Poking Holes in the Superdelegate Superfrenzy

Yesterday, Jane lined out blogtopia* theories on superdelegates. The frenzy is fueled by a misunderstanding of how fickle pledged superdelegate support can be. Read between the lines of public campaign statements as strategic posturing, and this becomes clear.

This needn't have been stirred up. It is counterproductive for much needed work at the Congressional and local races level -- taking our eyes off the electoral ball, aided by media ginning up a pie fight because that sells papers and ratings.

The Boston Globe printed quotes from Wolfson's Clinton media call which intimated that the superdelegates were an important part of their convention strategy, and that he expected pledged delegates to vote for Hillary Clinton. Hmmm...Clinton campaign maneuvers in a media posturing call. The news here is? Let's read between the lines:

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

A superdelegate vote is only as solid as the public opinion numbers of the moment. A pledge is not enforceable. Because most are elected officials, the public mood counts for how their votes are ultimately cast at the DNC in August, which is a long way off in terms of primary votes to come.

And in scoots AdNags, fanning the "Dems in disarry" discord within the party (as if he has any other objective ever). It doesn't help that Mark Penn decided to big foot his way into the conversation, managing to insult the hell out of people in the little states by intimating that they count for less. To wit: