Monday, April 28, 2008

Convoluted pickings

marjorie says...

Carter Bundy (AFSCME's political director and Clinton supporter) wrote an interesting column on Heath Haussamen's site about the "four wrongs" in the Democratic primary process. He says the caucus system is exclusionary (and has helped Obama by excluding core Clinton supporters), and that the delegate allocation system is inconsistent, giving delegates in some states more weight than others (he seems to suggest that Obama has benefited from this also). The other two wrongs are the superdelegate system (I think most of us probably agree with him on this one) and the "holding grudges" tendency some might have when their candidate doesn't win. I'm curious about what our political gurus here on m-pyre think about what he says regarding the caucus and delegate systems skewing the election in favor of Obama. Had there been simple primaries across the board, and delegates strictly allocated on numerical totals, would Clinton be the clear winner today? Regardless, from my perch up here on the hill watching it all, it looks pretty convoluted.

Looks like even the process of picking superdelegates gets convoluted, though the instructions seem to be clear as day. Is this kind of discord happening in other states? Carter's point about grudges is well taken...

All this aside, I was glad to see Laurie Weakhee chosen as New Mexico's unpledged superdelegate, and believe folks can take her at her word when she says she's undecided. Laurie has a lot of integrity and means it when she tells the Journal that:

"My first loyalty is really to the Native American agenda. I'm really going to be listening to both candidates to find out what their positions are ... how hard they're willing to go to bat for the Native American people."