by Josh Drobnyk
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary Clinton backer, said a month ago that he'd have a hard time "denying what would be the popular will" by casting his superdelegate vote for Clinton should Barack Obama finish ahead by 300 or 350 pledged delegates.
It appears he's changing his tune.
Rendell said in an interview today that it's the popular vote he's following, not delegates.
"The delegate selection is wacky. It would be the popular vote that would decide," said Rendell, who endorsed Clinton last month.
So a win by Obama in the popular vote would sway Rendell's allegiance? Not so fast.
"I wouldn’t follow it exactly," Rendell said. "I would take into account the popular vote. Let’s assume that Sen. Obama won 51 to 49 [percent]. I don’t think that that alone would convince me to vote for him. Superdelegates are there for a reason. There should be some people who view things in the broader term: What is the best for the party in the fall?"
So what's the popular vote threshold that he'd follow?
Hard to tell:
"Let’s say that Sen. Clinton wins Pennsylvania 53-47,'' he said. "If a superdelegate wanted to be for Obama and his reason was because he thinks Obama would be a stronger candidate against McCain, I wouldn’t be on his back.
"That is what superdelegates are put in there for,'' he said. "If you want to get rid of superdelegates, get rid of caucuses and let’s go straight primaries."
In case you're wondering, Obama now holds a 900,000-plus edge in the popular vote.
For those of you following along at home, Rendell is one of the 796 superdelegates who can cast their votes however they choose at the Democratic National Convention this summer.
They make up about 20 percent of the 4,000-plus delegates that will vote. But most are decided based on primary and caucus results. Rendell and the hundreds of other federal lawmakers and party activists that are superdelegates are free to change their allegiance at any point.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"I wouldn’t follow it exactly," Rendell said. "I would take into account the popular vote. Let’s assume that Sen. Obama won 51 to 49 [percent]. I don’t think that that alone would convince me to vote for him. Superdelegates are there for a reason. There should be some people who view things in the broader term: What is the best for the party in the fall?"
If Rendell casts his vote for Mrs Clinton, he does so at his own peril. Like he said "What is the best for the party in the fall?"
I think we know the answer and after March 5th it will become even clearer.
Obama 2008
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 26, 2008 4:59 PM
Gov. Rendell and McCain are identical. The only difference is which party they belong to. Have fun votin' for a Conservative Democrat, Republiscumbags.
Posted by: john | February 26, 2008 5:00 PM
Does the popular vote account for caucuses? It would be pretty easy for Clinton's people to spin away the caucus results and only count the big primary states, which they have basically already done. For awhile it has seemed like her plan was to stay close in the popular vote, relying on her wins in California and New York, then argue hard that caucuses and Red-leaning states mean less and push for the superdelegates. Not a bad plan, but even if it worked she'd get killed by the media and wouldn't stand a chance in the general.
Posted by: madouble | February 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Governor Rendell is basically saying that as long as someone can count up a lead, or a narrow deficit for Hillary, he's voting for her.
But, if Obama is crushing everywhere, then Rendell'll vote for Obama.
Just be honest Gov. This kind of double talk suits Blago better.
Posted by: jerry | February 26, 2008 5:15 PM
A vote is a vote.
It's a freedom and a blessing that American demoncracy brings us. When we enter the voting booth, it's just us and that machine. No one else.
Why should we deny the superdelegates the same freedom we enjoy individually? Let the superdelegates vote how they want to vote. They should not be swayed by the popular vote, the delegate count, the electoral college, or any other contrived system of allocation.
A vote is a vote. Don't take that freedom away.
Posted by: Phil | February 26, 2008 6:10 PM
How can anyone keep up. A woman, an African American, a War Hero, oratory and issues. Sometimes I feel like I have voices whispering in each ear with conflicting messages.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/26/schizophrenic-politics-a-penrose-triangle/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | February 26, 2008 6:58 PM
Rendell is nothing more than a clinton thug toady.
Anything at any cost do install the Clinton's back in the White House.
What an embarassment for PA.
Posted by: remus | February 26, 2008 8:00 PM
@Phil:
Well, these individuals are free to vote in their local elections just like anyone else, and their vote is a vote.
However, in the 'superdelegate' role, it's not just a vote. They have the potential in this case to make every single primary election and caucus irrelevant, if they choose to vote against the delegate and popular votes.
Posted by: Asten | February 26, 2008 10:46 PM
Rendell also told his constituency, in a not-so-sly attempt to sway the vote, that there would be pleny of white persons who were just not ready for a Black president. Even if he personally believed this to be true, his public announcement was so politically motivated...It actually backfired as people thought less of him and it reinforced the perception that CLinton and her allies like the "divide and conquer" games that rely on racial and personal polarizing of AMericans. How distasteful and frankly, dated....
Posted by: tony | February 26, 2008 10:58 PM
It's odd to think that we are bringing "democracy" to Iraq (I don't concede this point), yet we are not practicing it. The majority of us poor slobs get a mere one vote. But "in the interests of the party," the superdelegates have the equivalent of several hundred votes. I don't think that Mr. Rendell or any of these other so-called super delegates is much smarter than I am or more capable than any other registered voter. It seems to me that the "fix is in." Why not just let the People decide who they want as their candidate and then what Mr. Rendell thinks wouldn't be any more important or relevant than my $0.02 or yours. To accept the superdelegate premise is ludicrous.
Of course, this political lunacy is also carried out with the continued use of the electoral college. But that's a thought for November.
Posted by: R U Kidding | February 27, 2008 8:50 AM
Hillary's only chance to get the nomination is on the shoulders of these superdelegates. Fickle, non loyal, vote as the wind blows Obama weak pitiful delegates. Don't cry for me, Hillary. Somewhere Al Gore is laughing until Diet Coke shoots out his nose...
Posted by: Superbowlshuffle delegate | February 27, 2008 10:00 AM
Asten wrote:
"They have the potential in this case to make every single primary election and caucus irrelevant, if they choose to vote against the delegate and popular votes."
To which I reply:
Exactly! The primaries COULD become irrelevant, but that STILL doesn't mean superdelegates should vote according to the popular vote. The superdelegate system of voting was not introduced to confirm the popular vote. What's the point in doing that? If superdelegates vote according to someone else's preferences, then they're no longer "voting," rather confirming. And that's not democratic.
Posted by: Phil | February 27, 2008 12:25 PM
A vote is NOT a vote
This is in response to that person who said let the super delegates vote the same way any of us can vote...that is completely ridiculous!
The difference between a super delegates vote and our vote is that their vote counts for 10,000 of ours! For every 1 super delegate it equals 10,000 individual citizen votes. Tell me exactly how that is democracy of the people? More like democracy of the elite in power! Abolish super delegates, they don't represent us!
Posted by: Bob | February 28, 2008 12:54 PM