Superdelegates for sale

By
The Weekly Standard blog points us to this McClatchy report on how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have sought to cement the loyalty of superdelegates to their campaign; a little old fashioned bribery:

[A] study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.
I'd hate to think our elected representatives would be swayed by something truly mundane like which candidate would be best for the country or even who would be the strongest Democrat. Cold, hard cash it seems, is the most important critereon on which to base such a crucial decision.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
The Weekly Standard blog points us to this McClatchy report on how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have sought to cement the loyalty of superdelegates to their campaign; a little old fashioned bribery:

[A] study by the Center for Responsive Politics concludes that campaign contributions have become a fairly reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take.

And if that's the case, it's good news for Obama. Since 2005, his PAC has donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Clinton's PAC has. Her PAC distributed $236,100 to superdelegates during the three-year period.

The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegates received their endorsements 82 percent of the time. That's based on a review of elected officials who are serving as superdelegates and who'd endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25.
I'd hate to think our elected representatives would be swayed by something truly mundane like which candidate would be best for the country or even who would be the strongest Democrat. Cold, hard cash it seems, is the most important critereon on which to base such a crucial decision.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky