“Super” Delegates….?!

I’m proud to be a member of a party that doesn’t have something as ridiculous as “super delegates.” Granted, there are few things to be proud of about being a Republican…especially now that George Soros is officialy funding our party now, too…so I’m admittedly grasping at staws, here, but this “super-delegates” thing has got to go.

According to FoxNews’ Shepard Smith, super-delegates were created in the 1970’s, to take the power away from political activists, and give it back to party insiders. According to RealClearPolitics, these super delegates could potentially swing the Democrat nomination.

So who are these super delegates? According to the Democratic Convention Watch:

There are 795 (not including Michigan and Florida) total Democratic superdelegates that the nominees are trying to be endorsed by. This consists of 719 regular superdelegates and 76 unpledged add-ons.

A list of the delegates, including which way the plan to vote at the convention is here. As you can see, there are a lot of governors, state representatives, senators, and DNC members. Senators Clinton and Obama are both on the list, as is former President Bill Clinton.

Being a super-delegate is a big responsibility, and they are often paid for their efforts. [Anyone see a potential problem with that?!] Political Intelligence reports (Hat-tip to The Republican Operative, who had the same question I did, “How to I become a super-delegate?”):

Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

A couple of questions come to mind….other than how can I become a superdelegate (without pretending to be a Democrat, because that just isn’t going to happen - a woman has to draw the line somewhere).

1. Is there such a thing as a Democrat Party insider that is NOT a political activist? Isn’t activism implied in the idea of being “progressive?”
2. What about this super-delegate institution can be reconciled with the idea of “democracy?”