found online by Raymond
From Ted McLaughlin at jobsanger:
Bernie Sanders and his supporters have complained loudly that the delegate process of the Democratic Party is unfair — that it is designed to support so-called “establishment” candidates. They are talking about the “super delegates”, and say those delegates should support the nominee of the voters.
There are a couple of things wrong with their complaints.
What an awful case for the superdelegates.
If the Sanders supporters’ argument is that the system is designed to support the establishment, then pointing out that the superdelegates are composed of establishment politicians only helps their point.
Obama’s victory over Clinton does not mean that nothing is wrong with the system.
Lines like “In short, they know this stuff far better than the average once-every-four-years primary voter” and “The presidency is not a popularity contest” are exactly the sorts of condescension that people concerned about the democratic process expect to hear from the establishment.
That only a few (dozen) superdelegates are lobbyists does not mean that they are not a problem.
Kelton even ends by accusing liberals of not really being Democrats. That’s really not how Democrats should be treating such a substantial and liberal portion of their base.
I don’t even disagree with the central argument for the superdelegates: that they are the people with actual experience in politics and that popularity isn’t everything. But this article as a whole is just fuel for the fire of those who want a more purely democratic system.