Hillary's Superdelegates should stop whining...

Well, here’s my assessment. Clinton remains comfortably ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates stemming from primaries and caucuses, and she’s winning the popular vote as well. But Clinton’s early stockpile of superdelegate support helped bestow upon her an early air of inevitability, which in turn bolstered her general election electability acumen and contributed to the sense that her primary opponent was too marginal for prime time. This conveyed to Sanders supporters the clear sense that the system is rigged — which is fair because, as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC remind us by their actions and words, it is.

“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,” Wasserman Schultz aptly put it in February.

No one likes getting an unwelcome phone call during dinner. I get that. But superdelegates find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having the power to put their very heavy thumbs on the primary scale. Parties can, of course, make their own rules. But that doesn’t mean that party members can’t find such rules to be outrageous. After all, a lot of rules are: like in 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but “lost” the election. If superdelegates don’t want to be in this position again, they should embrace the just cause of their own abolition. It’s quite likely that Sanders will lose. But he will come to Philadelphia with a massive haul of delegates and tons of leverage to kick off the long process of transforming the party. Getting rid of superdelegates should be somewhere near the top of his wish list.http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/hillary_clintons_superdelegates_should_stop_whining_why_sanders_supporters_have_every_right_to_question_to_question_their_super_votes/