In letters to the New York Times, readers tackle the matter of the super delegates and state the issue so clearly that they're worth noting. Geraldine Ferraro wrote in an op-ed that one should not fear a decision from the super delegates. After all, they are "'Democratic governors, former presidents and vice presidents, and members of the Democratic National Committee and former heads of the national committee,''' as well as '''every Democratic member of Congress.'''
Two of several responses:
- "That is exactly the problem: the superdelegates are the incumbent power of the Democratic Party, and as such have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and resisting any change that may threaten that power, regardless of the wishes of the electorate."
- "As Democrats we want to widen our base to include independents, disaffected Republicans and new voters. What does the party say to those new voters and young people who have participated in record numbers this year? Do the superdelegates say, 'Thank you for your excitement and participation, but now the wiser elders of the party will adjourn to our back room and make the grown-up decision'? How does a political party grow if it doesn't reach out and include new people, respect their opinions and include them in the process?"
Also in the Times, and all over the place, is the news that the Obama campaign raised $55 million in February alone.
What about March? Some of us contributed as soon as the results came in from the March 5 primaries. Why? Because momentum -- real momentum no less than media-concocted momentum -- is sustained by news like this. Now's the time to give up one or another vice and contribute the savings to the Obama campaign. This household has given up its addiction to an earthy red wine from Quintanar de la Orden, a sacrifice that will add a little to the momentum of the Obama campaign at the end of the month.
