The 20 prominent Clinton supporters told Pelosi she should "clarify" recent statements to make it clear superdelegates -- nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who are free to back any candidate -- could support the candidate they think would be the best nominee.
Pelosi has not publicly endorsed either Clinton or Barack Obama in their hotly contested White House battle, but she recently said superdelegates should support whoever emerges from the nomination contests with the most pledged delegates -- which appears almost certain to be Obama.
"This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984," the letter from the wealthy Clinton backers said.
"Superdelegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee," said the letter signed by some of Clinton's biggest fund raisers.
Like most other arguments coming from Clinton supporters these days, this one doesn't make much sense. Everybody concedes that the superdelegates can use whatever criteria they want in casting their vote at the convention. What Pelosi is suggesting is that--given that the superdelegates are free to choose any criteria they want--the criterion that ought to trump all others is whether the candidate won the most pledged delegates. I imagine that her reasoning behind this is that nominating a candidate that has less pledged delegates will be seen as illegitimate by Democratic voters, and that the candidate would therefore not be "the party's strongest nominee" in the general election.
The letter makes it sound like Pelosi is trying to change the rules, when really she is just offering advice to the superdelegates--advice that they can heed or reject without Pelosi having to "clarify" anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment