Gov. Phil Bredesen's bright idea, floated in a New York Times
oped yesterday, to hold a superdelegate convention isn't getting a very warm reception. The governor wants the superdelegates to meet in June after the last nominating contest to hear from the candidates and decide on one of them. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean are all against it and, Bredesen concedes, Al Gore isn't too keen, either.
Bredesen thinks a superdelegate convention would avoid a bloody spectacle in Denver and would give the nominee time to raise money and focus the party's message. The governor says:
In addition to the practical political benefits, such a plan is also a chance to show America that we are a modern political party focused on results. It’s a chance to show that when confronted with an unexpected problem, we have the common sense to come together, roll up our sleeves and direct events to a successful conclusion.
That's one possibility. Here's another, probably more likely result: The superdelegates would come off like cigar-chomping, backroom-dealing pols and do more harm than good to the nominee. What's wrong with saving a little drama for Denver? TV ratings would soar.
An aside: In a Wall Street Journal
article today, Bredesen, who is uncommitted as a superdelegate, said he thinks the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is hurting Obama, which might mean the governor is leaning toward Clinton. Here's what he said:
The superdelegates attempt to look at electability, and there is still a lot of water to go over the dam on that subject before most of them have to commit" at the convention. "Among the rank-and-file, persuadable middle of the road, I think the guy is a problem for Sen. Obama. It kind of reminds people of some of the wars in the past.
: Krumm's take
on Phil the Chill's idea.
: We were wrong to say Clinton and Obama are against Bredesen's superdelegate convention. The governor says Clinton "certainly wasn't repelled by the idea"
when he talked to her. And Obama is talking like he's for it