Democrats’ superdelegates get supersized

When you’re a super-delegate, you have special powers.

You have a vote to nominate a Democrat for president without going through all the hassles of attending precinct caucuses, county conventions or state conventions.

Governors are superdelegates. So are members of Congress, and state party chairmen, vice chairmen and Democratic National Committee members. Washington even has a superdelegate – U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee – who sort of looks like Superman.

Superdelegates are the celebrities of the party. Regular delegates at national conventions have their pictures taken with superdelegates.

In the past, giving these folks a free pass to the convention seemed to be a courtesy because the eventual nominee always won enough delegates via the caucus and primary system.

Until this year. The race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama is so close that superdelegates are more super than ever. They are, to mix metaphors, kingmakers.

Which is ironic in a sense. The reforms that followed the riotous 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago tried to wrestle power away from kingmakers and distribute it to the rank and file. Smoke-filled rooms were to be replaced by transparent ones.

But then the people nominated George McGovern and Jimmy Carter – one who couldn’t win and one who did over the objections of the leaders of the party.

So superdelegates were born to give some control back to the people who run the party and who write the rules. And superdelegates tend toward established candidates, not challengers.

Nationally, about 20 percent of the delegates are super. The Associated Press claims that 213 have endorsed Clinton and 139 have endorsed Obama. That leaves 444 to be courted, and a great Web site – demconwatch.blogspot.com – monitoring the count.

Washington state has 17 superdelegates. Six have announced for Clinton (U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, U.S. Reps. Norm Dicks and Inslee, King County Executive Ron Sims and former U.S. House Speaker Tom Foley). Three have announced for Obama (Gov. Chris Greg-oire, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith and Democratic National Committee member Pat Notter). Eight remain undecided or at least unannounced, including U.S. Reps. Jim McDermott, Brian Baird and Rick Larsen.

So what’s the point? Well, if Clinton and Obama remain close in the number of delegates won in primaries and caucuses, and that process ends with neither capturing the 2,025 needed to win the nomination this August in Denver, then the superdelegates could decide the contest. (Would the convention theme be: “Things To Do In Denver When You’re Deadlocked?”)

So how should they vote if it comes to that? Should they vote their consciences, as their states voted or for the candidate with the best shot of winning in November? Here’s what Obama said about it Friday at a news conference in South Seattle.

“Our superdelegates, they should vote for me,” he said. What about those who remain uncommitted?

“If we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, it would be problematical for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters,” he said.

But then he seemed to open up the possibility that even if Clinton had more delegates, perhaps superdelegates should vote for him anyway:

“I think it is also important for the superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November, who will be in the strongest position to make sure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in our politics into the fold.”

Not very transparent. But at least – given that times have changed – the back rooms where such decisions will be made will not be smoke-filled.

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics