Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Clinton's Superdelegate 'Firewall'

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted February 11, 2008.


Why Obama may win more votes, but Clinton will get the party's blessing.
Gonsalves

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Sean Gonsalves

Whistle-Blowers Under Attack
The government's attempt to gut a law protecting whistle-blowers does not bode well for our First Amendment rights.
May 12, 2008

Our Great 'Secretocracy'
Government secrecy does not make us safer; it undermines the Constitution.
May 6, 2008

The News Media: Watchdog or Lap Dog?
It is becoming more and more difficult for the news media to undertake serious investigative reporting.
Apr 28, 2008

More stories by Sean Gonsalves

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

At the heart of the Democratic Party's nomination process is a decidedly undemocratic creature known as the superdelegate.

What are superdelegates, a.k.a. unpledged delegates? Key word: unpledged.

Superdelegates -- mostly members of Congress, governors, party officials and grassroots activists -- can back any candidate they choose. While ordinary delegates are technically committed to a candidate, superdelegates can change their allegiance whenever they feel like it.

Former President Clinton, for example, is a superdelegate -- hence his vital importance to his wife's bid for the White House. The Washington Post reports: "Clinton, former president Bill Clinton ... and their allies have been working aggressively for months to court the superdelegates, drawing on old loyalties to open a huge advantage for the senator from New York in total delegates amassed."

Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager and superdelegate Donna Brazile describes the essence of this elitist practice. "One person, one vote? Forget about it. Some votes are worth more than others. You have to know the rules."

Those are the "rules." And this is the way the game is being played: "Of the nearly 300 superdelegates who have committed to a candidate, out of a total of 796, Clinton leads Obama roughly by a 2-to-1 ratio, according to numerous counts. The lead is so substantial, her campaign asserted before Super Tuesday, that even if Obama pulls ahead in pledged delegates after Feb. 5, (as he did) Clinton will probably retain a modest edge in the overall delegate tally."

Tom Foreman of CNN.com provides a super brief history of the superdelegate. "A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn't win elections, or even if they could, they didn't please Democratic kingmakers."

"Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it."

"They made the superdelegates: a super class of super Democrats, each of whom could vote at the convention for a candidate of choice -- in effect, giving each of these Democrats the power of tens of thousands of average citizens."

So, with delegates-on-steroids as the Democratic Party "rule," it explains why Obama can be getting more votes and ordinary delegates while Hillary Clinton leads in overall delegate count. This is what the Clinton campaign refers to as their "firewall."

Think 100-yard-dash (I ran track in the pre-metric system days) with Clinton starting 20-yards ahead of Obama. To mix metaphors -- that's not exactly a level playing field. But like Donna said: those are the "rules."

Lots of journalists are starting to wonder about superdelegates -- to the point where the Democratic National Committee held a teleconference on Friday to answer some of our questions.

The idea of superdelegates was born out of a desire to avoid a "brokered convention" in which no candidate wins the party's nomination on the first ballot. The last time that happened was the 1952 Democratic Convention when 11 names were nominated in a nail-biter that included Adlai Stevenson, who became the party's third-ballot nominee.

This year, the winner will need 2,025 delegates -- half the total number of delegates who will be seated at the upcoming convention. And though the DNC isn't keeping an official Clinton-Obama delegate score, they did say there were still 1,435 delegates up for grabs.

Another interesting number was also revealed: Of the 796 super delegate slots, 76 of them have yet to be picked.

No future speculations were entertained during the Friday's Q & A session, which, of course, will only fuel more speculation, especially during an election season with tremendous popular appeal.

What if Clinton and Obama are neck-and-neck on the delegate count going into the convention and the superdelegates aren't just a deciding factor but the deciding factor? What if the Clinton super delegate "firewall" trend continues and these super delegates end up crowning Hillary king, even though Obama gets more votes?

True, all the candidates knew the "rules" going in. So, Hillary's delegate advantage can be considered "fair play." But if this undemocratic "rule" should happen to beat a more popular Obama, there's going to be lots of folks, inside and outside the party, rightly crying foul.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, election08

Sean Gonsalves is a syndicated columnist and news editor with the Cape Cod Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Depressing
Posted by: Sakkara on Feb 11, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are gutless and corrupt, and the Republicans are just plain evil. Clinton, while an apt leader, is just as corrupt as any other career politician. If we allow her to be elected, not only will the oil companies still control our government, but the country will remain bitterly divided. Obama is our only chance to start fresh, to make ALL politicians uncomfortable. And just maybe he's uncorrupt enough to actually do something about Bush's crimes. No one else will-- gutless is only part of the Democrats' problem; the other part is self-interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Depressing Posted by: nomomorons
» RE: Depressing Posted by: Lanlan
» RE: Depressing Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: Depressing Posted by: UrbanHillbilly
When will it ever end?
Posted by: Darian on Feb 11, 2008 12:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political parties, super-delegates, the electoral college, corrupt media... How many different fail-safes are needed to make sure the thing called "democracy" in the US is nothing of the sort?

It is an obscene farce.

What did Chomsky say was just below the surface?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton WILL BE THE NOMINEE
Posted by: MobileSucks on Feb 11, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Barack Obama and his supporters are exuberant after their victories this last weekend in the Washington and Nebraska precinct caucuses, in the Louisiana primary and the Maine municipal caucus. But they would do well to remember that since the mid-1970s the Democratic National Committee has spent countless hours plowing firebreaks between expressions of the popular will in such caucus and primary votes and the ultimate selection of the nominee.

Take Alabama. On February 5, Super Tuesday, Obama won that primary in convincing fashion by a margin of nearly 20 points. But when the dust settled, he and Hillary Clinton ended up with an equal number of pledged delegates from the state. Why? The delegates were proportioned according to the votes in the state's 7 congressional districts and like all such political real estate in the USA, these districts have been gerrymandered to corral the black vote in as small a number of districts as possible. Result, Obama won 83 per cent of the black vote, but the those numbers were concentrated in two or three districts so even though Obama ran up 70-30 triumphs and Hillary battled to 55 to 45 margins of victory, the count at the end of the day gave them the same number of delegates each.

Another firebreak is the follow-on in many states, from caucus to state convention. The current pattern is that Obamian enthusiasts go the caucuses and delivery fiery speeches about their man and his dream of change, rack up a substantial victory and head back to campus, aglow with victory. But then the party regulars regroup, the labor organizers confer, and the party establishment strikes back at the state convention, where those delegates pledged at the caucus are "authorized" in a series of backroom deals.

Gary Hart learned this the hard way in 1984. Hart had won his political spurs in a famous mutiny of the Democratic base, when Hart managed George McGovern's successful drive to the nomination in 1972. In the early states of the 1984 campaign Hart won a dramatic victory by ten points over Walter Mondale in New Hampshire. Short on money, Hart then aimed, exactly like Obama, at the caucuses to show momentum. After Super Tuesday, Mondale and Hart were neck and neck. Then Hart cleaned up in the caucuses, just as Obama is now doing. The two split the big states. Mondale won New York and Pennsylvania. Hart won Ohio and California. Then, in the weeks before the Democratic Party convention Mondale and the Democratic Party machine went into action at the various state conventions. Hart watched aghast as his hard-won delegates melted back into the smoke-filled rooms and emerged with Mondale buttons on their lapels. The coup de grace came with Mondale's efficient capture of the Super Delegates, who went to him almost en bloc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clinton WILL BE THE NOMINEE Posted by: UrbanHillbilly
alright then
Posted by: MobileSucks on Feb 11, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this sooo disgusting. I don't get actually mad too much anymore. Well, I haven't lately, but this here is upsetting. Yup, I loath the Democrats. They're corrupt frauds, plain and simple. Mainly the party leadership and the swine at the top. No offensive to those of you that are true progressives working hard and with a true spirit. Bless you. Thank you. But, the Democratic Party is not worthy of you.

2 Things:

1)Support third parties.
2)We absolutely need public funding of elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: alright then Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: alright then Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: alright then Posted by: UrbanHillbilly
» Urban Hillbilly, Posted by: MobileSucks
scenario
Posted by: mwildfire on Feb 11, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We get to the convention with Barack comfortably ahead in the popular vote--but the superdelegates choose Clinton anyway. Protestors both inside and outside the convention hall are brutalized, which doesn't help. Then comes November. Because the right wing hates Hillary, they all come out to vote for McCain. Because the left wing hates Hillary, they all stay home or vote for Cynthia McKinney. McCain becomes President in yet another election in which the Democrats virtually couldn't possibly lose.
But dig this--THEY DON'T CARE. What matters is hanging onto power for the corporate-government-media complex which counts Bush Cheney and the Clintons as members. They really don't care whether McCain or Clinton gets the nod--as long as it isn't someone they can't be certain is "on the team."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh I dig it. Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Oh I dig it. Posted by: saltoafronteira
» RE: Oh I dig it. Posted by: MobileSucks
Obama Should Leave His Options Open....
Posted by: pecadillosam on Feb 11, 2008 5:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several scenarios where Hillary can get the nomination, despite losing the race for pledged delegates:

1) Hillary gets more Superdelegate votes; and more than makes up the difference in pledged delegates

2) The Democratic Party (or DNC...whatever) reverses its ruling to throw out Florida and Michigan, but refuses to hold new caucases or primary elections in those states, thereby giving Hillary a big boost in the delegate count

3) Some combination of 1) and 2)

Say its June, and Obama is the clear leader in the pledged delegate count, including winning Texas and/or Ohio and/or Pennsylvania, but one of the above scenarios play out and Hillary is declared the winner of the nomination. In my opinion, Obama would be justified in pulling a Joe Lieberman and running as an independent. Boy, would that shake up the election - anything could happen! I don't know whether that option would be on the table for Obama or not... other posters, please respond - thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If they really had their heads in the game...
Posted by: DPS on Feb 11, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they would put out Obama as their nominee because he's been winning more of the red states, the same place Hilary didn't do as well. When it gets down to it how many people who wanted Hilary would be so disappointed that they'd vote for a Republican over Obama? (thrown in Richardson as VP for the win)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wake up and smell the HOPE! Posted by: foreverhope
YES WE CAN!
Posted by: foreverhope on Feb 11, 2008 8:05 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is Barack's time. It isn't over till it's over.

Keep the pressure on your local democrats, make them hear you. Let every one of them know exactly how you feel, phone them, write to them, send emails, and phone them again, whatever.

Write letters to the newspapers and other forms of media . If you get it in the paper or on the news politicians ALWAYS listen. Yell loud enough and bang on enough doors they WILL listen.

This is a grassroots campaign, Barack has been the underdog from the beginning. We all knew from day one that HillnBill were the favorites of the party. Given that is is REMARKABLE, ASTONISHING that Barack has come so far and done so GREAT! I bet he is even surprising himself! :-)

Let's show the democratic party loud and clear, times are already changing. Barack Obama and his supporters will NOT be ignored or easily dismissed! This is frigging ridiculous! No wonder the repugs have everything they want and the country is on the brink of disaster. THIS IS WHY!

20 years of bush/clinton/bush is more than enough!

I DO NOT WANT A CLINTON THIRD TERM.

YES WE CAN SAY NO TO 100 MORE YEARS, VOTE OBAMA '08 FOR REAL CHANGE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: gemajabe
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: mandy
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: foreverhope
Democrats Had Better Not Blow It This Time...
Posted by: gazooks on Feb 12, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because the way things are going there may not be a next time.

It must be made plain to party leaders that defying the will of
voting Democrats will destroy not only the party, but will seal the fate of a falling, once great nation.

We must not allow it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

question
Posted by: davescott on Feb 12, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But if this undemocratic "rule" should happen to beat a more popular Obama, there's going to be lots of folks, inside and outside the party, rightly crying foul." I wonder what you'd write if Obama got the superdelegate votes. I suspect a lot of people wouldn't utter a peep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My own hunch.
Posted by: davescott on Feb 12, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My guess is that if Obama wins Texas, Ohio and PA -- or even two of those three, he will be the nominee. My guess is that if Obama has a lead of any size among primary delegates, he will be the nominee, because many superdelegates will want to respect the primary process. But if you have a situation like the 2000 election -- an election close enough to be a virtual tie -- then I would not complain about where superdelegates end up. And it seems a bit early to be trying to blame superdelegates for handing the nomination to anyone. It's February.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My own hunch. Posted by: Bibsi
Answer
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 12, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the popular vote goes clearly to one candidate and the superdelegate vote goes to the other, then whoever looses the superdelegates has cause for complaint. That would probably be Obama. It's not that difficult to see why his supporters would feel cheated.

I'm wondering who John Edwards is going to back, and if it's Clinton, then I think she'll take the superdelegates too.

But maybe Edwards will endorse Obama, as so many of his supporters have urged. Might force the supers to reconsider.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Answer - Edwards is torn Posted by: sallythewally
Last I looked...
Posted by: davescott on Feb 12, 2008 5:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton had won NY and California and the primary delegates count was still pretty close. Not quite sure where all this "stolen election" buzz is coming from. Maybe we should actually wait until people finish voting. Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Superdelegates... Party wisdom when the GOP tries to muscle in a decoy, sneak in a Judas Goat
Posted by: xbj on Feb 12, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It might not have been planned that way, but Superdelegates are shaping up to be the "republic" in the "democracy" part of the election equation in the Democrat Party. Just as the Founding Fathers wisely set up a Republic rather than a Democracy, to avoid any possible "tyranny of the majority" when demagoges and rabble rousers and yes, even shills, Judas Goats, and decoys from the enemy's side of the equation manage to catch the ears and spirit of the people and ply them with lies and empty promises and, in this case, the biggest attempted Karl Rove fakeout in the entire history of American Politics, it seems Superdelegates are going to be the necessary remedy from keeping Karl Rove and his candidate Obama from faking out the ENTIRE Democratic Party.

And I don't give a Goddamn how many Obama cult-heads vote this post down; it happens to be the truth. NO ONE has DARED look into Obama's finances to see all the GOP front organizations and big GOP contributors who have helped him every inch of the way. NO ONE has DARED look into who his advisors are, and just how MANY GOP there are throughout every level of his organization, from the very top on down to the GOP caucus "switchers" who turned out in droves to vote for Obama. Yeah, RIGHT.

The NaziGOP has, in the last seven years of absolute hell, singlehandedly done more to turn this country into a fascist totalitarian state of endless war, and any candidate that thinks now is the time for mending breaches, building bridges, and playing footsie with Nazis is in bed with them far more than anyone, including the MSM, is letting on.

That said and done, Superdelegates, who KNOW Karl Rove, who KNOW the GOP's clandestine as well as overt "kill or be killed" "winner take all" tactics, will probably save the Democrat Party. From a humongous group of under 30's who are absolutely clueless when it comes to even recent history. No child who came to voting age in the last seven years or grew up during the Clinton impeachment lynching has ANY IDEA AT ALL of who we're fighting, what we're fighting, and what's at stake. NONE WHATSOEVER. Clueless is too mild a word.

And Superdelegates will also save the Democrat Party from a group of older opportunistic self-defeatist loser phony "idealists" who actually in reality, know far better, but are afraid they'll be pegged as racist if they do what they know is right, and have never once failed to climb on ANY bandwagon at ANY time if they thought there was an outside chance at any political gain whatsoever.

Superdelegates, on the other hand? Thank GOD the Democrat Party set up their system based on the Founding Fathers, with checks and balance on unbridled Democracy run amok.

I don't even think we'll be dealing with an actual "tyranny of the majority" here either; it appears that Obama will only win more delegates through district weirdness, NOT the majority of actual votes. Even before the Superdelegates weigh in.

Remember the last time something like that happened? I'll remind you, it was in 2000, in a state called Florida. And the entire PLANET knows where THAT got the human race when the majority of the votes were overturned by a corrupt Supreme Court which should have been hanged for Treason long ago.

It's nice to have a dream; next time make Goddamn sure Karl Rove didn't hatch it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no child left behind Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» the arguments in the above posts Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
i am done with this crap
Posted by: schnoggi on Feb 12, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if those scumbag machine pols elect that creepy woman, i am leaving this country and not coming back for a very long time. what a worthless bunch of hacks. I am so disgusted by the democrats in this country, they have shit on me for the last time. How is this race even close? How is this vile corrupt beast still in the race at ALL?!?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i am done with this crap Posted by: maribelle
I think a lot of people will
Posted by: Pirate1 on Feb 12, 2008 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go the expatriate way if McCain or Clinton get in... I'm feeling like if either of them get in, the outcome is pretty much the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MNied
Posted by: MNied on Feb 12, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please correct me if I am wrong...I have yet to hear a substantive policy on anything from Obama. He is so reminiscent of a preacher. If I were looking for a spiritual leader I would compare him to Swaggart or Bakker? (Sorry if I misspelled their names) All talk and nothing to support it with plenty of scandal starting from his 17 year relationship with Revcko, moving on to his votes for Exelon, followed by his lies about authoring a bill to protect the rights of children who have been molested..don't believe me? check the record in Illinois..he'll do anything to get elected..even on the backs of sexually abused children...move on to his campaign..the top tier management is entirely white..where are those suffering blacks? He refused to even acknowledge his people until 5 months into the cycle then he sent his wife on the trail to speak for him. He called it inside, outside way of running a campaign. Don't believe me? Check it out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MNied Posted by: Bibsi
The pledged delegates are not elected and don't reflect the will of the people either
Posted by: sallythewally on Feb 12, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are assigned by a procedure in which the candidate who loses the popular vote in a state can get more assigned delegates than the popular vote winner, as Obama did in Nevada.

Disallowing the superdelegates while still allowing the assigned, NOT ELECTED, delegates will also be undemocratic.

We need to rerun the primaries in Michigan and Florida so we know what the popular vote is in both states.

Then we need to choose the nominee based on the straight POPULAR VOTE, WHICH IS THE ONLY DIRECT REFLECTION OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

People fear Obama will win the most pledged, assigned, not elected delegates but lose the superdelegates. It's also possible Hillary could win the popular vote of the most Democrats but not have the most assigned, pledged, NOT ELECTED delegates but lose the nomination. That would be just as unfair and undemocratic as having the superdelegates choose the nominee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MNied
Posted by: MNied on Feb 12, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What will you say if Obama wins the super-delegate chase? Poor Hillary? Be real. This system was in place for situations just like this. To protect us from the superfluous style of a self professed demagogue. A man who rallies young and ignorant of the facts to a rousing rhetoric of baloney. I for one do not want 18 year old choosing a vapid candidate for me. I prefer the safeguards we put in place to protect us from a man who riles up a crowd like Hitler did. I lost my family and 24 million others died because brain dead people followed him to the largest slaughter in history..because they wanted 'change'.
Obama has lots of baggage which proves to me he is just like the rest of them. His campaign didn't even acknowledge Agrican Americans until 4 months into the race when Jesse Jackson and others caled Obama on his anti-african american campaign. At that time he sent his wife out to appease the blacks because she is black. Secondly, he refused to acknowledge his 17 year relationship with Revcko, even after he received a 825,000 gift of his house and adjoing lot. These are facts. Not lies..facts. He also admitted that Exelon corp is his 6th largest corporate sponsor and he watered down and voted in their favor in Illinois state and federally for their money. This is public undenialble record. As for his saying in the second to last debate that he authored the bill to protect the rights of sexually abused children-he did not-that is also fact. Hehas never taken a position that would leave a political footprint and has the worst non voting record in the Senate. Quite a man. A sell out from his first drugged days on the south side of Chicago. Hillary may have had the nick name 'frigidaire' but to me it is far better than 'Stoney boy'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MNied Posted by: g50
» RE: MNied Posted by: Bibsi
Nonsense
Posted by: jbowen43 on Feb 12, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Think of it as a hundred yard dash with Hillary getting a head start." Nonsense! The rules are the same for both candidates, and they have been in place for a long time. Think of it as a race and Hillary got the jump on Barack out of the blocks, but he can catch up if he stops whining and starts running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nonsense Posted by: jmooney
Protest the super delegates
Posted by: bloosqr on Feb 12, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue of super delegates and the democratic party is unconscionable. Currently Obama is ahead in the popular vote and behind in the delegate vote. We can not have 800 party insiders decide the primaries for us! I have created a protest page here

http://www.popularprimaryvotenow.com

If you think this is an issue please add a comment to the protest page of the website. I will print out all the comments and give them to the Democratic party

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe Louis Wildman
Posted by: Wildman on Feb 12, 2008 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I can’t disagree that both the intent and the result of having super-delegates is clearly not to advance the concept of “one-person-one-vote”, Mr. Gonsalves seems to ignore the fact that the state by state selection of delegates by primary and caucus has no greater connection to “one -person-one-vote” than does the selections of the super-delegates. The primaries and caucuses make the electoral collage look democratic. While there are about as many systems for delegate selection as there are the number of states, plus the variations from party to party, all have thresholds, most have some “winner take all” element built in at some level. To talk about the super delegate system as unfair in American presidential politics is like writing speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500, or charging someone with disturbing the peace at Mardi Gras.

Frankly, having the final call at the convention being made by a few Governors who received thousands of votes to get where they are and who know there way around a convention, is far more comforting than having the balance of power rest in the hands of a few extra folks selected in a livingroom in Iowa by 200 of their neighbors or a hotel meeting room in a Congressional District somewhere in Los Angeles.

The Super Delegates don’t thwart the will of the majority. They only make a call in a decision where the party is so closely divided that a little arbitration is needed to move forward.

I was for Richardson and have no horse in the race at this point. It is less important to me that the process is “fair” to either Clinton or Obama than it is that the process produce the next president of the United States. I only personally know about 15 Super Delegates and they are still mostly uncommitted and waiting to see what the rest of our party does and how the Republican opposition is shaping up. This year more that ever I am grateful to know that the margin of the vote will be made up of serious open minded politically savvy people mixed in among the folks with blind commitment wildly waving signs and wearing funny hats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

funnyguy
Posted by: funnyguy on Feb 12, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author has not offered a very deep analysis. The Clinton superdelegates will abandon ship when they see it is sinking. At this point, there is no need, as Texas and Ohio are in sight and they have hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FDR. Jefferson.
Posted by: davescott on Feb 12, 2008 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a couple of the Democrats nominated by awful "undemocratic" selection processes. We survived. The ultimate democratic process would have 50 million fat slob Americans sitting at home in bathrobes with clickers, and we'd ALL vote. On everything. I do not recommend that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TomG
Posted by: TomG on Feb 12, 2008 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it time, has the moment in our history arrived, for a Progressive Party, a third party, that can actually win? My feeling is that Obama just might be able blow both these old parties of politics as usual away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BANISH
Posted by: P. Hermes on Feb 13, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE SUPERDELEGATES "RULES" BEFORE NOMINATION. EMAIL HOWARD DEAN TO THIS EFFECT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama Cult?
Posted by: UrbanHillbilly on Feb 14, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always hated the phrase "cult of personality." Yes, I have a wallet filled with icons of personality cults long passed. Mainly, I have ingraven images of Washington, and wish I had more of Jackson. I'm not sure that Franklin had much of a cult. Our smallist ingraven image is a portait of man that enjoyed an massive and intense cult: Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Humanity has always united behind charismatic leader. It's only recently that we've reguarded them as mere mortals. People who cannot unite whither and die. Voting for Barack Obama is purely rational. Sending money and campaigning, well that takes a little faith, but who wants to be faithless?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To win or not to win
Posted by: d.nweindeb on Feb 15, 2008 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary Clinton, my junior senator representing New York - that is, when she is at work and not out campaigning - wins the nomination fair and square, I’ll vote for her. If, on the other hand, Barack Obama, a senator representing Illinois - when he is at work and not out campaigning - has won the larger number of delegates through the long campaign exercise, and then the DNC, through a back-door process, uses superdelegates to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, this life-long octogenarian Democrat for the first time in 60 years of never failing to vote, whether here or abroad, will not vote - period. A partial madman, the war-loving flip-flopper John McCain will of course win the general election. The nation will continue its determined deterioration until it becomes unabashedly fascistic and ever a greater menace to the well-being of the world, and then, perhaps in 50 or 100 years, a revolution, a very bloody one (a la the Bolshevik and French Revolutions), will arise to set things right. Could the DNC actually allow such a scenario as the above to happen? Yes, given its proven mind-set and arrogance, I think it could.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hopefully Obama has backbone
Posted by: mojoehands on Feb 15, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike Kerry and others, hopefully Obama will not sit back and just take it. A democrat with some chutzpah would definitely be "change." Obama needs to answer false accusations, and not let them fester in the public imagination (Kerry).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]