Letters to the Editor
-
It's true, Superdelegates can vote however they want
But most are elected officials and if they are seen subverting public opinion then it will be bad news for them. If both candidates come out seeming to be "electable" and Obama has the lead in popular votes and delegates there is no reason the superdelegates would have to vote Clinton except to save the DLC which is in the process of going down in flames.
-
So now we can add "Blackmail" to the list of HRC Campaign Strategies
This puts her up there with GWB in terms of tactics. I guess she really DOES have experience to be president -- just not the kind of president I want and the kind I'm hoping is gone forever come January 2009.
-
I think it's high time
For the supers to get off their high falootin' superasses and take a stand.
-
In case everyone's forgotten...
Hillary is a serial liar about her experience (which is the central issue of her campaign), claims she's tired now but will be up at 3:00 am later, refuses to release her tax records, belongs to an extremist, right-wing nutcase cult in DC, has been admonished by her DC pastor for attacking Obama's pastor and does it anyway, and, while claiming the high road when it comes to picking pastors, her pastor in upstate NY was just sentenced for sexual abuse of a seven year-old girl.
It's impossible to take her "supporters" seriously. Absolutely impossible. And all the childish behavior in the world, not surprisingly, will not change that.
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Loyal Democratic Party Donors
Funny how the letter never mentions the fact that they're all Hillary Clinton supporters. Why omit that essential fact from your letter? The answer is obvious: To make it sound like they have an objective gripe about the philosophy of how the superdelegates make their decision. Once you know they're Clinton supporters, however, their motives become much clearer -- they want to be able to influence the superdelegates without anybody else getting in their way.
Now here's a case of a double standard: Obama's campaign and supporters should be allowed to wine, dine and influence superdelegates, but loyal longtime donors to the Democratic Party who support Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to express their opinion re: superdelegates.
-
@ShawnWM
ShawnWM: "As for the high road, what would you, of all persons know about it."
I know enough to know when you're being evasive. Would you mind explaining the implication in your message? (Re: AA members) Thanks.
-
It's too bad
That no candidate has nor ever will lead the model life. How would we attack that person?
-
clinton's donors have a completely valid point
this idea that obama has amassed a "solid majority" of primary voters (see previous posts) is utter nonsense. he's squeaking by with a tiny percentage more voters than hillary -- a percentage that would almost certainly be much smaller or nonexistent had michigan and florida voted.
his lead in the popular vote is likely to shrink dramatically through the next several states, leaving him with a slim lead that will look mighty flimsy in the yawning absence of michigan and florida. superdelegates can and should take that into account and vote their conscience.
and citing obama's lead in pledged delegates as evidence of his "solid majority" seems particularly flimsy, since the manner in which pledged delegates are apportioned is so haphazard. for instance, as the obama campaign itself proudly trumpeted, obama won more delegates from the idaho caucus with its few thousand total voters than hillary won with her *300,000* or so margin of victory in ohio.
great system!
bottom line is, this race will end more or less tied, and then the superdelegates should vote for whoever they think will make the better candidate in the fall. that's the way this crappy system is supposed to work. incidently, the majority of voters agree that superdelegates should vote their conscience.
obama's campaign and supporters are trying to cherry pick the parts of the primary process they like and say the rest of it -- ie the independent judgement of superdelegates -- doesn't apply to them.
the attempt to call the race now by saying that obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and that the superdelegates are bound to honor that lead is a blatantly self-serving subversion of the process by the obama campaign.
obama supporters are obsessed with the idea that hillary is tearing apart the party, but hillary supporters are the ones getting seriously pissed off by the righteous self interest of the obama campaign's efforts to short-circuit the rest of the election. 50 percent of democrats are for hillary -- fervently. keeping the process fair is essential to keeping them on board in the likely event that obama is the nominee.
-
@AKA Smith
AKA Smith: "Oh my, how dreadful! Are you saying that no Obama supporters would like to influence the superdelegates? Can Obama win without superdelegates?"
Re-read my post. It is clear what I am saying, which is it sounds like the supporters in the letter to Pelosi do not want her to say anything that might influence the superdelegates, but it is equally obvious that those very supporters intend to influence the superdelegates. I didn't say anything other than that.
-
@ljwalker53
ljwalker53: "...but loyal longtime donors to the Democratic Party who support Hillary Clinton should not be allowed to express their opinion re: superdelegates."
I did not say they "should not be allowed to express their opinion," or anything of the sort.
Nor did I say that the Clinton supporters should not be able to influence superdelegates.
I said it sounds like they want to influence the superdelegates, but they want to admonish others who might also influence them.
-
@jebldmm
jebldmm: "Which insinuation does Obama object to?"
It seems to me that Obama's campaign objects to the insinuation that donors are likely to pull future financial support from the Democratic Party if Pelosi continues stating her opinion about how the supers should vote. I think this is a fair reading of the letter, even though it does not make an explicit threat (which such letters never do).
-
Why did Dodd, Biden, Richardson, Edwards drop out?
After all, look at all the voters they disenfranchised by dropping out before all of the votes were cast. Edwards could have easily waited around hoping Hillary and Obama's campaigns would implode. They dropped out because there came a time when the only way they could win was if the frontrunners imploded and they put the party above their own ego.
Hillary Clinton has come to this same juncture.
But she will not drop out, because somehow she owes it to future voters. Why didn't Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Edwards "owe it" to futures voters to stay in the race?
For any candidate, once it becomes clear that the only way to win is the total collapse of you opponent, they drop out. In 2004, Edwards dropped out of the race before Kerry had the necessary votes to win the nomination. Yet he did so because the only way he could win was if Kerry imploded. John Edwards could have brought up the fact that some questioned his purple hearts. His supporters could have walked around with purple band aids.
Had he taken that course, what do you suppose Edwards chances have been in 2008? Probably about the same as Hillary's chances in 2012.