Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary will not win another Primary...Edwards departure tips party slection to him...
Hillary is running on fumes..
My insides in Hillary's camp notice a since of foreboding inside the campaign now...
-
in any case
Regardless of whether Florida or Michigan will be able to send delegates to the national convention, no one can deny that they are still states with significant voting power in the general election. We should not ignore the results of the votes in those states simply because the Democratic parties in those states made a foolish decision. Even if their votes don't officially "count," their voices should still be heard. Clinton has every right to call her victory in Florida a triumph.
That actually seems evidence to me that she actually does care more about popular support than about things like delegate count. In Nevada, she won the popular vote, but the Obama people still tried to paint it as an Obama victory because there's a possibility he might garner more delegates. In Florida, Clinton will probably end up garnering no delegates, but that is no reason not to celebrate a clear and obvious victory in a state that has proved highly problematic for Democrats in the past elections.
-
Florida
Re: "I just talked to them again and many previous HRC voters just sent in their ballots, voting for Obama. Seeing more of the ethical qualities of Obmam, and HRC's campaign tactics moved them to Obama. "
If Obama only got the nomination because Florida's delegates were not counted, would you condone that? That would look corrupt. You can't just ignore the over 1 million people in Florida who voted. That's ridiculous.
And if the vote didn't count, then why did Florida even hold an election at all? Obviously they wanted to be heard.
-
Hillary isn't Dubya
Re: "The attempt to steal Florida and Michigan is last straw."
Your attempt to morph Hillary into Dubya won't work. Florida Democrats are very conscious of how their votes were stolen in 2000, and I guarantee you they will pressure the DNC to seat their delegates.
-
@Rosenkavalier
I agree with you to a point, but you do have to admit that the statistics are somewhat flawed...how about we just say "listen in a non-binding straw-poll 850,000ish people in Florida like Hillary, 560,000ish people like Obama"?
and then can we be done with it?
-
@ debaser
I am not sure to which of my posts you have responded to, but let me say that it helps to actually read what I have written. Nowhere did I say anyone who attacked Senator Clinton was a sexist. In fact I said the opposite: That people may not support Obama and even not like Obama and still not be racist, and that people may not support Hillary and even not like Hillary are still not be sexist. However, people may reveal racism or sexism (usually inadvertently) through their word choices. I am an English major twice over, which may indeed speak to my stupidity in many things, but has contributed to my ability to parse language.
However, this notion that the media has favored the Clintons needs to be put to rest. The media of Bill Clinton's previous term did just what they are now doing to Obama. They built him. They did the same to Jimmy Carter. A look at history will reflect that having built both of these guys up, they proceeded to tear them down with the help of the fellas themselves. This is what the headless monster does. The purpose of the media is to gain attention for the media.
However, post-Clinton (and again with the help of his sexual excesses) the media has become increasing conservative and conservative talk radio has begun to play a major role in shaping the public "mind." Does anyone think that right wing talk radio or Faux News is in anyway balanced or that journalistic ethics play any role in their coverage? Also, do you truly think the Chris Matthews misogyny toward women plays no role in how his viewers may see Senator Clinton?
The media has been star-making Obama. Now with Edwards (I have just learned) out of the race, they will begin star-fucking Obama and not in a pleasant way. Much of what is perceived as the combativeness of the Clinton's has been because of their unwillingness to bend over. I think Obama may be in for a sharp surprise.
John Edwards actually acted as a buffer and a distraction. Now we have the drama of two opposing poles, yin and yang, if you will. Do you think the media has not been doing and cannot continue doing exactly what I did with my post in this thread when mentioned The Snub? It's called "Let's you and him fight." A psychologist of long ago wrote about it in a book called "Games People Play."
The media is running a game on us. Always.
-
In Denver, Obama calls Hillary Clinton "a divisive figure".
I enjoy a good argument, free from scurrilous personal attacks, but I'm so bored with the parroting of "divisive" and "polarising", which are meaningless words without specific examples. Is Al Gore "polarising" because of his concern about the polar ice-caps? Is it "divisive" for Hollywood to favour good-looking female actors over those not so easy on the eye? Of course it is and that is the way of the world.
As an outsider, it seems to me that Senator Obama spends a hell of a lot of his time complaining when he's not making pretty speeches. He's coming across as a wimp who needs Papa Kennedy and Mamma Dowd to kiss him better when he's hurt. Leader of the free world? Aaaagh, may the Lord save us.
-
@@@stlouis
Thanks for your courteous response. Appreciate it. I hope we can all work to improve our party. I would be saddened by your departure. Better than arguing I hope we can persuade one another. At its base we love our country and want a good President as our leader: make that a Democratic President!!!.
-
Since you're all dying to know...
From Wiki:
Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials.
Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to accord some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.
The Republican Party has 123 similarly automatically appointed delegates, members of the Republican National Committee, who wield roughly one fourth the voting power of the Democratic superdelegates.[1]
In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held.
[edit] The 2008 Democratic National Convention
The 2008 Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 796[2] superdelegates, although the number is not final until March 1, 2008. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, as well as members of the Democratic National Committee.[3] A list of superdelegates can be found here.
A candidate needs a simple majority of the combined delegate and superdelegate votes to secure the nomination. Democratic delegates from state caucuses and primaries number 3,253. This means that the total number of votes is 4,049. The total number of delegate votes needed to win the nomination is 2,025.[2] Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for approximately four fifths (80.4%) of the Democratic convention delegates.[2][4] Note: All numbers in this section assume that Michigan and Florida's delegates are not counted per current Democratic National Committee rules. If those rules are changed before or during the convention, the numbers above will change as appropriate.
[edit] Criticism
The Democratic Party is often criticized during election cycles for conducting primary elections in a non-democratic fashion, since superdelegates are appointed by the party and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. There have been repeated calls to eliminate the superdelegates from the primaries to more accurately reflect the popular vote. [5]