I was a caller on NY morning radio today, posing the question "Who are the superdelegates?" and asking every smart listener to open a dialogue with them.

Largely ignored in the Gore/Kerry races, it is precisely the newer, younger Obama voter that is for the first time scrutinizing and questioning this arcane, archaic and labyrinthine electoral system.

We are told the superdelegates are "party elders", mostly elected officials who represent the interests of the Democratic party, there to help decide winners in close contests. This is fine and understandable for our pre-modern, agrarian pst where it may have been inconvenient to vote, or fine for boring elections with low turnout and little consequence.

But today, we have a chance to make real strides in reforming our system. So we need to research on the local level who our superdelegates are.

We need to get them on the record quickly, stating their criteria for their decision, before Hillary is mathematically eliminated. But most importantly, we need to have them articulate WHY they are making their decision on the record after they cast their votes, which are 9000 times more powerful then ours.

They need to be responsible and accountable for their votes, and they need to be put through the same scrutiny any elected official is for their record, morals and potential conflicts of interests.

OpEd News would be a perfect place for a thread where users adopt a superdelegate and share pertinent information all in one place. Just a suggestion...because 350 some-odd superdelegates may determine the outcome for the nomination this year.

by Gustav Wynn (77 articles, 65 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 421 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM

  (0+)

Hillary Clinton, the Madame of the DLC has determined that service to her ambition is the only thing in the world that is worthy of her consideration. She has determined that she will be the next president, without regard to who is destroyed, without regard to the best interests of her party, without regard to the interests of our nation or the welfare of its citizens.

She entered the process asuming that she would be tendered the office she seeks by acclaim. She was wrong. She went negative early and often, confirming David Geffen's claim that "they (the Clintons) lie so easily." She continues her attacks with innuendo, bald faced lies and a neocon like projection of her failings (shady real estate dealings, NAFTA, the NAFTA/Canada wink, missing meetings about Afghanistan), and an up front acknowledgement that she will cheat to win (seating delegates from Florida and Michigan).

She is effusive in her praise of the Republican candidate for president while at the same time falsely dismissing her Democratic opponent as a person of no consequence.

She claims to be thoroughly vetted, while at the same time refusing to release her income tax returns (how many lobbyists have contributed to her or her husband?).

She claims to have 35 years of experience in public service (since she graduated law school) but will not release the papers regarding her service while her husband was in the White House.

She claims to be experienced in foreign affairs while her actual experience speaks more to foreign social affairs.

She happily accepts the false support of Rush Limbaugh's radio audience in the voting booths of Ohio and Texas and claims that it makes her more electable.

She mismanaged her campaign so badly that she blew a double digit lead and nearly universal name recognition to the point where she cannot fairly win the Democratic nomination and simply is hanging on hoping for disaster to somehow befall the Obama campaign, trying to engineer disaster wherever she perceives an opportunity to do so.

It is my conclusion on the strength of this history that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are indistinguishable from George W. Bush and his campaigns. It is my futher conclusion that her governance would similarly be indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. That is why I say that Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve in the office of the President of the United States of America.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:21:38 PM

  (0+)

film at eleven....

It isnt Barak Obama I find objectionable, frankly, it is the exceeding naivete of his rabid supporters. Onemight surmise that it was Senator Clinton who created the so-called "Superdelegate", it wasnt.  Rob wants the primaries ended because his candidate happens to be in the lead at this moment in time. Math isnt a strong point when illogic and loyalty rule I guess. The so-called superdelegates must and should be included in that math, to be precise and accurate. Disenfranchising a few million democrats in Michigan and Florida , where the Republican governor set the primary date by the by, is fine and dandy. But if Obama had won those primaries, well then Katie bar the door....

The process is the process, its your freaking party and its your freaking party's rules. Now that those rules seem to indicate that an opponent of the uncrowned king may have some outside chance to win the nomination, well, sputter, stutter, bleat and moan, its a travesty, Clinton is the antiChrist, everyone knows it....

The almost impossible has begun to happen, I have been an anti Clinton guy for years, and that included Bill as well. But the incredible bias and downright illogic of those who support Barak Obama has pushed me to defend the lady. When one of the Clinton clan makes the slightest remark that may or may not be seen as personally disparaging to the infante terrible, well lets all post hateful stuff about her. Yet when the walk on water guy slurs his opponent, well nothing to see here folks, move along. When Obama's staff is shown to include some highly placed corproate clowns, well, so what that doesnt mean a thing. When one of his most trusted staffers assures the Canadians that all this NAFTA talk is just campaigning, well its not Barak the king, its a horrific right wing plot against our nation......My goodness I guess we really do get the sort of governance we deserve after all.....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 3:09:52 PM

  (0+)

Obama has the temerity to call on Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns and is christened the new Kenneth Starr by Howard Wolfson. We find that when Hillary Clinton accuses Obama of not chairing any meeting about Afghanistan, that it is her committee, Armed Services with that jurisdiction and they have had two such meetings with Hillary Clinton absent.

I heard today on Randi Rhodes radio program on Air America, that it was Hillary Clinton's Iowa campaign aide who propagated the "Obama is a Muslim" viral e-mail. Hillary Clinton just today repeated her slander of Obama regarding the Canadian/NAFTA lie, when yesterday's reports quoted the Prime Minister's chief of staff saying that such assurance came from the Clinton campaign.

Obama however, accepted a campaign foreign policy advisor's resignation after she termed Hillary Clinton a "monster", a perjorative term that I would feel comfortable trumping by a magnitude.

But still I have heard very little in terms of complaint about these manifold slanders from Barack Obama. I have to wonder where you have.

Perhaps you should contact Howard Wolfson. He may have a job for you.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:19:43 PM

  (0+)

If you havent heard Obama slander Clinton it is not because he hasnt done so it is because your partisanship does not allow you to understand the slur as such. That is no way to make decisions.

I am, as I have stated and restated, no fan of either candidate, but I am an adherent of a thoughful and considered political race and the use of intellect rather than emotion in making the decison as to where your vote should be cast. That you are not is a detriment to this nation's future, you are not electing a damned beauty queen here.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:16:48 AM

  (0+)

I have given Barack Obama four years of consideration, listening to what he says, looking at what he does, checking his record, and deciding with my intellect whether or not to support him.

What I have not done is entertain myself with MSM accounts of the candidates and believed them all, nor have I refused my support to any candidate who did not have "Ardee's platform is my platform" tatooed on his forehead.

I do, however, recommend that you withold your support until you find your doppelganger on the stump, and I'm sure we'll all jump on that bandwagon.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:41:05 AM

  (0+)

empty promises calling for hope are for the naive and politics for adults capable of independent thought and not blind allegiance. If you did as you stated, listened to Obama for four years, then you have no excuses for missing his sarcasms and slanders. I do not exclude the Clinton camp from such but wonder at the bias that leaves you blind.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:44:07 PM

  (0+)

I find it a bit amusing and telling that those people who are so quick to slam obama supporters invariably resort to childish namecalling and nastiness as part of their screed. Go figure!

by Nezua (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:57:21 AM

  (0+)

then show me an instance of slander or name calling....(until nowe of course). Heres another take on the terrible race ongoing:

I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race.

Hillary Clinton's supporters have gotten incredibly annoying, with their chants of "Yes She Can," and charges of cultism and their desperate yelps of schadenfreude every time Clinton looks like she might actually be "recapturing the lead" that she never had.

And Obama's supporters, yes, you too are incredibly annoying, with your accusations of Clintonian Republicanism and your whiny little cries about how you're going to take your ball and run home if your candidate doesn't win the primary.

Supporters of both candidates, please listen closely. For the good of the Party -- no, for the good of the Nation! -- the time has come for you to leave this race.

No more late nights in front of MSNBC. No more blogging. No more reading TPM. No more arguing at the watercooler, or at the happy hour after work at TGIF's.

Find a hobby -- knitting is really getting popular these days!

Anything, anything but your insistent and continual droning on and on about how perfect your candidate is.

Remember -- the future of this Republic is at stake.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

click here

it happens, oh agendised one, I am neither a Clinton or Obama supporter, what I am is a fan of truth, honesty and using ones brain to make political decisions. Try it sometime, it might become a habit.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:11:07 AM

  (0+)

He's looking for a life.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM

  (0+)

I have a life, four kids, fourteen grandkids, every one a deal smarter than you thank goodness. What I am looking for are people who use their brains to make decisions, who understand that elections are not popularity contests but are deserving of serious thought and reflection.

If you get out of the way perhaps I'll find some.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM

  (0+)

ardee,

 I'd be interested in your reaction to this article.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rick_dub_060317_putting_anger_aside.htm

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:03:06 PM

  (0+)

stems, not from anger, but from the cold light of logic. One really dumb argument followed immediately by another such. You need to really and truly study your subject better, make more informed decisions and help your nation instead of hindering her.

Someone must stand in the way of the stupidity that has overtaken, not only this forum, but our election process in general. If those of limited intellect (hint) see that as an angry position well, I dont respect your opinion about much else so why would I about that?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:05:30 AM

  (0+)

I haven't made up my mind yet, disgusted there isn't a progressive candidate to choose from. It's Obama or Clinton, and neither are saints or perfect.

Obama has the charisma and some brilliant speech writers, and he appears to be positioned to unite the country - but there's a thorn in Obama's side that he must address himself and call-off his supporters that are spamming, trolling, and disrupting discourse as it pertains to Senator Obama on several internet sites. I'm personally offended that Democrats would resort to tactics that resemble GOP Trolls, and in some cases, even more audacious then our opposition.

I've been thinking about writing about both candidates, pro and con, and my perception thereof, and know that when I do, what to expect in the aftermath if it doesn't flatter Obama. Our strength is supposed to be our ability to view two opposing ideals and/or opinions and decide, through commentary and investigative reporting, which is the path we as individuals choose to follow. It shouldn't reflect upon Senator Obama, but it's become an issue, and no matter how hard I try not to, I feel insulted when I take note how rabid some of the Obama supporters seem - almost an Obama or nothing mindset, just as Rob describes Hillary. It's possible that it's a shared trait. As I said, neither is perfect.

In the same breath, uniting the country in a positive manner may be worth the leap if it actually happens. If Obama has the delegate count hands-down as it appears he does, what should follow is what's legal and correct, it's that simple. The world is getting tougher by the day. There's a worldwide grain shortage, fresh water supplies are dwindling, oil will still be an issue, and strife and conflict lie in our future unless a miraculous healing of the earth occurs, and that isn't going to happen. Yes, we need a President that will be a problem solver, diplomat, and tough enough to make the right decisions, whatever they may be.

If only I had the ability to see who would be on Obama's cabinet - which is the key for any President and vital for his or her success. But, no crystal ball here, so I still remain undecided until the powers that be make their decision.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:06:37 PM

  (0+)

However, Hillary has institutionalized the rabid blindness in her campaign organization by embracing the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove school of campaigning. It has no truth. It has no honor. It has no conscience. It has no place in a democratic republic.

I have been an Obama supporter since he was in the senatorial primaries in 2004. I did however believe up until revelations of the last few days that the candidates should be able to follow the process to its end. Those revelations, however have shown Hillary Clinton to be no different in any respect that that government that we wish to put behind us. (See my comment higher in this thread.)

It is no longer a one or the other proposition. Clinton is fatally flawed.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:17:42 PM

  (0+)

...but I think that Hillary will end up as the Democratic candidate for President.  I don't know how they will get to that point, and what they will have to do in order to achieve that objective, but I am pretty darn sure that is the "plan."

And hey, the DLC will do NOTHING to help Obama because they are SCARED.  Not of him -- he's easily manipulated by putting the correct set of "advisors" in his camp -- but by the people he brings into the party.  The DLC is scared to death of YOUNG, ENERGETIC, ON-LINE, voters, as they can't rely on them to vote the party ticket without critique (like their parents would, holding their noses when necessary), they can't be sure they can CONTROL them, and they don't know what to give them.

They were scared of Dean's young people.  They are scared of Obama's young people.  In general, they don't really LIKE young people.

Hillary is the back-up plan in case McCain falls farther than 15% behind in the polls and "giving" him the 48% he needs to win would raise too many (inconvenient) questions about the vote counting process.  By having Hillary, they don't have to worry.  Their first choice, of course, is to give the Unitary Executive and its king-like powers to McCain and whomever they have put in place to be his veep, but if they have to hand it to somebody else, then Hillary is a good fall-back.  She won't go after them, and when the whole economy implodes, she won't try to do any crazy, FDR-like stuff to fix it, she'll just put a band-aid on it and try to muddle through.

I hope I'm wrong.

But I don't think so.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 6:45:53 PM

  (0+)

Hillary is DLC to the core. Dem leaders like Schumer, Emanuel-- they are likely going crazy with the possibility that their queen is not going to ascend to power. Hillary loses and that likely means DLC leaders lose some or much of their influence.

What a tragedy. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:46:04 PM

  (0+)

There is such a little difference between the two, Clinton and Obama, politically speaking that these words represent only your partisanship and not the gospel you posit.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:19:33 AM

  (0+)

I ju st heard Hillary on hardball defending her calling Obama "Ken Starr" because Star is a historic figure and the word 'monster " is an ad homin attack. So let me get this straight, If Obama's aid had called Hilary Clinton Attilla the Hun or Adolph Hitler in drag. it would have been Ok because they are historical figures? Hiilary Clinton would aprove that message but not one that called her a generic monster?

WOW Foriegn leaders of the world here is your strategy! When you call Hilary on the red phone make sure you compare her to a historical character! She will then have to admit you have a valid point. Why go to war with the gorgon when you can simply insult her?

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:46:03 PM

  (0+)

I like pieces from all of the comments!  Rob, you are absolutely right, it is DEFINITELY not fair that a candidate can do everything right, win the popular vote and lose.

It is true that Hillary's 35 years of experience statement is positively ludicrous.  Ardee brought up the point that Obama is not necessarily a great choice due to the fact that he really will not know what he is doing once he arrives at the door of the oval office and reality comes crashing home..  Of course, then it will be a bit too late for the country.

What Democrats need to understand is that Hillary will do anything to win.  The Clintons don't care what this does to the party, they don't care what this does to the nation, and they sure as hell don't care what this does to the people who put them in office!  They are addicts.  They are addicted to power like some are addicted to crack.

Obama is popular because he speaks well.  What does he say when he speaks?  Not much...  However, he is likable when he speaks nothing, because he has charisma and he is a great orator. 

Hillary will win the Democrat nomination despite what everyone hopes/thinks/wants... The sooner people get that through their heads, the less shock there will be when the "scorched earth politics" starts being played.

I am thinking that Obama may bow out before the convention, but who knows? 

Ciao, CZ 

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:34:02 AM

  (0+)

It is not Obama that I object too so strenuously, though I will not vote for him in the general election, nor Clinton should she gain the nomination. It is the sophomoric charges and the  emotionalism of his supporters that really irks me. Political decisions are not beauty pageants and facts are nowhere near as malleable as Rob and company would make you believe.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 9:24:52 AM

  (0+)

running mate..........this would tip the scales for those sitting on the fence..........for example Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards or Russ Feingold.

by Ernest (0 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:52:52 AM

  (0+)

Obama will not pick Feingold or Kucinich for a running mate because they are too close to his geographical base. Edwards would give him a boost in the Carolinas where he already does pretty well.

His veep selection will be based on geographical and ideological balance. Since the Republicans will be charging him with being too liberal (yes, everything looks liberal when you're far enough to the right) He will likely go with a more centrist pick.

I'm thinking either Bill Richardson of New Mexico who brings the West along with a lengthy resume that includes foreign affairs, or James Webb of Virginia who brings Virginia with experience and impeccable military credentials. It is to be understood that Obama's veep is unlikely to be relegated to professional mourner status.

As progressives, I'm sure that we would hope for a progressive vice-presidential candidate to keep things moving our way, but in an overwhelmingly centrist to right center electorate, it just won't fly.

The votes from a geographic area outnumber the nationwide number of progressive votes to be earned. This is not to say that there are too few progressives, but that by and large, their votes are going to be cast Democratic already. The veep should bring something new to the table.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:04:29 AM

  (0+)

Gore.  Then it's over.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:06:03 AM

  (0+)

In case yall forgot the popular vote does not enter into this. Its delegates and electoral college. The back-room shenanigans may now begin, it looks like its goona be a free-for-all at the convention. I wouldnt be there for a million bucks. We will now see which of the 3 media darling candidates has more clout with the masters. We could have had a real leader, Paul,Kucinich,Gravel, but the sad truth is the brain dead american cattle dont deserve good leadership. A lemming is a lemming, and this cliff I see coming is the mother of all falls. Its all over but the crying folks. Get you a biggie sized Kleenex TM box, put on your hair-shirt and sit yourself right down in the ash pile, WOE IS ME.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:36:03 AM

  (0+)

You know and I know that if Obama would pick his VP right now and select AL Gore, together they could pull the "bus right out of the ditch". Just a few intuitive ppl have expressed this and it is a sure win.

Yes, Hillary manipulates the voting and Murdock, the magnificant, contributes and "helps" her campaign. She has got the smear machine of all times at her beckon call. Black water contributes to her campaign as well. Don't tell me she isn't a repub. Do some research Ardee.

I totally agree that the young ppl are participating in droves in this election and that has ALL of the old coots that have been running this show punching walls. After all, the young ppl of this country say that it's time to save THEIR inherited earth, THEIR Soc Sec program that they have been supporting all thesse years, THEIR Constitutional rights and they are "damn sick of the old ppl driving the bus into the ditch and not providing them seat belts"! That's what my young adult children are saying and all of their friends and what I am hearing from the ppl under 35yo.

One more thought, McCain with the RED button at his disposal? HOOO cares about the dang red phone. it's the button I am concerned with. Oh help me Lord. The mad man with the button? The "Flag pin Fascists" and their Hagee and Mac mad man in charge? Time to get our smear machine in the works. Tell the Repubs what goes around... and the sword is heading their way. Today, I announce my shibboleth against McCain, "Red button Mac". Spread the term. Thank you.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM

  (0+)

tell them to vote for Nader.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:17:14 PM

  (0+)

     I believe we all want to move forward to get our country back.

     I got no answers to all this talk. But, down here at comment #20 it feels that perhaps we all here just like talking so much we're forgetting the point (that many of us have in fact made here) that we have no real choices as to who will represent us as our president. We also seem to be forgetting that this run for the office itself is nothing more than a predetermined contest of who shall play the role of president, not someone who will truly represent what we as a people will trust him or her to attempt to accomplish on our behalf. I repeat for my own reminder how insignificant the differences of party are or have been, which allows many of our discussions here to represent little beyond well intentioned intellectual banter.

     As I am not in the intellectual league of many of my brothers and sisters here, I will offer my rather midline IQ opinion that whoever is elected will be the face only. The guts shall remain nameless. The subject matter is not unimportant. I'm just not sure how it helps at the very time our country is being gutted. Another election as a distraction? Seems palatable no?

     I am not suggesting our words and patriotic battles are useless. Au contraire..it is our diligence that will win out. The diligence of all of us here is proof enough that we understand that. It is our fight to honor the beautiful trust we were given so long ago. We are the leaders of our country. Liberty is never safe.    

     The point I'm trying to make reminds me of a joke. Goes like this. An old lady is looking for a twenty dollar bill she lost on the sidewalk one night. A cop stops by.

COP "What are looking for"?.

LADY "My twenty bucks".

COP "Where'd you lose it"?.

LADY "Around the corner".

COP "Well, why you looking for it here"?

LADY "The light's better".

      A midline IQ with a sense of humor.

      peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:18:10 PM

  (0+)

You say we have no choice, I disagree. We have the choice to refuse to continue to buy into myths and empty emotional appeals not backed up by actions and hard work. We can choose to vote for the status quo or commit to a new path. I choose the new path, even though I will have long since shuffled off this mortal coil before there is a significant bloc of third party candidates  able to combat the enslaved-to-the-corporation politicos that inhabit our government now.

Every vote for Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney is a vote against the liars and thieves, against the empty rhetoric that fills our campaigns and does nothing for those tricked into believing otherwise. Voting democratic, regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is exactly as you posit; looking for that dollar where the light is better. It is everyones choice, vote as a hypnotised mesmerised slave or vote as a thinking and committed citizen. Believe lies and hollow emotional appeal or engage your brain and really , truly listen to Ralph Nader. After listening to him tell me what he said with which you disagree.....dont give me crap about spoilers and such, that is beneath you .

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 2:11:49 PM

  (0+)

     The '3', O, Hill & Mac, are the ones I include in my opinion of 'lack of choice'. I agree we do have a choice. Reality deems those choices not much chance at immediate realization, but the truth is you are correct, it matters greatly that we choose from the perspective of a new path, as the old path is IMHO, definitely out. Sorry for my fuzziness.

     Nader, Mckinney, Paul. Write in. Vote of conscious. We will go nowhere but to the same places without cutting a vein towards a new destination. I follow you.

      You know me a bit enough to know I will listen. To Nader etc. I am an ongoing work in my knowledge of those who speak as he does.

      No spoiler crap being flung here my friend.

      peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:23:07 PM

  (0+)

I do know you, I was really speaking to those who might read these words....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:40:16 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Riggs, the seat belt statement was in jest, as in metaphor. Why shouldn't the younger generation voting have a say? They are just as much citizens as any older generation. The future is theirs after all the boomers are dried up and gone.

I felt as though you were trying to start something. As one of those baby boomers, I see the need to at least unite the liberals as the repubs have had a hayday with us for 30 yrs. They have attacked us on all fronts.

I am reading the article by Sara Robinson on truthout.org. It has three parts and today has part 2. It would be beneficial for every progressive or Liberal person  to read it. The right wing has been successful in repressing us, demonizing us and keeping our candidates at their selective bashing hands. Time to unite our own liberal agenda and use their tactics for our own cause and against them.

Funny thing, I signed up for Nader's exploratory emailings and haven't got a one. Not a word from the campaign. Maybe AOL is blocking it. They do that to me from time to time. The "Corporate King" rules us, not the constitution.

Do I think Nader is qualified to pull us out of Iraq? Do I think he has a chance at the Presidency? Not a chance in hell. SHould I vote my conscience? Well, then I'll have to write in Kucinich or Edwards. However, my state has little delegate weight. I certainly will be pissed as hell, if Superdelegates get the last word. I'll remove my registration from the Democrat Party. My little circle of Liberals have all said they would.

I'll hold my nose and vote this year. I'm more concerned in getting weighted Dem progressive majorities in Congress than who gets to be King.

You have to admit that if given this country was a bus, then it truly is in the ditch. Have to get the bus out of the ditch before we can access the damages and begin the repairs.

Ppl used to care about what they left the next generations but the "me me me" generation just 'frankly doesn't give a damn' as long as they get their Soc Sec check and all THEIR pills paid for by all these ppl working and paying for it.

I urge you to read that article(Sara Robinson-truthout.org). You can access part one at the top link.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Mar 8, 2008 at 6:33:14 PM

  (0+)

what this country needs............if Obama takes the lead, there has to be a VP that can fill in where he is lacking in the skills...........in saying that, where the two of them are lacking together, a well sorted Congress has to do the rest..............

As it stands, top issues are war and economy and that is a must...........others issues will follow the turnaround...........we've dealt with high taxes, social security and health care issues forever and a day and survived it all, nothing new............but this "war thing" and the "economy" have to be top priority voting issues........I'm arfraid the people will vote to solve it all at once and forget the REAL issues that must take a turaround now...............

by Ernest (0 articles, 8 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:13:36 AM

  (0+)

Michigan and Florida delegates have to be included in the final count.  If we disenfranchise those voters at this stage we risk ceding two states and their 44 electoral votes to McCain before the race even starts.  The Democratic candidates may be good but neither is so good that we can afford to give away 16% of the electoral votes before the race even starts.  Note that MI and FL both turned out more Reps than Dems for their primaries.  Note too that Obama was the fourth-place vote-getter in both states.

Whether Michigan and Florida are included or not, the closer the race the more important the superdelegates become.  That is all the more reason for them to resist pressure to commit to a candidate prematurely.  Then their decision should be based on which candidate is more likely to win the general election and go on to get things done in Washington.  Notwithstanding his apparent leadership qualities, Obama has not shown that he knows how to get things done among people who do not willingly follow him.

Obama’s erstwhile foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, makes abundantly clear what a vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST (“You just look at [Clinton] and think, 'Ergh.'”).  But what is a vote for Obama FOR?  Revising NAFTA?  Yeah, but not really.  Ending the war?  Maybe, maybe not.  It looks to me like a vote for Obama is just that: a vote for Obama, little more.  The more I see him, the more I think of Sammy Glick.

I think both candidates have ignored one obvious point so far: most of the next four years should be devoted to un-doing the legacy of Bush and Cheney.  Personally, I don’t want to hear what new initiatives – even health care – our candidates are going to take on; I want to hear what old ones – like the Patriot Act – they are going to fix.  The next president will have a hell of a mess to clean up and I’d like to know what he/she plans to do about it.

by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:24:56 AM

  (0+)

People aren't going to vote for four more years of war and Great Depression economic policies just because they're having a hissy fit about their state's delegates.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM

  (0+)

The intelligenceof those democrats in Michigan and Florida is not really the issue. It is the casual disenfranchisment of a couple million democratic voters. It was not the fault of those voters in Florida that a republican governor moved the date of the primary, nor was it the will of the people in Michigan that caused an ego freak to change it there.

If we casually allow votes to fall by the wayside then what sort of democracy do we have?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM

  (0+)

"First, since Michigan and Florida delegates are no longer to be included in the primary, the number of delegates allotted to those states should be subtracted from the 50% plus 1 number of delegates required for either candidate to win.
Michigan has 156 delegates and Florida has 185, which totals 341, or 394 if you include disqualified superdelegates too.  Deduct 171 from the number required to win and the new number to reach becomes 1854 or deleting the disqualified superdelegates too, we see 1827.

If you assume that the two candidates stay about even for the balance of the race, then, according to Slate's delegate calculator, Obama will have 1677 and Hillary will have 1537 pledged delegates."

I don't know if my previous message got through to you, but the required 2025 already take into account the exclusion of MI and FL.

See Wikipedia:

"The 2008 Democratic National Convention will have approximately 794 superdelegates,[13][14] although the number can change up to the beginning of the convention (Call to the Convention Section IV(C)(2)). Delegates from state caucuses and primaries will number 3,253, resulting in a total number of delegate votes of 4,047. A candidate needs a majority of that total, or 2,024, to win the nomination.[13] Superdelegates account for approximately one fifth (19.6%) of all votes at the convention. Delegates chosen in the Democratic caucuses and primaries account for approximately four-fifths (80.4%) of the Democratic convention delegates.[13][15] Note: All numbers in this section assume that Michigan and Florida delegates are not counted per current Democratic National Committee rules. If those rules are changed before or during the convention, the numbers above will change as appropriate."

You may want to update your post above to correct this.

by Garth Blacker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:44:24 AM

  (0+)