More Opinions Columnists

• V.B. Price: Preserving our water is greatest challenge the city, state faces
• Jeffry Gardner: End of The Trib is part of the demise of serious journalism
• Katherine Augustine: Time with friends from Japan provides treasured memories

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is between a Democratic rock and a hard place.

In his "yes we can . . . change" run for the White House, Obama's message seems to be that Washington politicians — including most recently the Democratic Party brass — have usurped the people's power, which he intends to restore with inspiration, motivation and the political clout of youth. Good luck in that, senator. Hope springs eternal.

Essentially, Obama is challenging the old guard, now including the Democratic Party and its nearly 800 superdelegates for potentially not being democratic.

Even as he courts those delegates himself, hedging his bet, the populist candidate last week said that if the race is deadlocked between himself and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, all superdelegates — which he describes as "political insiders" — should support him, assuming he has won the most primary and caucus delegates and states.

Shrewd, if transparent, considering that he currently leads that tally, but only if already committed superdelegates are excluded. Factor them in, 243 for Clinton and 156 for Obama, and Clinton surges ahead.

But fair enough, senator. You make the case that the people's will should decide, not the party elites, wise as they may be. We'll keep that in mind, senator.

Obama and his surrogates worry that these superdelegates, not the state primary and caucus delegates elected by millions of Democratic voters, could end up selecting the old guard's Clinton, even if the new guard's Obama has the lead. It's the most feared scenario, and some predict it will trigger a Democratic hell on earth.

Currently, under party rules, these superdelegates — elected officials, such as governors, senators, representatives and Democratic Party brass who are automatically named delegates to the Democratic National Convention — have complete freedom to nominate whomever they chose, regardless of who is ahead or even how their own state, congressional district, city or county voted.

Indeed, the Democratic Party created superdelegates as a buffer against a deadlocked convention and possibly nominating a popular candidate that the wise party elders feared could not win in November.

But let's concede Obama is right, that to have the party brass supercede the votes of millions of primary and caucus voters would be a democratic abomination.

Would the Illinois upstart then concede that millions of voters, who dutifully cast their primary ballots in Michigan and Florida, also are entitled to have their votes count? Indeed, in the scheme of things aren't the delegates they elected, overwhelmingly for Clinton, even more fundamentally important to count as the will of the people, than are the superdelegates, who have always been seen as above the popular primary fray?

The same party brass, whom Obama condemns for allowing superdelegates to potentially tilt the decision, disenfranchised Michigan and Florida voters, because their states had the "audacity" — now there's an interesting word — to move up their primaries in opposition to that very same party brass.

Where is the "judgment of the voters" candidate, when it comes to awarding most, if not all, of Michigan's and Florida's 341 delegates to his opponent?

You've got it, senator: between that small-d democratic rock and that big-D Democratic Party hard place. Good luck with that.