Meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses

   WASHINGTON … Once upon a time 40 years ago, presidential primaries were nothing more than beauty contests, and every delegate was a "superdelegate" -- a party insider who got to go to the convention and choose the presidential nominee.

   And now, the long and contentious battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama has turned the last primaries into beauty contests, of a sort, which will serve as guideposts for the 306 remaining superdelegates who will decide the Democratic presidential nomination.

   In other words: meet the new bosses -- same as the old bosses (although, granted, there are fewer of them).

   Talks with superdelegates and other sources Wednesday showed that those undecided superdelegates are not likely to be swayed by Clinton's 10-point win in the Pennsylvania primary.

   Instead, the Pennsylvania results are more likely to simply freeze this race in place for at least another two weeks, as the superdelegates watch what happens in the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

   In other words, after five months of primaries and caucuses and tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending and maybe 30 million votes cast, the Clinton-Obama contest will be decided by 306 people.

   That's Democratic, under the party's rules.

   But how democratic is it?

  -- Jerry Zremski

Comments

[Texas Kid]

This has nothing to do with "true" democracy. This is a political party's means of deciding how to select thier candidate for President of the United States. If the people don't like it, switch to another party. The Democrat Party, like the Republican Party, are private organizations. They accept private donations and can set their own rules and agenda's. If this contest is going on too long and getting rough for the Party..then its like a business that had made a fatal marketing mistake on a product launch. The Democratic party has set these rules in place for a long time since the early 1980's at least. It's worked fine as long as an early candidate has come out front and taken the nomination after the end Super Tuesday. Now that this year doesn't fall into that category...it may be time to go back to the drawing board. It'll be interesting what the Democrat Party does to alleviate this situation in the future. Also, if you look at American History, the super delegates deciding who the candidate is will harken back to the 1800's when conventions and backroom deals sealed the nominating process for both parties. Until then, Obama and Clinton will just hack away at each other through the next round of primaries on May 6th.

[Texas Longhorn]

BUDDA..the PA debate was great. It showed the more true nature of who B.Hussein Obama is. He is all fluff and puff, no substance.

His close associates are mere radicals. One is unrepentant and wishes he could have done more to kill American citizens. One that we all know about that he choooses to have as his close mentor damns America and hates white people. Just go to YouTube and listen to his own words.

Obama if selected for the General Election will have his failed-Marxist policies exposed for what they are and for what he is. He is a closeted Marxist and a bitter black man. He even lied about his dads death.

He intends to raise the taxes that will be historically the largest tax increase in US History. He will expand the govt to its largest ever! His wife despises America and neither of them "Love America". Neither of them have ever said it. Even Hillary has said and says she loves America.

[The Relocated]

I fail to find anything democratic about superdelagates. If the democratic party is not going to support the popularly nominated candidtate why don't they just hold a superdelegate vote and end it quickly? This really needs to be rethought as it does nothing but project the image of the democratic party as a cabal of liberal elitists.

This current dog and pony show is doing nothing but tearing the fabric of the party apart. Mc Cain starts to gain support and can win the election if it's perceived by the electorate that the democratic party has it's head between it's buttocks.

[West of Budda]

The ABC televised debate in Pennsylvania was neither a true debate. It became instead the reality tv political show. The important issues were not mentioned.

Our election process will only have true debates when there are candidates from more than two parties on a stage with a set clock. Candidates will speak in their alloted time slot without commercials.

[Al]

Especially today, primaries are the farthest thing from "beauty contests." This is not about being King or Queen-For-A-Day. It is about holding the most powerful office in the world. Most people understand that. Things go on that would not be tolerated in just a "beauty contest." Democracy is a relative term for what always goes in in any political activity. Superdelegates are not Putin-esque United Russia power elites. They are answerable in ways to the electorate, who are watching and observing. Today, even "bosses" can get fired.
Stanley O'Neal and Chuck Prince were ousted on Wall Street. With the last 7 years disaffections and independencies growing, the losing party in this election may see it in decline at a rapid rate. If the Clinton-Obama contest will be decided by 306 people, that is only a result of the finalities of an entire process that began with many candidates over a year ago. That is fairly democratic, and why the world watches this Great Experiment of transfer of power peaceably (at least in global terms). It's Showtime.

[Barton Keyes]

If one wants to criticize how undemocratic the primary process is one shouldn't stop at throwing mud at superdelegates. There is the caucus system that tends to narrow the participants to hardcore believers and the winner-take-all primaries that, in effect, disenfranchises all those who voted for the loser. And then we have states that limit polling places in certain districts to indirectly massage the votes, and old time party organizations that still "help" (provide transportation or dollars)to the faithful to "encorage" them to vote.
In political parties the goal is to pick a winner and democracy is tollerated so long as it helps select that winner. If democracy interferes with that goal, politicians are more than willing to manipulate the system.

[pop]

A candidate for President of the United States is never left to the "great unwashed".
Sometimes it is blatant such as the Supreme Court in 2000 or this years mess in the Democratoc party. Other times it is more subtle by using the press to assassinate the character of a potential candidate, or party big wigs showering their candidate with money from wealthy donors. The presidency is an office that is purchased, and the person or persons financing the winning person have purchased themselves a President. The rest of us? We just pay the taxes and fight the wars.