What are Superdelegates?

There has been a lot of traction in the news lately over the subject of superdelegates, also called "unpledged delegates." Specifically, there are some people who speculate that Hillary Clinton is using them, via her and Bill's influence, to widen the gap between herself and Bernie Sanders.

Indeed, as of this writing, Clinton has 1,243 delegates and Sanders is rather close behind with 975. When you add the superdelegates to the mix, Clinton leads Sanders by 1,712 to 1,004. Quite a difference, yes?

But who are these mysterious superdelgates? To begin with, only the Democrat party uses them, not the Republicans. They are totally unattached to the popular vote of the citizens as opposed to the distribution of regular delegates. The method of distribution of regular delegates is determined by each state; some are winner-take-all, others depend on a ratio.

On the other hand, the supers make up their own mind; they are bound by no one. Many people, with good reason, feel that this undermines the voting system by taking some critical power out of the hands of the common voters and giving it to special interests with absolutely no oversight.

Who are the Superdelegates?

This is where it gets scary. The supers are for the most part elected officials such as members of the House and Senate, Democratic governors, and the Vice President. Others to note are members of the Democratic National Committee.

Also included are “distinguished party leaders” like former Presidents, senators and House leaders. There are about 712 of them nationwide; potentially a sufficient number to swing the nomination--no matter the will of the people.

Oh, did we mention that the party named Bill Clinton a superdelegate? Now that's ethics taken to the next level.


One would have to be blind not to see the implication of political chicanery and backroom "sausage-making" to secure their loyalty to one side or the other. Would you like a comfy government job after the election?  How about an ambassador post? An invite to all state dinners would be nice, yes?

If you think the matter is trivial, consider this--if the tables were turned and Sanders had the number of pledged supers that Clinton has and she had his numbers, he would be crushing her.

When Jake Tapper of CNN asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

Citizens, be afraid; be very afraid.

Madeleine Albright's and Gloria Steinem's Comments don't Help Hillary

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president has been losing steam even as contender Bernie Sanders has been picking up steam. There are many factors involved but two recent ones are statements made by her feminist supporters.

Take Madeleine Albright, for example. Albright was the first female Secretary of state under President Bill Clinton in December of 1996 and was confirmed the following January.

At a recent rally, Albright said, “We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

At the time, Hillary hooted in appreciation with the rest of the crowd, but must have been advised by her team later how wrong that was to do because she is now trying to walk it back. She later said, “I think what she was trying to do, what she’s done in every setting I’ve ever seen her in going back 20-plus years, was to remind young women, particularly, that you know, this struggle, which many of us have been part of, is not over.”

That's a logical explanation for another scenario but in this context and setting it just doesn't work. This was a presidential candidate rally. The credentials for the office of president don't include gender and inferring that women who don't vote for Hillary are going to hell is, well, just a bit creepy. The actual credentials are who is most qualified for the job; it's really not based on the difference between Hillary's and Bernie's physical characteristics. But to infer that it is is not resonating with young women voters.



Gloria Steinem's comments on the other hand on the Bill Maher show were, "When you're young, you're thinking, 'Where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie," seeming to imply, as reported at www.nydailynews.com that "young women are supporting Democratic presidential wannabe Bernie Sanders for only one reason — to meet boys."

While that may be true in some cases, making a blanket statement like that trivializes young women and is likely to drive them away from Hillary.

The bottom line is that although Hillary is making her own problems and trying to suppress old ones, a campaign based on feminism is not helped by outspoken feminists adding fuel to the fire. If she wants to keep her base and her message she needs to find some way to rein them in.

The Obama Administration's Delimma Over Hillary's Emails

The long drawn-out story of the emails Clinton stored on her personal server is looking more and more like a soap opera. And it's going to get worse for her before it gets better. First there were so many initial lies (which for the most part the complicit media glosses over). I didn't want to carry more than one device. I didn't store any classified emails.

The problem with that last one is that according to the Washington Examiner, "They are now at over 1,200 classified emails." And folks, they're not done yet. Once they are done examining the emails the FBI will interview her and present their case to the Justice Department.

What will Lynch Do?

Now comes the rub. There is already enough overwhelming evidence that a criminal indictment is a very real possibility. But will the administration let that happen or will they try to shield her until after the election?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is the individual that will have to level charges and order the indictment. She was appointed by, and is presumably advised by, President Obama. This puts the administration between a rock and a hard place.



On the one hand, the administration is keen on keeping the White House in the Democrat camp. It's Hillary or nobody. Bernie would have a hard time competing with any of the potential Republican possibles. If an indictment doesn't happen or is delayed, three things are likely to occur. First, it will be obvious to the voting public that political chicanery is afoot.

Secondly, The FBI and others in the intelligence community will suffer a credibility loss and will be much less cooperative with this administration going forward. Finally, a precedent will have been set and it will in the future it will be much harder to press charges on any federal employee of negligently handling classified information.

In the end the question is, will the Justice Department actually serve up a dose of justice or will we be seen in the eyes of the world as just another banana republic?