I think you make some good points, but

A vote for McCain is vote for Osama and "Checkmate."

is not one of them.

Didn't the republicans say the same thing about Obama? What was it? The terrorists will be dancing in the streets if Obama is elected?

Wonder if this tactic will work for either side.

McCain figured out that, to get elected, he had to sell his soul. He did. It worked. What more is there to be said? No real "anger" involved in it. It is what it is. He hugs the man whose operatives once labeled his wife as a drug addict and his adopted kid as an "love child". He ended up embracing those same people. That's his choice, but I don't have to respect it.

And I wish people would have afforded Perot's VP, Stockdale, the same courtesy as they afford McCain. Both were cruelly treated and tortured by the Vietnamese - but one is a hero who no one wants to embarass (by bringing out his contact lapses) and the other was the butt of countless jokes. And Stockdale was a Medal of Honor winner for crying out loud!

I would have voted for him under the right circumstances prior to 2003, but he's ran hard right ever since and turned me off.

True about politicians embracing old foes for expediency. I attribute that to the political system here. A winner-take-all, two-party system forces these kinds of "pacts with the devil" on politicians. which is why I mentioned in another thread that Americans may want to look at the Parliamentary system as practiced in Europe. I think it would allow for a more nuanced political environment in this country.

But that's asking for the moon, isn't it? So we live with what we have.

My Mom was an election judge in Ohio. She said LOTS of Hillary's votes were Republicans who registered as Democrats for the day so that they could vote for Hillary because they think she'll be easier for McCain to beat. I wonder if this will happen in PA too. And if the reports of hundreds of thousands of new Democratic voters are taking into consideration this possibility.

From Asia Times Online. An intriguing take on The Man Nobody Knows:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

About a thought I had on how Republicans are "gaming" the Democratic primary process to make the party (1) choose a weaker nominee and (2) extend the process so there is more bloodletting.

If this is true, and it actually "taints" the nomination process -- shouldn't the _independent_ votes of the superdelegates count even more? Shouldn't they be allowed to reach their own conclusions and "correct" for the Republican "gaming" that is going on?

Anyone have an argument against that?

It would seem to me, then, that _if_ both the pledged delegate and popular vote counts are close then the superdelegates would have a moral obligation to discount the "gaming" that went on and vote for the candidate they believed had the better chance of winning the election.

This, of course, would invalidate Obama's argument that the pledged delegate count is all that matters.

Your say?

Since when has having an excellent education been a detriment to higher office? This is the president we're talking about. How have we come to the point at which we ascribe social class negatives to someone who has worked hard enough to go to fine secondary, undergraduate, and graduate schools? Here's a man who can think. Who can express himself articulately. Who has big values and big ideas. Who can relate to all kinds of people. Seems to me that this is what constitutes leadership--particularly that played out on the world scene (and that's been missing, badly, for many years). Are we as Americans so jealous that we have to put this down? Or should we grow up and look at what our values are?

I don't really have an opinion, because I don't really know enough about the purpose of the superdelegates, the history of their invention, etc.

But, as I understand it, if their function is precisely to serve as some sort of filter, check or safeguard in the process, then yes, of course they should draw on their expertise (such as it is) to correct for anomalies, egregious lapses in voters' judgement, as they see it, etc.

All premised, of course, on the idea that this is their function.

Whether their "supervisory" function is ethical to begin with is another matter.

If the nomination process were perfect then of course it wouldn't be ethical for a group of VIPs to overturn the popular vote.

But, as we've seen, the process practically begs for manipulation by opponents.

The key point here is whether or not the votes are close or not. If one wins by a wide margin then the opponent's manipulation can be safely ignored. But if it's close...

P.S. And yes -- the superdelegates were created essentially as tie-breakers. Their purpose is to vote for the candidate they believe will win the election.

PA is a closed election (democrats only). i suppose you could switch but it's not as easy.

I agree that the super delegates, since they exist, should exercise their best judgement to the extent possible. That would include trying to understand any possible "Rush effect". Some exit polls may indicate that, especially in Mississippi, but I don't know if it's been accurately measured.

My understanding is that super delegates were created for two reasons 1) guarantee that party officials always had a role at the convention 2) be used as possible override against popular but "unelectable" candidates. This makes them a reaction to the messy '68 and '72 conventions.

Ethically, the idea that the passions of the masses need to be tempered starts with the Founders. It's one of the reasons we have a house and a senate, and that we have a constitutional republic, not direct democracy.

... shouldn't the _independent_ votes of the superdelegates count even more?... It would seem to me, then, that _if_ both the pledged delegate and popular vote counts are close then the superdelegates would have a moral obligation to discount the "gaming" that went on and vote for the candidate they believed had the better chance of winning the election.

I would agree, except you are making a few assumptions:

• super delegates are independent

• super delegates are logical

• super delegates are moral

and forgetting one important fact

• super delegates are POLITICIANS