Chicago '68 Redux?

OK, this is not a blog strictly about politics. Plenty of those out there already.

But you just can't ignore the drama of a Presidential campaign, and this is one for the ages. Both parties are choosing new candidates (no incumbents or obvious heirs-apparent, although you could argue the point when it comes to Hillary), and all sorts of interesting plot lines.

Including the possible return of the proverbial smoke-filled room. It is increasingly possible that the Democrats will head for Denver without a candidate haveing sewn up the nomination. That's when the 20% of party delegates who were not elected come into play.

These "super-delegates" are party regulars: pols, ex-officeholders, bigshots. They're not bound to anyone, although they certainly have allegiances. While it's tricky to determine, CBS News estimates Clinton has racked up more of their support than has Obama (look carefully at the full CBS News scorecard). And you don't have to have a PhD in poli sci to guess that an "establishment" candidate (Clinton) is likely to find more favor with this group than a "change" candidate (Obama).

Of course, I've piled up enough assumptions there to get a good argument going. So while I'm at it, I'll go a step farther: imagine this unelected crowd of super-delegates winds up deciding the nomination. What does that say to the throngs of energized voters who've responded to calls for change (whether those calls came from Hillary or Barack)? To them, the outcome could seem like "more of the same".

We already have way more cynical young people than we need. Let's hope the Democrats don't give them more reason to believe that their votes don't matter.