Are you impressed by the job that Howard Dean is doing?

Moreover, in the presidential contest, do you feel that it is high time for more superdelegates, who are party leaders, to step up and take stronger stances on this year's candidates?

Do you believe that the candidate who goes to convention with the most delegates should be the Party's nominee?

And, finally, what risks or perils, if any, do you fear if Obama leads the delegate count going into the convention but the Party nominates Hillary Clinton?

--------------------------------------

None of these questions are meant to be rhetorical. I would especially enjoy honest assessments from registered Democrats and Party sympathizers both in the United States and abroad.

I honestly can't judge how good a job Dean is doing; he is the highest profile DNC chair that I can recall. Frankly, I could only name one or two thers. I have no frame of reference.

I think the superdelegates should speak up when they make up their minds. While I feel that what is happening is definitely damaging to the Democratic Party, that's politics. Choosing the nominee early has some drawbacks. McCain is making statements to woo conservatives now, but he is also turning off the independents he needs to win in November. (He is in a hard place. He needs both to win, but persuading one group alienates many of the other group.) Politics is a messy game, and we (the country) rarely, if ever, gets the best person (of all possibilities) as president. Most rise to some extent to the occasion.

I also can't answer your third question. Should the superdelegates go against the majority of those who have voted in the primaries if they truly believe that the other potential candidate has the only chance of winning? If so, why bother to have superdelegates? States who held the primaries early now hold some people who have stated that they wish they could take back their vote. Isn't that why the primary season is as long as the baseball season, to see who is truly the best, or at least the most desired of the candidates for one party's nomination? The only alternative seems to be a national primary day, to be held in the summer, just before the convention, allowing enough time for votes to be counted (and challenged ).

With regard to your last question, there is risk whenever a party goes into a convention without a presumptive nominee. Whatever choice is made then is sure to anger a great many party members. Again, that's how politics works. We (the country) rarely get the best, but we usually get the most durable.

Hi Gang:

If the Democrats are going to let the super Delegates decide who is the Democrat nominee for President...

why bother to vote in the first place???

If Super Degates get to select the party candidate,this just means that all of the Dems who took the time and trouble to vote have wasted their time...your vote doesn't count !

All that counts is that the old party
war horses are the only ones who get to decide
for you.

It may be the way it's done ,but it sure as hell isn't democratic.

hippolips

"If the Democrats are going to let the super Delegates decide who is the Democrat nominee for President...

why bother to vote in the first place???"

If one potential nominee won enough committed delegates through the primary/caucus system, the superdelegates's votes wouldn't matter. It is only when there is no potential candidate with enough votes to win on the first ballot at the convention that the votes of the superdelegates matter. That's the way it's done.

If you have a better way to operate a nomination process, by all means, let's hear it. But, since the superdelegates are, for the most part, elected officials who are members of the party, it seems to be a reasonable way to operate. Having superdelegates lessens the chance of a locked convention, one in which no candidate can get enough votes to win the nomination.

This NPR article seems to be fair reading about Superdelegates and recent nomination history.

The way in which Democrats apportion delegates seems to provide for closer contests. I remember my eyebrows raising when Clinton won the majority of Texas primary votes, but lost the Texas delegate count this year after the caucus results. And because Democrats give more weight to heavily Democratic regions in Pennsylvania, it was possible (but did not happen) for Obama to have won the delegate count in Pennsylvania! I suppose superdelegates are needed to sort it all out in the end.

The timing is right, and I have been told on numerous occasions that the superdelegate system was started to avoid the type of floor fights that Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy had in 1980. Is there any truth to that?

"The timing is right, and I have been told on numerous occasions that the superdelegate system was started to avoid the type of floor fights that Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy had in 1980. Is there any truth to that?"

Contrary to what some seem to believe, I was not and am not in on secret Democratic meetings. (But I did tell Scotty once that I attended meetings of the Young Radical Leftist Pinko Commies club. But I left because they wanted to make Perrier the national drink and Granola a requirement for every meal. I still have wine and cheese daily, however.)

How 'bout those cheese prices?

LOL, I buy wine in a box, and cheap cheese when it's on sale. (So much for my "Elitist" image.)