Buried way down in the bottom of a piece analyzing Hilary Clinton’s strategy against Obama is this little nugget:
“They are looking way too much at Florida, Michigan and McCain, because all three won’t matter if she doesn’t blow Obama away in Texas and Ohio,” said a Democrat who is both a Clinton superdelegate and major donor, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment of campaign strategy. “Obama has momentum that has to be stopped by March 4.”
I don’t think that the role of superdelegates in the convention process are entirely clear to the Democrats, even if it is a Democratic Party invention in the first place. But somehow, based on what the media has been describing the superdelegate role to be, it seems somehow a conflict of interest to have someone be a contributor and also be in the position of potentially deciding the nomination over the heads of voters.
This is not meant as an attack on Hillary: I’m sure that Obama probably has a few people wearing these two hats as well. I’m just saying that the responsibility of being a superdelegate at the convention should probably preclude someone from also contributing to their campaign.
But then, in a season where fractions and surprises dominate the nomination process, every little bit of the process is scrutinized in ways that under normal circumstances probably do not seem all that important. Whether that means that the process needs to be changed to prepare for the next eventuality or not is up for discussion. The caucus process also seems worthy of review, as does the ordering of state primaries.
Will this season’s fractiousness cause Democrats to rethink their nomination process?