This is a reply to Canadian Gal's diary.  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/5/22539 /69652

Canadian Gal posted an op-ed piece by susan estrich for RCP where she reminds us The Goal is to Win. Estrich writes:

Nearly a decade after the party went down to defeat under the banner of George McGovern, considered the prototype of the sort of candidate who should never have been nominated, and was selected at a convention largely run by the left and largely boycotted by the responsible elders, the then Rules Commission (with yours truly leading the fight in opposition, complete with the slam that we were creating an elitist category of yes, "superdelegates," as I called them) ultimately adopted as a "reform" proposal that was intended to ensure that there be no more McGoverns, no more grass roots supported, unelectable nominees who represented the preferences of the ideologues who dominated, especially in caucus states, rather than the swing voters who would be needed in the fall election.

I have to laugh every time I hear someone complain that "superdelegates" are un-democratic, or that they should be bound by the popular vote, even if the popular vote, as reflected in caucus results, represents about 4 percent of all Democrats.

...

If you think the purpose of all these primaries and caucuses is to build the party, empower the grass roots, and celebrate democracy, then the answer is and should be no.

But after a few decades of campaigning, too many of them for candidates who probably never had a chance of winning, I'm convinced that the other purpose is the one that should dominate.

Winning.

The role of superdelegates is not to vote for the candidate who has shown the greatest popularity among the grass roots activists who dominate this season, particularly in caucus states.

It's to pick the one with the best chance of winning.

The goal here is to elect a president, not select a nominee.