for the length of this post.  It was originally a response to Mr. Shay, the superdelegate who requested our input in his decision on whom to support.  That diary vanished all too quickly.

Here's how I responded:

and thank you, Mr. Shay, for asking.  #8 is the key this year.  The media like to simplify things, but I happen to agree that, on policy issues, very little separates Clinton from Obama.  The difference between the two, however, is palpable, when we look at approach, energy, and broad appeal.  In voicing the latter two, I suspect it's obvious I prefer Barack Obama.  But if Senator Clinton wins more pledged delegates (not counting FL and MI--sadly, those two states were demoted to beauty contests this year), I would think it unfair for superdelegates to vote for Obama.

Given their commonalities on policy, given that they are both electable, and given their abilities (under positive nomination circumstances) to unite the party and attract non-Democratic voters in November, I believe that consideration #8 ought to be the decisive factor.  

Or look at your considerations from a negative perspective: Is there any likelihood that choosing the candidate who wins more pledged delegates, more caucuses and primaries, and more of the popular vote would lead to a revolt within the party?  No.  True, this has been a wonderfully hard-fought, energizing primary season, but it has not descended into mud-slinging and vitriol.  Look across the aisle for a delightful contrast, in which the presumptive nominee is reviled and distrusted by much of the party faithful.  But given our giant civics lesson in the hyperproportionality of Democratic delegate apportionment, we have become highly attuned to the rules established by our party, which allot delegates in proportion to the preference of voters.  The welter of rules by state is confusing, but there's something very refreshing about their contrast with the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College.  This has been, as many have said, the best reality show on television, and we have watched as, contest by contest, the results have come in and the delegates have been apportioned.  To supersede this process via the mass support of superdelegates for the second-place candidate would be to send a powerfully destructive message.  To hear explanations of superdelegates basing their decisions upon "their years of experience" and "deep knowledge of electoral politics" would be more than disheartening.  It would come across as paternalistic, as willfully disdainful of this democratic process, as a slap in the face to grassroots activists who believed that were participating in--even shaping--democracy in action.  

And it would be ugly.  This is the wrong forum for threats, and I say this only by way of demonstrating my strong feelings on the subject: I would not vote for the Democratic candidate in November if he or she won that nomination thanks to superdelegates who overlooked the will of the voters as expressed in the totals of pledged delegates.  I would give neither money nor energy to that candidate.  I would respond this way whether the beneficiary was Obama or Clinton, although I find it difficult to believe that, if Clinton comes on strong and secures the most pledged delegates, the superdelegates would ignore her win and political heft and boost Obama to the nomination.  My fears are based on the opposite scenario, in which Obama continues to build his lead among pledged delegates and is yet cheated, as I view it, out of the nomination.  

And note that Florida's and Michigan's delegates could be used as pawns to cheat him out of the nomination.  All of the candidates were told well ahead of time that the FL and MI delegates would not be seated.  Clinton was quoted last fall on NPR as saying that she understood that the MI results would not count and that the only reason she kept her name on the ballot was to not "insult" the state's voters.  Obama, who has continually demonstrated his success at improving his standing with voters once they get to know him, honored his pledge by not campaigning in Florida.  A national Obama aired in Florida because, well, because it was a national ad.  Clinton did not actively campaign in Florida, but she flew from her loss in South Carolina directly to Florida for a fundraiser that surely had the secondary (if not primary) purpose of getting her name and face in front of the Floridians about to vote in their unsanctioned primary.  Remember that night?  The media were reporting that Bill Clinton was speaking on his wife's behalf while she flew to Florida; it was by design an attention-getting visit.  In every state but Florida and Michigan, the candidates have had equal opportunities to fight for and win over voters.  To seat the FL and MI delegates would be to tip a heretofore balanced playing field decidedly in Clinton's favor.

Nor is it at all germane to accord more weight to the winner of "large states."  The larger states already have more delegates, and big victories in large states already have the power to tip the balance.  Once the delegates are apportioned, they count no more than do delegates from smaller states. Indeed, I am bewildered by any argument that dismisses the virtue of generating excitement and record turnouts in states that are not already reliable Democratic strongholds.

Finally, a word or two (ha!) on how the superdelegates' votes would affect the nominee and the party coming out of the convention.  If the superdelegates support the winner of the most pledged delegates, there will be no revolt.  There will be no media meme of the Democratic Party at war with itself or in disarray.  There will be no delighted, hypocritical schadenfreude from the Republican hot-air machine about the dirty politics played by Democrats.  There won't be the prospect of millions of disillusioned voters--especially young voters (although I'm hardly young).  There won't be anything stopping us from taking back the White House and bolstering our numbers substantially in Congress.

On the other hand, if superdelegates vote in sufficient numbers for the candidate who clearly lost the primaries, I believe all of these terrible things will come to pass.

Here's what I'd like to see: I would welcome an announcement by Senator Obama that he, as a superdelegate, will pledge to support whichever candidate secures the majority of pledged delegates from the sanctioned primaries and caucuses (i.e., all of them except FL and MI), and that he hopes all of the superdelegates will do the same.  And then I'd like to see the superdelegates follow his lead.  (As part of this, I'd like the Clintons to be asked what they think of this approach to deciding whom to support).

Thank you so much for asking for our thoughts on the matter!

Sincerely,
Deminva

...so I don't know why everyone is buying into this Corporate Owned News (CONs), scandal driven, manufactured outrage story.  The fact is, most of the super delegates are elected official, former elected officals, and party leaders.  They are politicians, first and foremost, and as such, when it gets down to brass tacks, the will wet their fingers, stick them in the air, see which way the wind is blowing and act accordingly.  If Obama is ahead going into the election, then he will be the nominee.  You can take that to the bank...

Agree.  If the superdelegates don't go with the simple majority, there will be hell to pay.  If the candidates don't accept simple majority, there will be hell to pay.

I don't understand why we even have superdelegates when we could go with simple majority.

at the convention for all to see, with our Democratic hero's whoring (Can't say "Pimping" anymore, can I?) themselves out to the highest bidder.

We were WARNED this would eventually happen by those who fought against this very undemocratic system in the 70's and early 80's. But those folks are long gone now.

The only GOOD thing that may come of this is the bursting of many "Progressives" fantasy as to who and what the Democratic Party really is...

A MACHINE, that often feeds upon itself....

If the party doesn't go with the will of the people, they are going to have some 'splaining to do to the rioters in Denver.  Maybe I better ask for some vacation time during the convention, in case a good ole fashioned protest march is in order.

that all of the superdelegates I know personally in the State of Maryland...DNC members and such that I work with in the party...have NOT endorsed.

Prudent, and I'm glad they haven't.  Makes me like 'em even more.