Re: Geraldine Ferraro’s “Got a Problem? Ask the Super”

This was something I wrote in reaction to an op-ed piece by Geraldine Ferraro in the Feb. 25, 2008 edition of the New York Times. I didn't end up sending it anywhere, and showed it to just a few people. Enjoy:

In her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Geraldine Ferraro explains the reasoning behind the Democratic Party’s use of superdelegates and defends their important place in the nominating process.

Ms. Ferraro, an avid Clinton supporter, wonders why many Democrats have been calling on the superdelegates to heed their constituents’ voices and cast their nominating vote for the candidate that voters in their precincts have chosen. She responds that the superdelegates “were created to lead, not to follow.” This is a valid point and would, on its own, constitute a solid reason why superdelegates should feel free to cast their nominating vote for whomever they choose.

But Ms. Ferraro continues, saying that what many are calling “the voice of the people” is actually nothing of the sort. Noting that it would be a “shock” if 30 percent of registered Democrats showed up to their primary polling places, she asserts that a nominee – i.e. Obama – with support from “at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats” hardly is the people’s choice.

Carrying her argument to its logical conclusion, would Ms. Ferraro also agree that, because the winner of the upcoming general election will, at best, be supported by 40 percent of eligible voters (assuming a record 60 percent turnout and an unlikely 60-40 landslide), that he or she will not have a “grassroots mandate”? Who decides what percentage of an electorate constitutes the “real” will of the people? Must we have superdelegates decide for us?

Ms. Ferraro then states that, “more important”, the votes cast in Michigan and Florida must be counted in the nominating convention. She finds it unimportant that the candidates did not campaign in either state, that neither Obama nor Edwards were on the Michigan ballot, and that the Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties willfully broke party rules in moving the dates of their primaries. She simultaneously belittles Democratic Party rules regarding the state primaries and venerates the rules that created superdelegates in 1982 (she ran as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984).

Finally, Ms. Ferraro notes that she is “watching, with great disappointment, people whom I respect in the Congress who endorsed Hillary Clinton…now switching to Barack Obama with the excuse that their constituents have spoken.” Implicit in this condemnation is her wish that Democratic political leaders would stand firm in their original conclusions and disregard the voters’ seemingly uninformed wishes. But that is exactly the charge that Democrats have so successfully leveled against the current Republican administration – that they stand arrogantly behind every decision, no matter how wrongheaded.

Ms. Ferraro refuses to recognize that the Democratic landscape has changed, and that decisions made a year ago were made in an entirely different context than today. Democratic leaders must avoid making the same mistakes that we pillory the Republicans for making – for sticking to decisions no matter the disastrous consequences. It is the right of the superdelegates to vote for whomever they wish, and also to change their minds. Their decisions should be guided by a clearheaded evaluation of important political and social issues, not by Ms. Ferraro’s transparent attempt to obscure them