Letters to the Editor
-
just musing a little for fun....
I've wondered for some time what the outcome would be if the superdelegates were all to vote based on who won their state. I can't find a single discussion or "math lesson" on that question. Does anyone know of such a study, and what the outcome would be? I would guess Senator Obama would still end up with a slim majority but no one seems to have worked it out. I know, I know, it means nothing whatever, but it would be fun to know.
In the article they mention that if Senator Obama wins both NC and Indiana next Tuesday it would pretty much seal the result. But they didn't even entertain the intrguing question of what would happen if Senator Clinton were to win both. A "game-changine day" you think?
-
Superdelegates are in a predicament
It is not surprising that the superdelegates don't like the position they are in. Voters do hold it against politicians when they vote against a preferred candidate. For instance, I am very disappointed in Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Bill Richardson and others who have stepped out for Obama because I truly believe that Hillary outshines him in every way. As for Bill Richardson, my feeling that he is a snake is not likely to go away though I can forgive Ted Kennedy because of his past voting record. I usually agree with the latter on everything and he is something of an icon. As for Kerry, he turned me off when he let the Swiftboaters blow him out of the water day after day. To vote one way or the other is going to make many enemies.
The lesson to be learned from all this: Democrats desperately need to change their method of picking a nominee. Let's get rid of the caucuses and have several national primaries which include a number of states rather than allow Iowa to select out a viable candidate. It gave us Kerry and now Obama who is every bit as vulnerable, if not more so, than Kerry.
-
@Ben Sen
I agree that at this point, all options should be on the table. As much as I prefer Obama, if he loses both NC and INDIANA (I don't think he will, but you never know), then there is no way his technical lead should exclusively determine the outcome. Although it would and should hold significant sway, a different way of thinking might be transformative.
On Dean, it just seems like he should have done something sooner. I have no idea what, but it really seems like he's failed the party.
And yet...I just saw him on Jon Stewart tonight and I just love that guy. Totally gut thing. And I feel he was about to really make some breaking kind of statement about seating the FL and MI delegates but Stewart interrupted him.
-
Superdels that Obama and his nutbase intimidated
Whatever their reasoning, I can tell you that I firmly intend to work for the campaigns running against the persons in my state that endorsed Obama against the clear will of their constituents. It's about the only thing I can look forward to now that the nut left has again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory either by foisting an electoral landslide loss on us with Obama or in having crippled Hillary if she pulls it off to the point where she can no longer beat McCain. After all, our kids and grandkids are going to be stuck with a lifelong rightwing Supreme Court, crumbling debt-ridden jobless country, high taxes servicing deficits created by the plutocratic tax code without any government services - and those are the better things I can forsee coming.
So what if the Obamateur's rioted and burned things down. I expect nothing less than them frankly given their ever growing unhinged behavior and there's no doubt in my mind at all that their Republican accomplices and aides will be there encouraging them to do so in a final act of permanent destruction of the Democratic party. So let them riot and burn things down. And then let Bush declare martial law on them.
It might be the only thing Bush could do at this point to restore some of his negative ratings and it would have to be a favor to civilized society.
-
Doing their jobs
The superdelegates who still hold out are the ones most honestly doing what the position of superdelegate was created to do in the first place -- wait and see if the emergency cord needs to be pulled at the last minute. To call them cowards is ridiculous.
It's been frustrating for me too that they won't come out to support the candidate I prefer. When I had the opportunity to talk to one in person back in March, and he essentially blew off my very good point about why he should support my candidate, I was irritated at first but immediately recognized that not only am I in very good company being ignored by him about that, I want him to get re-elected to Congress anyway. As a rational person, I see that there's no reason for them to jump the gun.
We've all been completely consumed by the race for the White House, but the congressional contests coming up in November are incredibly important too. We don't want our members of Congress to jeopardize their own seats based on emotion. It's obvious that a lot of the early endorsements were made based primarily on emotion. By early, I mean before June.
I wish I had a contact list of all the remaining undeclared superdelegates just so I could write them a thank-you note for being loyal Democrats.
I'll say thank you here: Patient superdelegates are unsung heroes.
-
Dean
On Dean, it just seems like he should have done something sooner. I have no idea what, but it really seems like he's failed the party
OH and who was it that INSISTED Dean be appointed to DNC chair instead of Joe Andrews? Instead of Harold Ford??
That's right. The same unhinged leftwingers that insist Obama must be our nominee.
-
damnthatxanadu
I, too, noticed that Salon blatantly implied Bill Clinton was the only one using the phone. I get so tired of all the Obama articles, the favoritism, the pandering to Obama supporters evident day after day in Salon's articles. However, Obama supporters want to get people fired if they write anything the least bit favorable to Hillary. It is plain to see that this "new kind of politics" goes for the jugular.