This is a non-answer answer.

I dont think Dean's position is anyclearer than it was yesterday.

What if one superdelegates "best judgment" is that he should follow the lead of the pledged delegates?

And what if another superdelegates "best judgment" is to do whatever the hell they feel like and go against the will of the electorate?

Dean's answer is a political one with a bunch of wiggle room to negotiate. And it really doesn't clear up the situation at all.

Well, we shouldn't forget that this is the same party that believed the "highest values of our democracy and our Party" called for setting up cages to hold those who wished nothing more than to peaceably assemble at their last convention!

I think the full quote should be considered.

"Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."

I think Josh's video commentary of a couple days ago was right on the mark.

The supers will vote for the candidate who has demonstrated the greatest likelihood of winning the general election with the longest coattails.

Those so called "party insiders", as Dean explained, include (more than half) local party officials from throughout the state they represent. They will certainly want to do what will what they believe most helps their down ticket candidates.

The constant harping about the superdelegate 'issue' has become tiresome, particularly from those who apparently have no clue as to why such rules exist, or the intended role they play in the candidate selection process.

Enough already with this 'thwarting the will of the people' argument and call this 'undemocratic.'

There is no basis for such claims. Party rules are written by active, participating members of the party - not 'the people' at large. The process of capturing delegates is unfortunately not left solely to members of the Democratic party, but to large, otherwise not involved members of the electorate, including independent, non-party affiliated voters and crossover members of the Republican party, where open primaries exist. To virtually anyone who wants to caucus, in some cases, where caucuses exist.

To claim that the superdelegate rules (or other party rules) interfere with the will of the people at large, is naive and factually incorrect.

Governor Dean's matter-of-fact recitation indicates that the process should play out according to 'the rules' and he draws no forgone conclusion as to the final selection of a candidate.

It comes down to this for future contests: if you don't like the rules, get involved in your local party apparatus and work to change the rules. Or, simply shut up about them. Enough already.

I think he is basically they shouldn't override the popular vote, "I am confident that they will carry out that duty responsibly and in accordance with the highest values of our democracy and our Party." The values of our democracy would seem to indicate not overriding democracy, and the best interests of our party would be to not override democracy because the fallout from that will tear the party to pieces.

He is speaking diplomatically, but I think that is what he is getting at.

"The supers will vote for the candidate who has demonstrated the greatest likelihood of winning the general election with the longest coattails."

This sounds right. I think Dean would like to maintain the flexibility for the super delegates to take a contrary view if the candidate with the most pledged delegates is suddenly enmeshed in scandal or has a severe drop in the polls v. the Republican candidate.

But if this race continues on its current trajectory, with Obama maintaining a lead in pledged delegates and running best against McCain, no one can say with a straight face that nominating Clinton would be in the best interest of the Party.

I don't understand why this issue keeps cropping up. People act as if Hillary has an iron grip on the super delegates. Look, if Obama wins on Tuesday, then wins one of the big remaining three and is at least very close in the other two, there is no way the super delegates will vote Hillary in.

It's a very smart tactic by the Clinton campaign to keep Florida, Michigan, and Super Delegates in the headlines. The fact that people are concerned about it helps reinforce an underlying assumption that she has full control of and great power in the democratic party, and it helps distract from the fact that she's gotten her butt whipped in the last 8 races.

It's all much ado about nothing until we go through Ohio and Texas. If Clinton wins those decisively, than we can worry about super delegates, florida, and michigan. If she gets trounced, then those issues completely disappear, and the super delegates will move overwhelmingly toward obama. These aren't Clinton or Obama robots we're talking about. These are motivated Democrats. And they can see what's happening just like anyone else. If Obama keeps winning, they'll move towards him. If he loses, they'll move away. Simple as that.

This news really doesn't change anything. These people, with their concern for the overall welfare of the Party, understand the signs as well as anybody. They will not defy the will of the people as it becomes daily more clear, nor will they ignore the polls about electability. And they certainly will have heavily in mind the local candidates who will need the coattails of a popular candidate.

I used to fear that Clinton would steamroll, even by unethical means if necessary, over these superdelegates relying on the fear of her power. But, as in the case of many once-dreaded leaders (see Italy in the '40s or Rumania in the '80s), the moment the erstwhile underlings see a chance to escape the strong one's sway it's all over. I think that's what will happen if Hillary Clinton tries her jawboning ways that used to work so well when her husband's dominance was unchallenged.

An interesting tidbit from Novakula's column:

The endorsement of Obama Wednesday by Puerto Rico Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila gives him a big edge in the island commonwealth's primary June 7, despite a predominant Hispanic population, with 63 delegates at stake. The governor will put the Popular Democratic Party, Puerto Rico's most powerful political force, at Obama's disposal.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/hillarys_mcgovern_problem.html

Obama endorsed by Milwaukee, Houston papers

by John McCormick

WAUSAU, Wis. -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has won the endorsement of the largest newspaper in Wisconsin just ahead of the state's primary on Tuesday.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said there is only the "tiniest sliver of daylight" between policy positions held by Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.

But the newspaper's editorial board, which met with the senator from Illinois on Wednesday, said it found Obama to be the "best-equipped to deliver" change and that "his relatively shorter time in Washington is more asset than handicap."

Obama has also won the endorsement of the Houston Chronicle, one of the nation's largest newspapers and one in a state where Obama will campaign next week, in advance of the Texas primary on March 4.

The newspaper said "Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies."

The endorsements came on a day where Obama is campaigning in Wisconsin, including a stop at this hour at a community college here where he is meeting with a small group of students to discuss the issues they face.

oothoon, if she wins TX, OH, and PA by large margins through smearing the crap out of Obama, then the Democratic party deserves her, and she should win the nomination.

If those three states don't have the stones to choose Obama, then, well, you reap what you sow.

"The constant harping about the superdelegate 'issue' has become tiresome, particularly from those who apparently have no clue as to why such rules exist, or the intended role they play in the candidate selection process."

"Enough already with this 'thwarting the will of the people' argument and call this 'undemocratic.'"

Well, I can still recall the 1968 chants: "The whole world is watching" when the Democratic Party decided that it could act independently of the will of its customers. We know what happened. For the only time in my long voting history, I did not vote for a Democrat for president. (I didn't vote for Nixon either.) That was the start of a long run by Republicans (except for the Nixon-caused, one-term Carter presidency). Fixing a party long term is more important in some minds than the next four years.

Any organization that pisses off a sufficient number of its customers -- in this case "the people" -- will not prosper. And by the way, the whole world is once again watching, and hoping.

Yes Dean is merely restating what the role of super-delegates was in the first place. it's not only a non-answer, it's not news.

The super delegates are a crap system.

And to make these clowns 20% of the vote?

Totally stupid and crazy.

"Hillary's "McGovern" Problem
By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Strategists for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign believe it is imperative to identify her high-flying opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, with the "McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party -- but they want to keep their candidate's fingerprints off the attack.

During the two weeks remaining before the important Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, Clinton insiders want to spread the message that Obama represents the radical left-wing politics of George McGovern's 1972 candidacy, which won only one state. But they don't know how to accomplish this. When Clinton herself has launched past attacks on Obama, it has hurt her with voters.... "

I feel like I have been fighting this fight since 1968 and it's hugely depressing to find the party establishment in the same place it was in 40 years ago and with not much to show for the last 40 years either.

I think it was Larry Sabato of UVA who said the SD's (and I am paraphrasing) will do whatever is in their own pure political self-interest. I think he's right. (If I'm wrong about the source, apologies in advance, but the point is valid). And one thing that the SD's can't afford to do is back a candidate that has the possibility of imploding in November, when there is no exit strategy. It is emphatically not in their pure self-interest to be embarrassed by a November Surprise. There are several commentators calling for greater vetting of Sen. Obama, the most well known of whom is Amb. Joe Wilson. There is also Larry C. Johnson making the same point. The majority of the SD's will stay on the sidelines until the primaries run their course, and there has at least been a better chance to address the kinds of issues raised by Messrs. Wilson and Johnson.

What did Joe Wilson find the missing WMD in Obama's basement or something?

Blue: Read the article.

Ambassador Joe Wilson: “How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.hillary12feb12,0,7566890,print.story

"Well, there he goes again"

Bill Clinton is now talking up what He and Hillary accomplished as Co Presidents. Just last week, Hillary was claiming that she was running on her own. Which is it!

Read the latest from Big Foot Bill. God help anyone who would take the VP slot behind the Clinton Two pack.

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (AP) — Former President Clinton on Friday accused Sen. Barack Obama, his wife's rival for the Democratic nomination, of trying to ignore any accomplishments they achieved during their years in the White House.

"You have one candidate who's made the explicit argument that the only way we can change America is to move into a post-partisan future and therefore we have to eliminate from consideration for the presidency anybody who made good things happen in the '90s or stopped bad things from happening in this decade," said Clinton, who was winding up a day of East Texas campaign appearances for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It doesn't matter how much good you did," the former president said at Stephen F. Austin University. "We've got to get rid of you because you had to fight to make something good happen. You had to fight to stop something bad from happening. And if you fought, you made somebody mad, we ought to give you an old watch and retire you. You can't possibly make a contribution to America's future."

Thank you Howard - this is why I supported you four years ago. Clear, independent thinking.

Lots of ifs being pondered here. Are we really going to keep reading the minds of the almighty superdelegates for the next 6 months? If so, I might just gouge my eyes out. Everything insiders (like Dean) say is simply p.r. or damage control or status quo b.s. Everything Hillary and Barack say serves to benefit them. Of course! That's the game. Same as it ever was.

bluebell, if you want to keep from getting depressed, don't read Robert Novak. ; )

Richmond,

"Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do...."

I always thought that Wilson was a sleaze, never could get past that however much I despised the Cheney/Libby operation. So Obama has an African cousin, who knew! And in a country associated with terror no less! I'm so glad the Clinton machine points that out. And they were so good at resolving all those potential terror problems in Africa when they had the chance!!

Does Joe Wilson know that Hillary voted for the Iraq War and still claims that her vote was correct. Since she and John McCain agree on that, why will she stand up to him.

Bill Clinton recently revealed that Hillary is great friends with John McCain and greatly admires and respects him, and that an election between Hillary and McCain would be one of the most respectful one's in history.

Which is it Joe. Your word that Hillary will go toe to toe with John McCain. or her husband's word that she and John McCain would have a love in campaign.

The key to Dean's statement is "highest values" of the Democratic Party. That's how you agree with Obama tacitly while staying nominally neutral.

Any role Dean plays in the superdelegate mess will be behind closed doors.