Cigar smoke filled, back room deals, plotting old white men. These are images the media and the Democrats would have us believe are associated with Republicans — with *cough* neocons. Except, more and more, we are learning that this is the Democratic Party at work.
The media would never say it because it would speak ill of their chosen party, but it says something deeply disturbing that the Democratic Party does not actually trust its base to select the nominee for their party.
For all the talk of the Republican party being controlled by a secretive world of Schaifes and Dobsons, at least our electoral process for our nominee is wholly transparent. The Los Angeles Times editorial board, of all places, begins to sound out what the base is starting to say in the Democratic Party:
The bad news for Democratic voters is that many superdelegates are jumping the gun and making up their minds about which candidate to back, so the candidate with the most votes may not win the nomination. That would be a tremendous mistake.
Now why oh why do the Democrats have superdelegates?
It was put in place after party leaders felt sidelined by earlier rules changes that had returned the bulk of nominating power to voters. What they hoped to avoid was another fiasco like the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. The ultra-liberal wing of the party ensured he won the primary vote, but in the general election he carried only a single state, Massachusetts.
In other words, the superdelegates were put in place because the base of the party is far to the left of the American electorate. The Democrats needed a way to make sure their candidate was not a far left puppet of an out of touch base. And by and large it worked.
The humorous part for us, of course, is that the system is breaking down. The superdelegates now might return the Clintons to power after the base was ready to shrug them off. The base, of course, would prefer a candidate far to the left of Hillary Clinton — a man who supported a burglar’s right to sue a home owner when injured during the crime, a man who wanted to deny medical care to infants who survived being aborted, a man whose preferred foreign policy involves bombing Pakistan, and a man who would rather meet terrorist leaders in the White House than cross a picket line to meet with Stephen Colbert. More disturbing than the Democratic Party not actually trusting is base to select the nominee is that the Party apparatus has legitimate cause for its distrust.