Subject: Re: Superdelegates
From: Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 23:06:44 +0000

I totally agree with you about 2008 and Obama.  100%.  My point today is that if she says now that superdelegates should vote with the people, that gives her a big lift.  And any other answer hurts.
And my guess is she has the nomination wrapped by Mid March to Mid April, it is inconceivable Bernie wins the nomination, and she gets huge goodwill and public support by saying she wants to win it the old fashioned and right way.  Consider alternative answers....Congress is the least popular institution in America and political establishments are close behind.....to separate herself from that would be a very good move.....and to even imply she could accept a nomination given by the establishment over the will of voters would be more damage to her.....

At any rate, she will be publicly asked soon....better to have thought this through right now.....and I bet if you follow my advice here you will be very happy about it.

But I sure do agree with you about 2008...

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2016, at 5:47 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

If we lose the popular vote, which we intend to win, can't imagine
she will be the nominee, but just for the record, she got more votes than Obama in 08 and graciously endorsed him so enough of Bernie's team bullshit conspiracies.

On Thursday, February 11, 2016, Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hillary should publicly state that superdelegates should vote for whomever the primary and caucus voters choose if there is a clear majority for a candidate.  That she wants to earn the nomination from voters and not be selected by insiders against the will of a majority of primary and caucus voters.  That would do wonders for her.  The only alternative is that when she is asked now she says she might accept a nomination from superdelegates who violate the will of the majority, which would be a disaster, or she give a lawyer-like weasel answer that hedges, which would be almost as bad.

Looking at the cost/benefits of alternative answers, this is a no brainer and she should think about her options now before the issue escalates which is imminent.  She does not want to give an answer that is not carefully thought through.

Sent from my iPad