to the whole process, especially if you're one of those vote by mail wankers who wants your ballot delivered to your house like a Domino's Pizza, because God forbid you have to ever inconvenience yourself.

hillay fires campaign director after losing every state this weekend. how will big sven and unPC spin this. isnt it sad that an empty suit is beating hillary?

@49-RonK

If that is the case I'd be fine with it. I'm looking at things on a local level, and 4 people representing me are pledged to Clinton, against 70% of their constituency. Just look at the delegates count, Barack ahead by 50, behind by 50 with the super delegates. I tend to think things would even out a bit more if people went with the voice of their electorate. Maybe it will even out, but as of today it looks like political clout turning the tide against what more people want to see. Maybe WA's uncommitted super delegates will do the right thing, and those numbers will fall around a 70%-30% split. Too many maybes for me after the last 20 years of what has been dual monarchy situation.

Bellevue Ave: Michigan and Florida state party leaders may have known that they were taking a risk of not getting their delegates seated, but is that any reason to dienfranchise the voters of that state? I thought you all cared about people's votes being counted, right? Isn't that what Dan is railing about here? Oh, I guess only if works for your favorite candidates (it must be nice to pick which rules you want to folow, and still be self-rightous).

And Dan: Do you really think that Obama supporters are going to want all of California, NY, TX and OH superdelegates to be forced to support the winner of that state? You aren't picking and choosing rules that suit your preference. Are you?

Write your goddamned senators, people.

Patty and Maria may well have "committed" themselves to Billary because she helped 'em get elected last time, but it'll be goddamned hard to win in the *next* election by screwing 70% of the democratic vote.

Perhaps you should make this point clear in a politely worded letter.

wile_e_quixote - it must feel really good for you to tell everyone to "shut the fuck up" who have concerns about the caucus process. I guess then I can assume that you are not elderly, disabled, work a weekend job, or perhaps have a job that requires travel. That must be nice to not to worry about those pesky things, but last I checked people in those situations are the exact type of people we Democrats purport to represent.

I know that this is hard to take for you, but the fact is that there are huge demographics out there who support Hillary, inasmuch as you would not like to admit it. And, the fact is, some of those demographics discriminated against yesterday.

b-man, i dont care if people's votes arent counted if their state doesnt play by the rules. i wouldnt have any problem with washington being stripped of delegates if we moved our primary up past what the DNC set out in the rules.

and im not saying that superdelegates can't vote in hillary doesnt win the majority of elected delegates. i am saying that it wouldnt be good for the democratic party. same with reinstating michigan and florida. if democrats in florida and michigan dont like it then they need to change the people that stripped them; their local elected politicians.

further obama pledges not to run in 2 states because they broke the rules, and hillary subsequently wins those overwhelmingly and you're going to penalize a candidate for doing everything correctly, and reward 2 states and hillary for not? yeah, thats good for democracy too. it sends the message that states can do whatever the hell they want and there is nothing that can be done.

@57

Did that yesterday, along with Norm Dicks and Jay Inslee. I figured I shouldn't bug Sims since he's not representing me, I'm in Kitsap County. I was polite, and respected their right to ENDORSE Clinton, but expressed my displeasure of voting against their electorate. I suppose it was implied I would remember that come re-election time for them, but did it in a nice way:)

Obama and his supporters are just motivated out of the goodness of their heart! They would still support changing all the rules* if the situation was reversed!

(*that everyone agreed to when they signed up to run)

why dont the people who feel left out change the party rules on delegates?

Un-democratic caucuses that favor Obama good!

Un-democratic superdelegates that favor Clinton bad!

Status quo good!

Pointing out obvious ramifications of pre-existing, no matter how absurd, structures Even Better!

Milking the system in the face of tidal wave Clintonesque!

Non-ironic ironic posting aliases bad!

how's this for an idea - the candidates play by the rules they agreed upon from the beginning: michigan and florida do not count, and the superdelegates can vote as they choose.

one caveat - any [elected official] super delegates voting against the wishes of their constituency will most likely do so at the expense of their own careers. i suspect if/when it comes down to the SD's deciding the nominee, they will listen to their electorate.

Brandon-I hope he SD's act in that manner...right now I suspect the clout of the Clintons is superceding the will of the people. If Hillary does win the popular consensus, those who oppose them face old school style political blackballing, the flip side is alienating those who got them where they are. Political suicide vs. popular suicide, eh?

Let me just put this out there for digestion. I help run a non-profit art gallery/music venue in Bremerton. I can guarantee a strong turn out of 18-25 year old voters for Obama (including some 17 now, 18 by November) who have no recollection of a president not named Bush or Clinton at all.....registering them myself. They want a new look to the US Govt. I cannot guarantee that turnout for Hillary Clinton. If the SD"s REALLY want a Democrat in the White House they need to heed the 1st time voter demographic. I see it every day.

Nothing wrong with phoning them to ask that they change their endorsements.

That said, they are delegates who can decide who THEY want to vote for - and change their vote - and it's THEIR decision.

One hopes they might realize their state doesn't agree that much with them, though.

superdelegates can do as they please obama super fan. states can choose how they run their delegate elections.

teh ramifications of superdelegates choosing hillary over obama if obama wins the majority of pledged delegates would be huge.

the ramifications of favoring caucuses in some states instead of primaries results in more popular and energized people turning up. are you upset that hillary isnt that person?

Hooray!

No NIGGY-NOGGY'S for me!!!

couldnt you at least try to be racially insensitive and funny?

B-man, take your intellectually dishonest whining and stuff it in your ass. The fact of the matter is that if the caucuses had gone HIllary's way you and unPC would be praising the caucus system to the high heavens as a wonderful manifestation of democracy in action. But unfortunately for you and your candidate the caucus system hasn't played out to your liking, hence your newfound concern about the undemocratic nature of the caucuses.

Also take your fake concern for the elderly, the handicapped and everyone else and stuff that in your ass as well. You could give two fucks in a rat's ass less about those people so knock it off with your bullshit crocodile tears, you're just repeating a Clinton campaign talking point. If the handicapped came out en masse for Obama you and unPC would be out slashing the tires on their wheelchairs and unplugging their respirators.

Hillary Clinton never had a problem with caucuses before she started to lose them. Find me one incident, before Iowa, where she ever stood up and condemned the caucus system. Oh wait, you can't, because those incidents don't exist. Hillary thought that she'd own Iowa and it was only after she lost that the started telling everyone how icky the caucuses were. If she'd won Iowa and lost New Hampshire she would have been saying exactly the opposite, and so would you.

Also if you want to make a case against the caucuses then give us some real numbers about how many people couldn't participate because they were working on the weekend, or traveling, or couldn't make it because they're handicapped. Seriously, offer up some numbers, some actual proof, and not just regurgitated talking points about how the system supposedly disenfranchised these legions of Clinton supporters, whom, if they hadn't been disenfranchised, would have shown up and decided the day overwhelmingly in favor of HIllary Clinton.

I agree that the caucus process is bizarre, disorganized, confusing, and discriminating to many voters. But it was set up that way ahead of time and just happens to favor Obama. What I want to know is, do those of you who hate the caucuses think Hillary would have swept a primary? Because I don't really think that's accurate.

Does anyone know what, if any precedent there is in voters swaying superdelegegates to vote one way or another? Again, has this ever even been an issue before?

I do think it would be catastrophic for the Democratic party to ignore the will of the peeps. As a progressive voter myself, I am sick of the old school Dems and their smug "Obama is naive" stance. How condescending. The DNC website is filled with it and frankly, I think there's a lot of racism going down in this.

Super delegates aren't fair but neither are caucuses. I know a lot of people either can't make it or don't want to go because they believe who they vote for should be a private matter. Caucuses have robbed Hillary of votes, just as super delegates may rob Obama. That being said, Obama would have more plight about letting every vote count if he also went for letting the votes in Florida and Michigan count. That he chose to support the party instead of the people's vote makes me not as sympathetic.

In Bremerton, the caucus was held at Bremerton High School...on the trird floor! MANY elderly people made their way up the staris to participate, including my 60 year old mother who refused to be excluded. I helped her and several other elderly/disabled folks up the stairs so they could be heard, and I did not ask who they were supporting before I did so, nor did they ask me.

Also,if you cannot spare 2 hours (if you are able bodied)to decide 4 years of your future, then your interest level in the process is debatable. Hunched back old men, 70 year+ women with walkers, they made it up 3 flights of stairs. You cannot deny that it was a democratic process, albeit flawed, when an adamant Obama supporter helps his opponents to the caucus to be heard.

@73:

I have no sympathy for the whiny, consensus-loving wuss-bags who won't caucus because of some inane belief that their "vote" should be private.

Fuck that. This isn't an election -- it's a party nomination. If the party wants the decision to be public, then that's the way it is. The prissy bastards can shut the hell up, and cast their secret ballots in the actual election, where such a right is legally guaranteed.

That said, even if I agreed that prissy bastards were under-represented by Saturday's caucus (I don't), you'd still have to show me that Billary supporters are disproportionately prissy in order to claim any harm.

Bellevue Ave @ 62 asks:

why dont the people who feel left out change the party rules on delegates?

How do you propose that they do that, Mister Smart Guy? Wave a magic wand? Say Shazam?

They'd need a majority vote through the Rules Committee, then a majority vote in the Washington State Democratic Central Committee.

In other words, there's a process in place, and it relies on democracy. People don't just "change the rules" because they feel like it. Can you get your impatient little mind around that?

Incidentally, before some one jumps down my throat: I think that the party is entitled to do whatever the hell they want to do to decide the nomination. If they want to draw straws, play BINGO or read the tea leaves, than that's their right.

That said, I think that it's our right as voters to demand relevance from the parties. If they hold a de-facto popular election, then ignore the results, we should feel free to vote their asses into obscurity.

ivan, it was an honest question. I personally enjoy a caucus but many people hate it because their candidate can win them. if these same people want to change the rules what is the process to do it?

cant win them.

This debate over supers may be irrelevant by the end of the month.

Clinton is close to being toast. The primaries on Tuesday strongly favor Obama. Clinton's big donors are maxed out. Her campaign is being reorganized.

Obama's campaign is a money-sucking Hoover right now and is bringing in $$ faster than they can spend it.

The record so far shows that the more time he has to campaign the better he does.

I would not be surprised if given his string of big wins, lot's of cash, and time to mount a ground war in PA, OH and TX if he comes away with at least two of the three.

If that happens anyone with any political brains will jump on the Obama train as fast as they can.

The record breaking caucus numbers have a lot to do with Obama, and a lot to do with the last eight years of Bush. Obama seems to be the right man for the job at the moment, but what is more important is the people that are backing him, and the organization that has resulted. If Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray give this election to Obama, the Obama masses should find new candidates and vote Murry(who voted for the war), and Cantwell (who voted for the patriot act)right out of office. Be vindictive and brutal about it, because if our politicians do not suffer for their mistakes, the people will. I would like to add, if Obama does not get the nomination, the Democratic party is going to split. If Clinton gets the nomination, a third party is going to form, and Obama would be a fool not to lead it.

jjj - stellar Obama supporter.

Murray voted against the war. You idiot.

I believe (and may be wrong) that the decision to nominate a candidate in WA was by caucus because of the open primary trend of Republicans voting for the weaker Dem. candidate rather than one of their own idiotic candidates, so I support the Dems. on that front.

I also support any movement to encourage elected superdelegates to vote withtheir electorate, and not their pork barrel associations.

In short, I support the best black man in the race whomever that may be.

-extremely white myself:)

Joining this discussion a bit late, but I am having a hard time finding an up-to-date list of where our (WA State) super delegates stand currently? Are there remaining undecided? If so, who are they? (I would like to drop them a personal note.)

Reason #35 we should have replaced Cantwell last time around.

Patty Murray is super on veterans issues...but this was kind of bungled on her part.

We could all start attending our local Democratic parties, take over, and actually make the party over in our image (i.e. remove the power from the insiders, offer them some backbone, move the platform to a more progressive one, make more of an effort to involve minorities and younger people in the grassroots evolution of the party..._)

Or we could all just meet back here in November to bitch and moan :)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

@82 My bad “Brillant.” I got it backwards, Murray voted for the first incarnation of the patriot act, and Cantwell voted for the fucking war. Thanks for being such a snarkey bitch about it. This is all besides the point at the moment. If Cantwell and Murray give this nomination to Clinton, the fine, intelligent people of Washington should get rid of them.

Of course, ... super delegates were created to thwart the will of the voters...

So what? Parties are private organizations, with a First Amendment right to control their membership.

Voting in the general election is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Helping a party select its nominee is a privilege subject to that party's whims.

Why should the Florida Dems lose their delegates? As I understand it the Republican (heavily) legislature and the Republican governor decided to make Florida more relevant by moving their date up. Did the Florida Democrats have a chance to fix it? If not, they shouldn't have been punished. The Republicans cut their delegates in half and allowed the candidates to campaign.

The democratic campaigns agreed not to campaign there. They did not agree that Florida's delegates wouldn't count. The DNC's rules committee made that ruling, after the candidates had made their agreement. The only apparent violation was done by the Obama campaign by running CNN ads in Florida before the vote. His campaigns lame excuse was that a national buy had to go there and he had pemission of the SC Dem Chairman.
Reverse this and the Obama people would be going crazy. This buy also benefitted Obama in the then upcoming Super Tuesday which was denied to all other candidtes.

Florida was a state HRC always had a big lead and the Republicans, that so much wanted to face her, damaged her there. Now why would they do that?

If it happened in another state to Obama the Os on this site would be whining.

The superdelegates won't stand in Obama's way if he continues to outperform Clinton in the upcoming primaries.

Why do I say that? Because the Chair of the DNC is going to privately talk to the hundreds and hundreds of superdelegates who gained that status by being DNC representatives. You know, the Dwight Pelzes and David McDonalds of the world. Howard will remind them that the first party-related act of a President Clinton will be to ditch the 50-state strategy. She'll also demand Dean's resignation, but that's really secondary to the damage that would be done by returning to the Beltway/corporate McAuliffe strategy.

I'm sure superdelegates screwing a black man out of the nomination will go over real well with the African American community.

Even with Super Delegates in her back pocket Mrs. Clinton is trying to make the party disqualified votes of Michigan and Florida count in her favor thereby claiming the role of the most delegates. Obama has played by the rules of his party, Clinton has not.

If you want to see something really messed up, look at how Alabama awarded it's delegates.

The issue of super delegates and the democratic party is unconscionable. Currently Obama is ahead in the popular vote and behind in the delegate vote. We can not have 800 party insiders decide the primaries for us! I have created a protest page here:

http://www.popularprimaryvotenow.com

If you think this is an issue please add a comment to the protest page of the website. I will print out all the comments and give them to the Democratic party.

Can someone post a link to find where to find a complete or comprehensive as possible list of Washington's Super delegates so I and others can email these super delegates and ask them to respect the will of the voter?

Well, I am prepared to switch my votes away from both Maria and Patty if they choose to use their superdelagate votes in a way that does not support the majority vote in Washington State. And I'm planning to let them know that, and soon. Hope you will do the same!

WASHINGTON

Democratic National Committee DNC Affiliation Type
Ed Cote WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
Eileen Macoll WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
Sharon Mast WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
David T. McDonald WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
Pat Notter WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
Dwight Pelz WASHINGTON DNC MEMBER
Ron Sims NAT'L DEMOCRATIC COUNTY OFFICIALS
Democratic Governor
Christine Gregoire
U.S. Senate
Maria Cantwell
Patty Murray
U.S. House of Representatives
Brian Baird
Norman Dicks
Jay Inslee
Rick Larsen
Jim McDermott
Adam Smith
Distinguished Party Leader Leadership Position
Thomas Foley FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

State's Total Number of Super Delegates: 17