Letters to the Editor
-
This Is The Pipe Dream Mentality I'm Talking About
Some Obama supporter replies to me that all his republican votes are coming from republicans who are voting for him in the general........LMAO.........Superdelegates PLEASE step in on this naive nonsense.
-
Superdelegates are Anti-democratic
No other conclusion is possible.
However, I agree with Ban, the rules are the rules. The bigger issue is how the Clinton campaign is trying to seat the FL and MI delegates! NO! The rules are the rules, and they shouldn't be changed midstream either way.
This whole issue can be addressed after the convention. I will not vote for Clinton if she tries this crap. I would rather see the party (and her) go down in flames for the sake of the greater good.
-
@Juliebird, so what?
Superdelegates were created in 1984.
So what?
Really, this is something that can not be HRC's, or Bill's, fault.
Who is talking about "fault"? It isn't about fault or some conspriacy, it is about exploiting whatever you can to win.
The point is, just because they were created in 1984 doesn't mean that Billary won't exploit anything it can to win now, in 2008, especially since Hillary is doing SO WELL in the primary process. SO WELL for Hilldog, i.e. if it weren't for careful gerrymandering she would be getting completely creamed, instead of claiming that "next time" will be when she pulls ahead because of [insert special insterest, e.g. latinos, unions] in TX or some big upcoming state.
She is doing so well that she is even trying to exploit MI. Whatever it takes to win.
-
Voting the way your district voted is redundant; Superdelegates are needed to override Republican crossover voting
Strange that none of the election experts are able to sort out even the basic fundamentals of this situation. Last fall, the G.O.P. organized massive crossover voting campaigns to insure Obama would win the red state caucuses. The mayor of Omaha publicly extolled Republicans to support him. His candidacy was underwritten early on by the G.O.P. and even his 2004 senate victory was arranged by the Illinois G.O.P., who fielded a non-Illinois resident with no significant public office experience to run against him. Now Rick Perry is organizing the crossover voting campaign in Texas. Anyone who thinks this candidate is the "agent of change", rather than the agent of Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney camp is simply not considering the facts. Obama's senior speechwriter is the brother of Fox News VP David Rhodes. At the same time, Rove will likely field an "independent" ticket, but job one is to finish off his decade-long nemesis Hillary Clinton. And progressive-thinking Americans have so far taken the bait. The superdelegates are the only way the Democratic Party can insure that their nominee is decided by democrats. For more on the Rove strategy and G.O.P. connections to Obama, see the article I've posted at http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html.
-
This Specific Primary Year...
Can be used to redefine the superdelegate as follows. If neither candidate has 2,025 at the convention, one side of the party, feeling itself divinely and inevitably deserving of a inexplicable right to return to the throne for more years of chaos and divisiveness, and having cravenly and self-servingly voted to send America to war in Iraq, will then strongarm, backroom politic, race-bait, and otherwise gerrymander said superdelegates so as to ensure that the triangulating bureaucrat is the nominee rather than the greatest politician of our generation, and thereby ensuring that an elderly dinosaur warmonger is our next president, possibly aided by a vice president who believes man actually walked with dinosaurs.
-
Superdelegates
We need to lose the superdelegates. I am already pissed off enough that the media have chosen our candidates. First they ignore the best candidate in the bunch for the people, John Edwards and then they anoint Obama as the second coming of Christ. But if the people in more states choose Obama, then I do not think the superdelegates have any right to choose someone else, no matter how much I want Al Gore to be the candidate. Ultimately if they choose Clinton over Obama even if he wins the popular vote (or vice-versa), I will NOT be voting for the Democratic candidate this year. And I will no longer be a registered Democrat if the popular vote-getter (whichever one that is) is not the candidate. Now I am not a huge fan of either Clinton or Obama and will, quite frankly, have to hold my nose to vote for either corporate shill but the thought of Mccain frightens me even more.
-
Assyrian
Try being creative instead of parroting.
-
Not.W.E.S.
Try being right instead of wrong, toots.
-
I'm Dead Serious
This Obama situation can very easlily make us the all-time suckers of American political history.
-
Republican Crossovers Hand him a Slight Margin At The Convention
Then the Obama democrats say that everyone, superdelgates and all, have to swallow it.
-
By All Means, Let the Superdelegates Decide
And be sure they decide based on patronage, quid por quo and personal relationships to the candidate. While they have traditionally been used only as an emergency brake, their vote SHOULD count for sever thousand regular citizen's in every election.
Democracy was getting old anyway.
-
Superdelegates
Why aren't more people honest of the point of the superdelegates? After the McGovern Commission revamped the nominating process the most "extreme" elements of the Democratic Party controlled who was nominated for President and the Democratics lost. The idea was and still is that elected officials and party activists speak for a larger proportion of the Democratic Party than those who vote during the nominating process. The idea of the this process is to nominate a relatively representative candidate who can beat the opposing Republican.
Recent comments by David Axelrod and John Kerry and other Obama pledged superdelegates show the Obama camp is no more ready to give up possibly winning via the superdelegates than is Clinton.
Lastly, how many people participate in the caucuses as opposed to primaries? My understanding a lot less vote in caucuses than in the primiaries and thus causus delegates also have an unfair weight.
The superdelegate issue has arisen because Obama, so far, can't put Clinton away and he is afraid of losing at the Convention. Perhaps this will be moot but "one man one vote" is not and has never been the issue in the nominating process.