Tad Devine, the chief strategist for the Al Gore campaign in 2000, has penned an op-ed piece for the New York Times on Sunday entitled “Super Delegates Back Off”, in which he essentially calls for these delegates to remain neutral and not try to be the deciding factor in an increasingly close race.

The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.

We have had an interesting back and forth on this issue on this blog, and that issue is now rearing its head everyewhere, with the potential for creating a lot of disaffected Dems if the perception is that this group of “super delegates” tilted the nomination in a direction opposite from that of primary voters.

If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.

The close nature of the delegate count has made this an imperative for the party, and I believe Devine’s admonition is one we need to heed as Democrats.

After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future.

Anything short of that risks disaster for the Party.

Read the Times op-ed piece here.