"I think this whole argument that neither can win with pledged delegates, therefore it's a tie, is completely bogus. The same could have been said for Dukakis in '88 ... who needed superdelegates to overcome the Jackson and 'suspended campaign' Gore delegates ... Clinton in '92, where a combination of Brown, Tsongas and Kerrey could have deprived him an outright pledged delegates victory if they'd played the hand and superdelegates did not pledge ... and 2004, where Kerry did not win by 'clinching' a pledged delegates win, he won because everyone else capitulated.
"Superdelegates are always needed to win the Democratic nomination because the rules divide the delegates so closely. Obama has as much claim to have won this race as Kerry, Clinton or Dukakis had. The only difference here is that we have a challenger willing to contest it to the end."
Superdelegates Are Always Needed
Reader Dan Conley emails with an interesting point about superdelegates and their historic role in deciding the Democratic presidential nomination:
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment