"Why doesn't the Democratic Party hold a presidential primary among its superdelegates to reach a quick decision between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton?Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen proposed the idea Wednesday, saying Democrats will suffer in November if the nominee isn't decided until the party's August convention."
This sounds awfully appealing to me. Specifically, Bresden is proposing a "two day superdelegate primary for June after the last voter primary." Dean's already rejected it out-of-hand, but I think if enough pressure mounted for what seems like an excellent way of coming to an early resolution, there could be consideration.
It sort of makes me wonder how many in the party have really thought through the long months between the last primary on June 3rd and the convention on August 25th. Nearly three months of sheer back-room politicking while John McCain gets an uninterrupted fireside chat with national voters (and though I do think that the McCain-free-ride has been a little overblown while the Democratic voting continues - after all, he's not making headlines as long as there as there are elections and exit polls to be discussed - it's a very different animal when the actual Dem voter participation ceases and the slimy arm-twisting remains.)
Josh Green argued in The Current two days ago that "if [the uncommitted superdelegates] truly cared about ending the primary, they could do so in a matter of days or weeks. All they need to do is declare their allegiance now." I do think that the superdelegates from the yet to vote states have a point in waiting (I am, after all, am among 60% of Maryland Dem voters currently being overrode two-to-one by our superdelegates, and wouldn't want to wish that sense of disenfranchisement on anyone in Pennsylvania or Montana), but I struggle to see the value in kneecapping overselves for an extra twelve weeks.
The superdelegates are already about as popular as a kick in the ribs - we should at least make it a swift(er) one.
No comments:
Post a Comment