Letters to the Editor
-
Did anybody read my first post?
Because nobody really responded to it, and I thought it was rather a departure, given the conventional wisdom that Obama will lose if superdelegates "vote their consciences" and win if they are strapped to a formula tying them to their district's or state's vote.
I said that I don't know why that's a given; Clinton's already-pledged superdelegates have already been added to her column and the rest seem to be waiting. One might say that many of them, established insiders that they are, must actually favor Obama or they'd have been out for Clinton already, right? Maybe they're waiting for some "excuse" to go for Obama?
My point is that if he stood up tomorrow and said, "Someone's got to suggest a resolution to this NOW, before it has played out, so we can agree to abide by whatever happens BEFORE IT HAPPENS, and here's my solution: Let the superdelegates, who've earned their status through accumulated wisdom, experience and hard work for the Democratic Party, vote for whomever they think will serve the country best. I'll stand by it, and I ask that Senator Clinton also agree that they should simply vote their consciences." Heck, maybe he can throw in that they seat FL and do MI over in a less expensive caucus (which, although tends to go for him can hardly be argued after he's given away FL and "given in" on the superdelegate issue.)
The point is, whomever offers a solution that appears to be concessionary wins the public perception contest, which may turn out to win some respect and votes. So if Hillary wants to be the hero, she has to offer a different solution (since the superdelegates appear to favor her at this point); maybe she can say that FL and MI should be do-overs or that superdelegates should vote their districts (which is silly imo--like adding numbers to each original delegate counts is all) because she "doesn't want to get in the way of the democratic process or the will of the people" or some such thing.
All I'm saying is that this thing has to be resolved somehow, and in my book, whoever comes out first with the "high road" proposition wins big and becomes the true change agent.
Anyone?
-
@ Superdelegates - Obama isn't trying to change the rules
There's been a lot of misconceptions about the Supers. One of the spins put out by some Clinton surrogates, is that the Obama people want to change the rules. But, as you pointed out, there are no rules to change, (and Obama doesn't want to change them!) I'm being silly here, but you get my drift
Most Obama supporters (and many who are not involved) feel that the best moral and practical choice, is for the SDs to vote for the candidate, with the most votes.
The SDs could vote for Mr. Spock, if he had appeared on enough ballots, to qualify.
-
Trust me @won'tgetfooledagain
if you were on the receiving end of "Obamabots" and "St. Obama" you'd probably feel the same. It's terribly insulting and simply not accurate, as you'll have to agree if you read my and many other Obama supporters' past posts. We are, if nothing else, informed and reasonable.
In the same way that Obamabot (or derivative) can convey the messianic groupie nature that some Obama supporters demonstrate (I'll grant you that fact--that there are some groupies who are not informed), then "Billary" is also a construct that conveys that Hillary comes to the table with some benefits of having it both ways--she gets to run on her husband's successes (the prosperity of the 90's, his winning appeal, all that) but still gets to separate herself from him if he slips (even if his "slips" are media confections).
Personally, I don't use names like that, and I think you probably don't either, although I haven't checked. I think my biggest regret is that posters to this site don't assume that most of us are informed and earnest. I really just want what you asked for--mutual respect. You kind of can't want it unless you're willing to give it, and giving it does not include laughing and clapping when others aren't giving it. Does that make sense?
-
Superdelegates
This is SCARY!!!
Mr. Douglas Wilder threatened the Democratic party, if the superdelegates don’t follow the vote totals, and change the presumed outcome. But if neither candidates reach the magic number, there is NO OUTCOME.
Mr. Wilder went on to promise an upheaval much more severe than the 1968 Democratic Convention.
This is blackmail!
-
@ Did anybody read my first post?
I might have but I'm right in the middle of a senior moment. (My bad!)
I don't know about solving the problem now. I'm afraid that anything that smacks of manipulation, (tinkering might be a better word) will not go over well.
It's not just the Democratic voters, I'm concerned about, but the independents and even Republicans, who might be thinking about voting Dem, in the fall.
I think we should let the super delegate thing play out. There's nothing we can do about that except, possibly offer them all inclusive, round trip vactions to Paris, anyway.
The big problem is Florida and Michigan. Being a former Motor City girl, I feel their pain. The best solution I've heard, is a do over. A mail-in vote has been suggested, as a way of cutting costs.
-
WES and factCheck2: I won't call him Agent of Rove, more like Trojan Horse.
So many Republicans cross-over gave him win in Red States, So many Democrats way too naive or still sleeping.
Super delegates are there for a reason. Check out those red state wins and throw them away. Do include Florida and
Michigan.
After what happened to FLorida in 2000, if we exclude Florida in 2008, we Democrats will lose Florida FOREVER.
-
Joan Walsh works overtime to defend Hillary Clinton....yet again
Man, look how many mental hoops Walsh is jumping through to downplay the New York Times' conclusion about Hillary's lopsided and non-voter-mandated superdelegate support.
A lot of thought went into Joan's downplaying, and even with all her hard work, Clinton still comes out with lopsided support.
Walsh also focuses on the apparent contradiction between Obama's and his spokesman's statements about their position on the superdelegates, although I think it has been convincingly argued that there's no real contradiction there.
Funny, though -- Walsh doesn't mention Clinton's attempts to seat delegates in Florida and Michigan. When you're talking about everything under the sun and you conveniently leave out all mention of this big controversy, it's a glaring omission.
Come on, Joan. Just admit your bias upfront. There is this little thing in journalism called "full disclosure."