The race between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama for the democatic presidential nomination is no where near settled. As a result the democratic party is being forced to come to terms with their own prejudices and "precautions" as it appears likely that "superdelegates" will be the people who actually are the determining factor for the actual selection.
So, what is a superdelegate? Well, in simple terms they are elected and past officials belonging to the democratic party who will cast votes in the nominating convention towards one nominee or another. They are called "super" because they are not elected. The results of the state primaries and caucuses have no effect on their status. They are not obligated by the primary results (unlike elected delegates) to support any particular candidate. In short, in a close contest they are the power brokers.
Some have suggested that these superdelegates should vote along the lines of the primary results of the state where they are from. This sounds high-minded and "democratic"; but obviously, this isn't why the democratic party created superdelegate. If superdelegates were simply supposed to just go along with their states, then what would be the point of their existence in the first place? They weren't created to simply give people nicer name tags and better seats at the convention.
Superdelegates were created with one singular purpose in mind, to ensure that the democratic party hierarchy had a "failsafe," something they could fall back on to maintain control of the process; a trump card. Now, that "trump card" is being exposed for what it is; a means of making sure voters don't actually have the last word when it might run contrary to the party leaders interests.
For instance, let's say a democratic candidate (let's say a "blue dog" democrat, a conservative at several levels who might even be pro-life, but was nonetheless a democrat) squeaked out a primary victory by a narrow edge against a more traditional democratic "progressive" (strange, that was a term used back in the 1900-1920's and didn't always refer to democrats). What do you think the chances are that the superdelegates (who are largely of the liberal side of the party) would do? The party leadership would certainly not be adverse to having them en masse overturn the primary results.
The entire superdelegate system is not dissimilar to the financial arrangements of certain (dying) east coast newspapers, like the New York Times. In their arrangement, the family ownership of the Arthur Ochs Sulzberger allows a zillion shares of "common" stock to be sold and owned by anyone. But, they own, if you will, "super" stock. This stock allows them to actually continue functional control of the company. They can gain the benefits of lots of people's money investing in the Grey[ing] Lady, but lest these stock holders actually try to change things at the paper, the Sulzberger's can trump their decisions with the board of director majority they are allowed to appoint with their super stock.
The superdelegate feature of the democratic party system has been exposed for the world to see. It shows that all of the talk of inclusion, progressivism, and Democratic party principles and other stuff the party would like the general public to see and believe, has a limit.
The problem, of course this year, is that there are two members of the party, pretty much in the same part of the liberal wing (Hillary, the liberal pragmatic wing and Obama, by some accounts, the most liberal voting senator; but who is largely an unknown quantity in terms of governing [he's never actually run anything]).
It appears at this point that the superdelegates will indeed decide who the democratic nominee will be. Two state delegations (Florida and Michigan) are likely not to be allowed to participate in the process of selecting the nominee. And remember, this isn't like Rhode Island and Hawaii being excluded, these are two large and vital states; a presidential candidate who cannot win Michigan and Florida in the general election is not likely to be elected president. If the democratic party disenfranchises two large states from the nominating process, adhering to a silly rule that allows the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary to be vastly more important than they should be, this will be more of a problem come November.
The superdelegate system is going to come into play and it will (and already has) exposed the democratic party leadership to really bad light; it is a PR disaster; and, if exploited properly by Republicans, may allow the GOP to make gains across the board that would make the Truman presidential win in 1948 look predictable by comparison.
I heard Charlie Steiner on ESPN today talking about the Dodgers and he was asked about the outfield situation with Juan Pierre. Now remember, Steiner is an employee of the Dodgers and is not about to create any kind of media controversy with his answers. He reported that manager Joe Torre still does not know what he is going to do with the outfield. The ESPN reporter then stated that it had been reported that Juan Pierre was not happy with his status and asked if this could a problem for the Dodgers' team harmony, Steiner said he hadn't heard anything like that (which is about what you would have expected him to say).
Well, as of today here are the spring stats of the five outfielders with a realistic chance of making the 25 man roster. According to all of the reports so far, the Dodgers will only start the season with four.
Now, it's not like Pierre isn't getting a chance. He has the most at bats of anyone and the lowest OBP of any Dodger with 20 or more at bats. Also, his OPS is only .485 (Ethier is 1.082; Kemp is .970; Jones is .916; and Repko is 1.026).
If Torre really hasn't made a decision, I'm not sure what could possibly be holding it up. If it is purely a baseball and what is best for this team, there is no real decision here. At worst Pierre is a fourth outfielder and Repko has to start the season in AAA; at best Repko is on the 25 man roster and Pierre is traded or DFA.
The other outfield issue is that Delwyn Young (.288 .204 .143 with one home run), a talented hitter but one who lacks a position, is out of options; while Repko (who has taken the last couple of days off with a sore quad) does have an option left. So unless the Dodgers are going to trade Young or are willing to just let him go, they will need to make room on the 25 man roster for him. Who is the least helpful to the Dodgers between Young and Pierre is really a coin toss. Neither can field at all; Young looks like he can hit with some average and power, but is certainly not superior to Jones, Kemp, Ethier or Repko. And we've already described Pierre's uselessness previously.
It also looks like Jeff Kent and Nomar Garciaparra will start the season on the DL (neither of which is a great loss). Frankly, if the Dodgers could trade Kent, Normar, and Pierre for a bag of peanuts, there would probably be universal rejoicing amongst Dodger fans.
Update:
As the Dodgers return from China and close down Vero Beach (playing the rest of their games in Arizona and LA) here are some upated numbers as it relates to the entry below:
Andre Either: Now: .466 .708 .354 and 5 home runs
Matt Kemp: Now: .318 .595 .310 and 2 home runs
Jason Repko: Now: .455 .571 .343 and 2 home runs
Juan Pierre: Now: .268 .235 .196 still no home runs (actually 8 singles and 2 doubles) went 0-5 today.
Now for the original story:
The Dodgers are looking good so far in the spring, only one real injury; Andy LaRoche will be out until the end of April, (hopefully Nomar can stay healthy a couple of weeks).
The big question for the Dodgers right now is the outfield; not that they have a lack, but whether Joe Torre will see the obvious and put Juan Pierre on the bench. I know Spring stats can be misleading but here are some numbers that are of interest:
Matt Kemp (who should start in right field): .318 .595 .310 with 2 home runs.
Andre Either (who should start in left field): .434 .581 .302 with 4 home runs.
Juan Pierre (who should be elsewhere): .294 .261 .217 (and needless to say no home runs)
Oh, and by they way, Jason Repko is healthy and playing. Repko is probably the best defensive outfielder the Dodgers have and has an arm as strong and accurate as Kemp or Andruw Jones. Repko's numbers in the Spring: .439 .563 .313 with two home runs.
Andruw Jones is off to a typically slow start for the spring, but he's going to start in center (.381 .424 .212 and two home runs). He did arrive in camp clearly in shape and there is no reason to believe he won't help the team, although if Torre can make Jones believe Repko is pushing a little bit, that could go a long way. Jones hasn't been pushed in his career in quite a long time.
So what is Ned Colletti to do? Pierre (not counting a couple of good AAA players), is the 5th best outfielder on the roster. He's not going to get any real value in trading Pierre (although with Dusty Baker managing the Reds, hmmm!). Pierre brings absolutely nothing to the game except singles and stolen bases (noticed how much that helped last year). He can't field a lick and can't throw at all. He's maybe the worse throwing outfielder I've ever seen. He runs horrible routes to anything hit to him and only his speed makes up for terrible instincts (beware of outfielders who make lots of spectacular catches!). Even on the bench he's taking up a spot that a better all around utility guy could fill (Pierre can only "play" center and left). You could just release him, but then you have to eat the three years left on his contract. If Colletti could get anything for him, even if he had to eat 50% of the contract, it would be a bargin. He'll do nothing but clog up a roster spot. "Designated for Assignment" is the phrase that should be attached to Pierre.
Colletti should just admit this was a bad deal, send Pierre packing one way or another and move on to what looks like a very promising season.