Re "Californians' wavering bodes ill for Clinton," May 5
A passage in your article encapsulates a root cause of the Democrats' unsettled electoral situation: "Steven Ybarra, a Sacramento lawyer, and Robert Rankin, a retired Carson steelworker."
Who are these people, and why do they have any say in such an important issue as selecting a nominee?
One presumes these are local party apparatchiks. Good for them. But to give these local precinct workers a vote equal to that of such party movers as Howard Dean, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy is both a travesty and a living tribute to every late-night comical jab at a party infatuated with the idea of giving everyone an equal voice.
The first order of business for the party after November is to severely trim the roster of superdelegates.
Re "It's a race stuck in gridlock," May 4
The choice of the word "gridlock" for this headline was apropos, yet it smacks of the vanity of the campaign itself. Will Rogers quipped, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Lives are in the balance, and the stakes of this campaign are very high.
In 1972, I registered as a Democrat and also with the Selective Service System, becoming one of the many 18-year-olds afforded the vote. Then and, it seems, now, politics trumps statesmanship. If the "dirty pool" of a superdelegate selection counter to the popular vote occurs, politics will have held the winning hand yet again.
The superdelegates should make their decision as follows: At the beginning of the convention, there should be a nationally televised coin toss. If it lands on heads, the superdelegates should agree to support Hillary Clinton and the party elders should agree to make Barack Obama the new Senate majority leader. If it lands on tails, the superdelegates should support Obama while Clinton becomes the new Senate majority leader.