Susan Estrich says Super Delegates should choose a winner

[SparkyMac]

Speaking of Super Delegates, Susan Estrich says --

Do these people deserve to control the nomination?

Maybe.

If you think the purpose of all these primaries and caucuses is to build the party, empower the grass roots, and celebrate democracy, then the answer is and should be no.

But after a few decades of campaigning, too many of them for candidates who probably never had a chance of winning, I'm convinced that the other purpose is the one that should dominate.

Winning.

The role of superdelegates is not to vote for the candidate who has shown the greatest popularity among the grass roots activists who dominate this season, particularly in caucus states.

It's to pick the one with the best chance of winning.

The goal here is to elect a president, not select a nominee.

If we wanted a perfect democracy, we could have a national primary, or at least a series of regional primaries.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_goal_is_to_win.html

[SparkyMac]

1. My apologies. I intended this for the Primary discussion

[Juche]

2. I dislike Estrich

In between the chapter Campos devoted to her excoriating her for her superficiality in 'the obesity myth' and the fact that the day after the dems lost the 2004 election she was on the morning news denouncing everything the democrat party stood for and trying to make the dems out to be republican lite I do not like her.


Obama's grassroots organization can be used to help elect presidents, senators, governor, representatives and various state and local politicians. He has energized hundreds of thousands of volunteers, and they aren't going anywhere. He also raises so much money that the DNC won't even need to help him out. THey can spend their money on house & senate races instead. Obama will probably be financially self sufficient in this election cycle.