home

On Super Delegates Choosing Obama As Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:22:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You heard this one before right? The Super Delegates will decide the Democratic Presidential nominee for President. And indeed, they almost already have. Since May 6, Hillary Clinton has gained 55 more pledged delegates than Barack Obama. But Barack Obama has gained in the neighborhood of 75 more automatic delegates than Hillary Clinton. Thus, while Obama has a 51%-48% lead among pledged delegates, he has around a 62%-38% lead among the super delegates. In terms of the popular vote, my own count, I will spare you from my explanation again, has Obama leading by approximately 20,000 votes out of over 36,000,000 cast. In essence, a popular vote tie.

More....

This race was a virtual tie, and the Super Delegates, in their wisdom, have confirmed Barack Obama's slim pledged delegate lead and have chosen, or are in the process of choosing, Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. This is perfectly within their rights and is in fact a defensible and reasonable position. Hillary Clinton has argued that the Super Delegates are making a mistake. That may be. That is a reasonable argument as well. But that decision has been or is being made now - by the Super Delegates. They have chosen, or are in the process of choosing, our nominee in the face of a virtual tie in the popular vote and a slim Obama lead in the pledged delegate race. And that is their right and their duty. Whether you agree or disagree with decision, you can not quarrel with the legitimacy of their decision. This is how the Democratic Party designed its nomination process. Let's hope it will be the last time we use it.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed.

< The Dem Debacle: On Saturday's Disenfranchisement | The Worst Argument Against A Unity Ticket >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On Super Delegates Choosing Obama As Nominee | 202 comments (202 topical)
    well, at the very least (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:29:22 AM EST
    let's hope this Democratic nomination IS changed--permanently!

    Don't know if the nomination will be (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    changed permanently. My guess is if Obama wins the GE, the Dems will do what they always do and that is kick the can down the road.

    I do believe that the Democratic Party has been changed by the Obama wing and not in a good way. If Obama wins the GE, it will cement those changes for years to come. Opposition to the Obama way will be futile once he is able to consolidate all the funds and messaging under his umbrella. Within the party, it will his way or the highway.

    [ Parent ]

    Why do I feel exactly the same way I did after (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by suzieg on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    learningof the decision of the supreme court giving the presidency to Bush? I'm fed up of hearing and reading about "hopefully it will be the last time" - it's not much of a consolation when I was a witness to the undemocratic caucuses in Texas! I will never seen him as our legitimate candidate as I never accepted Bush as our elected president! I'm facing a poor choice in November because I need the $5,000 promised by McCain to continue to afford my risk pool health insurance $22,200 last year and do not have the luxury to wait for Obama's 2nd term and only if it worked for the kids because my life literally depends on it, I'm fighting breast cancer!


    [ Parent ]
    Don't believe McCain (none / 0) (#180)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    If you believe anything McCain tells you that's just foolish. I mean, he is a maverick and all, but I wouldn't trust a damn thing he campaigns on.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#218)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    about your health.  My two cents:  I think McCain is at least as trustworthy as Obama.  Who can trust a man who thinks nothing of cheating to get the nomination?  Doesn't impart trust IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's hope (none / 0) (#25)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    ... above all that it's eight years before it matters again.

    [ Parent ]
    The SuperD's are creating (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:29:58 AM EST
    an Obama bubble which will crash come November.

    rapid increases in valuations of [Obama's nomination] until they reach unsustainable levels relative to [the General Election]
    Back the sub-prime candidate (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:40:14 AM EST
    and the default on investment will happen sooner or later.

    [ Parent ]
    Lets not leave approximately 50% (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:31:53 AM EST
    of the primary voters out of this either.

    [ Parent ]
    Almost (none / 0) (#212)
    by tek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    makes you wonder if the Dem insiders WANT a Republican in the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    Needs to be winner take all as (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:30:41 AM EST
    this years long primary campaign has done permanent damage to either eventual nominee.

    no way winner take all (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:32:07 AM EST
    if it was winner take all states where 1 was favored the other would avoid.

    if this cycle taught us 1 thing, making the candidates go to each individual state is good for the party.

    they should try and make sure this happens EVERY year.

    [ Parent ]

    Problems with Winner take all (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Masalajam on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    The other problem with winner-take-all is that candidates could choose to only campaign in the big states (CA, TX, NY, etc) and win the nomination without having to compete nationally. Proportional representation at least creates an incentive for candidates to compete in all states to pick up a share of delegates.

    No electoral system in perfect, but IMHO proportional at least promotes candidates competing on a national basis.

    [ Parent ]

    yup, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:34:46 AM EST
    like the GOP (can't believe I'm saying this) but they got it right--use the GE as the model.  No caucuses and winner takes all!  

    Also, if it turns out that Obama looses the way McGovern did, then I think there should be some type of provision when one candidate has the popular vote and the other has the pledged delegates.  I don't know what, but something.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think winner take all is a good idea. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:37:11 AM EST
    But we need to get rid of caucuses, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Only if CA (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    agreed to be last.

    [ Parent ]
    it doesn't have to be winner take all... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:46 AM EST
    but this stupidity that in a district with an even number of delegates you must win by over 65% to get an advantage is the dumbest thing I ever heard of.

    And, caucuses have to go.  They have been proven to NOT reflect the voice of the people in TX, WA and NE.

    And, in addition to disenfreanchising voters, caucuses have way too much opportunity for dirty tricks by either side snd that can't happen in a primary.

    [ Parent ]

    The SD part (5.00 / 14) (#6)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    is not why Obama would be illegitimate.

    It's the RBC decision on MI and FL. Obama is claiming votes and delegates that he did not receive.

    That is illegitimate and un-democratic.

    I don't know why Obama didn't (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by sarissa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    just concede the point on MI as he will win the delegate race with or without them and most super-delegates no better than to antagonize key constituencies by overturning a pledged delegate lead.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:36:29 AM EST
    if he is so confident he will be the nominee, he should have agreed to 73 HRC, 55 Uncommitted, then let them vote however they wanted at the Convention. Also, FL should have been seated with full voting rights.

    What a disaster.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton advisor (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:42:08 AM EST
    James Carville is well known for saying "when your opponent is sinking, throw him an anvil."  If Obama had followed Carville's advice, he would have taken the 50-50 delegate allocation in Michigan. He didn't follow Carville's advice. Would Hillary have followed Carville's advice if the roles had been reversed?

    [ Parent ]
    You are so clueless. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:47:56 AM EST
    The right thing should be done no matter who suggests it.

    It's called having principles.

    [ Parent ]

    That would have (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    been BAD for OBAMA to do.   That's the only reason he didn't do it.  He did, however, take delegates he didn't deserve and didn't need, just to twist a knife into Hillary.  That alone is unforgiveable.  However, the 50-50 split would have soured his already bad unfavorables.

    [ Parent ]
    If I were you. (4.20 / 5) (#30)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM EST
    I stfu about this primary so that people can cool off.  Idiots like you are merely fanning the flames right now, and you're doing absolutey no good at all.

    Grow up.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by talex on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    is not full of flip-flopping and Hypocrisies himself. LOL

    The real point here is that Clinton left herself in the position to respect the voters to be able to vote for her by leaving her mane on the ballot. Obama didn't.

    When the voters on Michigan demanded that their votes be counted Clinton backed them vigorously . What a sin in a democracy, huh? And Obama? He just offered lip service and never legitimately lifted a finger for the voters of Michigan.

    [ Parent ]

    A cooling off period is over-rated (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by rnibs on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    Obama's people shouldn't be angry at all because they're being given the nomination.

    And I think it's strange that people assume that people like myself, who will not be voting for Obama, need to cool off.  It is a reasoned, clear-headed decision that we have made, not some angry decision.  So I know I don't need to "cool off," and the Obama people shouldn't need to cool off since they got what they wanted.

    The DNC keeps invoking "cooling off" as though it were some magic phrase that will make them win in Nov., which is ridiculous.  What happens in Nov. will happen in Nov., regardless of what the DNC says.  The GE is a toss up now.    

    [ Parent ]

    Lovely. (2.33 / 3) (#76)
    by EddieInCA on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    People rating this post at"5" for a post which calls another poster an "idiot."

    Nice.


    [ Parent ]

    Cooling off is a good idea (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:50:21 AM EST
    May I suggest a little more tact in the future? All Democrats, partisans and nominees alike have a responsibility to help unify the party. At minimum this requires tact and respect, even for people you may feel deserve none.

    [ Parent ]
    I was (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by rnibs on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    being tactful.  I was simply pointing out that people are wrong to assume that we need to "cool off."  

    Suggesting that we need to cool off is a roundabout way of suggesting that we have made the wrong decision when we have not.  We have each made our thoughtful, well-reasoned decisions.

    [ Parent ]

    What question? (none / 0) (#51)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:55:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I was glad to hear (none / 0) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:13:35 AM EST
    BTD is recommending you be banned.  Made my morning.  woohoo!

    [ Parent ]
    Dumb Question (none / 0) (#103)
    by talex on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:47:17 AM EST
    because you are an Obama supporter.

    And Obama doesn't deal in hypotheticals!

    And how in the hell can one poster here answer for Clinton? Your entire question is dumb.

    As for Clinton I will say thing about Michigan. She didn't have to worry about your hypothetical question because she was not stupid like Obama and did not and would not have taken her name off the ballot. And I wouldn't be surprised if Carville was one of the ones who backed her decision to not do so.

    You see that is what cracks me up about low information Obama supporters. The answer is right in front of you but you all still make dumb questions because of lack of political experience and just plain old common sense.

    [ Parent ]

    The Michigan Compromise (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    netted Obama two whole delegates. Hillary went from 73 half-delegates to 69 half-delegates. You are outraged about two delegates. That says a lot.

    [ Parent ]
    It was not a compromise. It was a power (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:41:25 AM EST
    play.  A decision forced on Michigan voters.

    Let's call things by their right names.  

    [ Parent ]

    No, it was a compromise put together (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    by the Michigan State Democratic party, taking into account the flawed election, exit polls, and 30,000 write in ballots for Obama that could not be officially counted.

    [ Parent ]
    It's being called a compromise. (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:46:33 AM EST
    It's amazing how Democrats are using Orwellian speak in this primary, just as Bush has done for going on eight years.

    [ Parent ]
    30,000 write-ins (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:02:48 AM EST
    which were ILLEGAL in MI and no one looked at to see what name was written in.  Since both Edwards and Obama instructed their supporters to vote Uncommitted, don't you suppose it is far more likely the write-ins were for Richardson and Biden?

    Next point, they did NOT accept the compromise propsed by MI.  That conpromise did NOT suggest 1/2 vote per delegate.

    They also did NOT accept the proposal made by FL, that proposal suggested and PROVED the point that the rules committe never had any authority to strip the super delegates and they should have been restored to full votes not 1/2.

    The committee said as much on Sat when the accepted the "shall" argument and then still only gave them 1/2 vote.  I guess because they felt they wanted to not treat the supers different that the elected.

    Then they did an about face and broke every rule of their own party in dealing with MI.

    At best, if they wanted to give some delegates from MI to Obama, it should have been the 75% of Uncommitted the exit polls said were his.  The 25% that were Edwards should have remained Uncommitted.  And, the 30,000 write-ins should have been completely ignored since they are illegal and have not even been counted.

    [ Parent ]

    what 30k "write-in" ballots (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    for obama? there was no write-in, and obama's name wasn't on the ballot at all; he got no votes in MI. what was allocated to him on sat. was a gift, not earned.

    the only "flaw" in the election was the DNC, who couldn't even be bothered to abide by their own rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Donna and the others (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    talked about allegedly 30,000 write in votes, we don't know for whom.  Write ins are not legal votes.  But RBC claimed them in their numbers.  

    [ Parent ]
    Claimed (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    but never opened.  Clinton supporters indicated their willingness to have write in ballots opened and reviewed, assuming same complies with Michigan law, as write-in ballots have not been accepted in MI elections for a while.

    [ Parent ]
    x (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:11:03 AM EST
    And his name is on every one of those ballots, right, Karnak?

    Well, I'll concede the point. I am a reasonable person, after all. Obama should get all 30,000 of those write-ins AND the uncommitted go back to being uncommitted and Hillary gets her delegates back. That's fair, isn't it? And that actually allocates votes according to the voters' choice.

    [ Parent ]

    The DNC and the MDP (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:21:46 AM EST
    rewarded Obama for his political ploy of removing his name from the ballot.  That is not democracy.  That must not be allowed.  Pehaps in November, this disallowal will be make clear.

    [ Parent ]
    Where's the Rool: others pay for TeamBO's risk (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    As posted elsewhere, this concept is stunning to me.

    I don't understand why it's a given that Obama cannot be held responsible for elective, strategic campaign risks that didn't pan out, yet allowed to keep the rewards of taking such risks even to the extent of being GIFTED voter support that Clinton earned.

    It's ridiculous, given the months of Dem insistance that the DNC rules were inflexible, unbreakable and not subject to interpretation.

    TeamClinton has been berated for months not just by media but by Dems for the "bad" campaigning that allowed Obama to close the gap.

    Yet Dem leadership repeatedly stepped outside neutrality to promote TeamObama and stood quietly by as Obama, his supporters and media gleefully leveled an unprecedented spree of vicious bigotry on Sen Clinton, her supporters and the groups who have voted for her.

    [ Parent ]

    x (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mary Mary on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    Of course it isn't democracy. But we're playing Calvinball now. :-) (That is a bitter smiley, BTW).

    [ Parent ]
    It's not the delegates. It's the votes. If some (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:42:12 AM EST
    committee has the power to take votes away from one candidate and give them to another, that is not democracy. If I vote for someone, my vote better be counted for them, not the other guy. This isn't Chicago or New York City circa boss Tweed.

    [ Parent ]
    No votes were taken away from Clinton (1.57 / 7) (#33)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:46:55 AM EST
    because the January 15 event did not elect any delegates. The reason the RBC met on Saturday is precisely because the January 15 event didn't count.

    If a revote were held today, Obama probably would win. At the last polling he was ahead of Clinton in Michigan.

    Remember, the Michigan Compromise took only four half-delegates from Clinton. That's two delegates. Two. Delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL! (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:49:45 AM EST
    You are making no sense at all. Just stop.

    [ Parent ]
    If the primary were rerun starting now, Obama (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:51:17 AM EST
    would have his @$$ handed to him. So, I'm not sure that's a road you want to start down. And "probably" doesn't count for much.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are you doing this? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by suki on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    Clearly you are not helping change any minds with you comments, just making people more angry than they already are.
    I believe you realize this, so again I ask, why are you doing it?
    What are you getting out of it?

    [ Parent ]
    It's certainly true that I'm not helping change (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    minds of all Clinton supporters. Whether some few, or perhaps more, find my arguments persuasive or useful is not really susceptible to empirical analysis because you can expect that not everybody who reads my comments will respond to them.

    The principle behind the First Amendment is that people are smart enough to accept or reject ideas in the full marketplace of them. It's undemocratic to stifle this.

    I don't think anybody is served by allowing some few posters to continue to spew irrational and angry arguments unchallenged.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I wish the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by pie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    supporters would stop that and stop making false statements.

    That would help.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you can persuade anyone with (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    your comments.  Go over to big orange.

    [ Parent ]
    The best thing we could do (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    is to ignore him.

    People like digdugboy are looking for attention.  He's not looking to convince anyone as evidenced by the fact that he throws insults constantly.  If we ignore him, he will eventually go away.

    [ Parent ]

    How many psychiatrists does it take (1.00 / 4) (#170)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    to change the mind of a rabid Clinton supporter?

    One, but the . . .

    [ Parent ]

    What does it say about a grown man (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by suki on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    who gets his jollies by antagonizing people on the internet?

    Plenty.....


    [ Parent ]

    If they can't stand the heat (none / 0) (#213)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    they should get out of the kitchen.

    Now, let's saddle up and have a debate.

    [ Parent ]

    I am going to take my great-uncle's (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    advice on this. He said, "Never argue with someone when you know they are wrong." Good advice, I suggest we all take it in regards to this poster.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep Up The Good Work (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST
    BTD is attempting to persuade people on this site to unite behind Obama. You are counterbalancing his arguments and fanning the flames to ensure that his effort is not effective. Good job.

    [ Parent ]
    he actually is (none / 0) (#183)
    by CanadianDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    trying to do just that....but I do chuckle reading the comments that basically say he is wrong, crazy etc etc from the regulars here...he knows what I'm talking about, intransigent to the extreme with fingers stuck in the ears.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm well aware (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by suki on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    of the principles behind the First Amendment and I'm not trying to 'stifle' anything.
    I just think your timing and approach aren't helping you make any points you do have. The condecension in your comment to me is an example of this.
    Your last line suggests to me that you place more importance on challenging than persuading.
    Good luck with that right now.

    [ Parent ]
    !st Amendment... applies to the government, (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    not to privately owned web sites.

    go to your boss, tell him or her that you are using your first amendment right of free expression and defecate on their desk.

    Then sue 'em after you're fired. See how that works out for you.

    JEralyn owns this site, and it's moderated. There's no, absolutely NO governmental manipulation of your rights if they tell you to leave or to be quiet.

    The first amendment would apply if the government attempted to stop your posting. It hasn't.

    Used to be, in 9th grade, folks took civics.

    [ Parent ]

    I think digdugboy (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:38:54 AM EST
    is a Republican troll at heart.  Working hard for John, are ya?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you know Stacie'sMom? (1.33 / 3) (#158)
    by digdugboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    I hear she's got it going on!

    [ Parent ]
    Not susceptible to empirical analysis? (none / 0) (#159)
    by ap in avl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    So we can't call BS on your comments because not everyone will reply to your comments so how can we gauge the will of the commenters?

    Do you have exit polls on that?

    [ Parent ]

    The only reason (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    the MI primary did not count is that the RBC made an arbitrary decision to punish MI & FL, but not the other states that ignored the primary calendar.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, I'm outraged (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    about the fact that after 6 months of screaming THE ROOLZ at me, the DNC made a decision that they admit is not supported by any rules at all.

    [ Parent ]
    so they were (1.00 / 2) (#185)
    by CanadianDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    inline with the Clinton ideology regarding no rules, or changing them consistently but did not execute the way the Clinton camp would have liked? That's what I'm reading here.

    [ Parent ]
    No, that's not why I'm outraged... (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    and I suspect you know that.

    But you'd rather insult me than grasp the larger point that Obama is illegitimate because he is demanding votes and delegates when he wasn't even on the ballot by his own choice.

    That is an un-democratic precedent and something that no Democrat, no matter what his/her name is, should be asking for. It's an absolute travesty.

    But go ahead, keep insulting and mocking people who don't support Obama. That's a sure way to win friends and influence people.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    I am outraged about vote stealing.  That you are not says a lot about you.

    [ Parent ]
    tell you what, keep on posting and insulting! (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST
    that'll do it for you. multiply that by a few thousand and you have a loss in november. i however personally think it's too late for unity. but you keep on posting and losing votes.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the chances of our using the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:33:55 AM EST
    process again is related to how well Obama does in Nov.
    That's too bad... (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    because it should be completely reformed no matter what.

    I am convinced Obama will lose should he be the nominee, but the problem remains whether he does so or not. The caucuses are far too heavily weighted at this point and have given Obama's campaign the illusion of broad-based support that he simply does not have.

    You don't need polls to figure that out - just look at election results. Why did HRC win the Texas primary and not the caucus? Why is Obama getting trounced by 30-40 points in elections at this point in time? If he is the clear choice, he should be trouncing HRC, not the other way around.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:09 AM EST
    but if by some miracle he should win all will be vindicated.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't worry, it won't happen (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    For reasons we've amply covered here (he's down in polls, regardless of claims by others; he won't win Ohio, PA, et. al; his numbers are down among women; tens of thousands of Hillary supporters now made furious in a Pyrrhic victory; etc.)

    [ Parent ]
    Will Dems for a Day vote for him in November? (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Those "contests" Obama won in the winter will turn back into pumpkins.

    [ Parent ]
    vindicated? vindicated? i don't think so. (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is the best we can do with what we have (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:34:49 AM EST
    to work with.  I believe the SDs selecting Obama are making a giant error but it is their error to make.

    you're absolutely correct. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    however, they should also suffer the consequences of their poor judgment, if (assuming he's the nominee) sen. obama gets trounced in nov. (which i believe he would), for exactly the reasons sen. clinton has detailed.

    but, they'll blame it on sen. clinton, as they have everything else.

    frankly, she's a much better human being than i, i'd have told most of them to go take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut by now.

    [ Parent ]

    She has demonstrated an outright (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    amazing ability to stay focused and not allow repeated attacks to divert her attention and energy down negative paths.  She could have easily become what her attackers were baiting her to turn into but she did not, she stayed true to herself and has demonstrated some of the most tremendous leadershiip I've seen in my lifetime.

    [ Parent ]
    It's amazing (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    We could all take a lesson from her. She has been the target of unmitigated and irrational hatred for 20 years, first from the right and then from her own party. If I were her, I would be curled up in a ball sucking my thumb and drooling in an asylum by now!

    [ Parent ]
    I am convinced that the reason (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:37:08 AM EST
    Obama has a disproportionate number of superdelegates is because they are afraid of the doomsday scenario that Obamaphiles have dangled before them -- that African Americans will bolt the party if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama.

    It's blackmail.  And while I question the usefulness of battleground state polls purporting to show Clinton is more "electable" than Obama, they're a better basis for decision than fear.

    Obama gets my vote if he is the nom.  But he and the DNC have lost any financial support from me.

    I cannot reward (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    larceny and extortion, not to mention hypocrisy and bigotry- and that is pretty much how I see the RBC and the DNC as a whole now.

    There are some things so fundamentally wrong in this cycle, they cannot be ignored for the sake of "unity". I have never been so grievously offended by my own party and my faith in the system, wobbling still from 2000, is no more.

    These are very dark days.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, by all means. (1.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    Gnash your teeth, and rend your metaphorical loincloth.

    That'll help.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. Go read Lance Mannion and how the (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:12:08 AM EST
    Obama camp succeeded in the "perception campaign."  That is the dynamic that sealed Hillary's fate.  A complicit media and spinning a narrative that was totally false and disingenuous.  Every Democrat should be outraged at how this nomination process has been conducted, and especially how it has been decided - backroom deals, etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't Know About Mannion (none / 0) (#82)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:23:21 AM EST
    but if you provide a link, I'll read it.

    [ Parent ]
    No it's Sharpton's threat of massive riots in (none / 0) (#150)
    by suzieg on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    the streets a la 1968!

    [ Parent ]
    And former VA Gov. Wilder. (none / 0) (#154)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't have the popular vote lead. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:44:35 AM EST
    He won't.  You go on and try and legitimize him, I want no part of rewriting facts.

    Counting Votes (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    that he did NOT receive in MI.  Let me get this straight, we should count votes in a contest he didn't compete in.  We're supposed to validate a theft of votes given to Hillary and awarded to Obama.  What a sham of a democracy.

    [ Parent ]
    while you're at it, (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    can i have the olympic gold medal for the 100m dash in 2008? yes, i know i won't actually be in it, but i feel i deserve it, because many people really wanted to see me there.

    just mail it to me first class.

    [ Parent ]

    And We All Just Know (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    you would have won if you chose to compete.

    [ Parent ]
    and you might bolt the party if they don't (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    give it to you. the fact you didn't compete has no baring at all. your supporters might get mad don't you know. and while they are at it, i always wanted one for the high jump.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm taking the Lucasian Chair in Mathematics ... (none / 0) (#217)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    ... and they better damn well throw in an ottoman.

    [ Parent ]
    Super Delegates choosing Obama (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by ajbb on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:44:54 AM EST
    The man has showed no leadership nor has he shown the ability to unite. This is the basic premise that he ran his campaign on. Oh, and yes that he espouses a new kind of politics. We've all seen what  that is and  no one can tell me it is a good thing. The super D's were swayed with the money. As they say, "money talks." This gets him nowhere in November. The independents and Republicans won't fall prey to "just words."

    Nice post BTD (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    I think you have a far greater sense of personal honesty than some give you credit for.  You may  get a little emotional sometimes, but passion should not be considered a fault.  If I ever offended you, please know I always respected you.

    I'm not sure what changes should be made.  States should have the option of caucus if they chose it.  Maybe delegate allocation to states should be adjusted for caucus states.  I think the proportional allocation needs tweeking.  Maybe the winner should half of delegates and the rest divided proportionally.  I don't think the "winner take all" approach leaves any reason for states with late primaries to even particapate.  The number of superdelegates needs to be reduced severely.

    Of course thiose who question my honesty (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    are those ho do not like what I say.

    Have you ever seen anyone actually demonstrate that I have said anything that is false. OF course I say things they DISAGREE with, but when has anyone demonstrated that I wrote falsehoods.

    I ask only that people respect the facts. We can opine in many ways, but fatcs are facts.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't like a lot of what you've said this cycle (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    but I've never questioned your honesty and, indeed, have used you as a check on my own tendency towards irrational exeuberance.  

    Thanks for you work this cycle and, especially, for this important post.

    [ Parent ]

    Well spoken BTD. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:47:07 AM EST
    Even if I am the only clapping.

    Please use some of your valuable real estate to explan chapter and verse what the conservatives have done with the Court since 1968;  why they will not nominate controversial nominees like Haynesworth, or Carswell or Bork. Why future GOP nominees will be young and healthy and seemingly non-controversial.

    Why more than just Roe is at stake.

    They have put 12 nominees on the court. We have put two. The picks they consider mistakes are at best 3 or 4. That by changing the ideological makeup, they have less need to nominate justices which used to be considered center right- no more Stevens or O'Conners.  Roberts is now the model of centrist in their eyes.  

    In time (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:48:37 AM EST
    Right now, we need to understand this nomination process.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand fully the nomination process. And I (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    understand that Obama will get his butt kicked in November as a result of the nomination process.  I don't need to get on a unity bandwagon and I will not be blackmailed into voting for someone who has received the nomination by gaming the system and receiving credit for votes and delegates that he did not earn.  I have been voting since before you were born, BTD, so I don't need any lessons on how this process works.  Thanks anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you really think so? (1.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    Do you really think Obama's victory margin will be the two (2) disputed delegate votes he got as a result of the MDP/RBC Compromise?

    Does anyone know where we keep the paper bags? We've got a lot of people hyperventilating here.

    [ Parent ]

    I suggest Molly Bloom be promoted (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    to the front page for the purpose of a daily post on why it matters who is the next President of the U.S.  Perhaps w/no comments allowed.

    [ Parent ]
    I wish the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST
    would have thought of the Supreme Court conundrum BEFORE anointing Obama as the nominee.

    The road to Hell was paved by the short-sighted and callow DNC. Take it up with them.

    [ Parent ]

    The court is in the voters' hands, not the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:09:18 AM EST
    use your power wisely.

    [ Parent ]
    No, the court is in the DNC's hands. (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    By breaking every conceivable covenant with the voters, they have made it impossible for some of us to vote for their candidate.  They had a choice but tossed it aside. Saturday was the last straw for many of us. The current makeup of the Supreme Court is not the fault of the voters in the Democratic Party.  We have been voting for their losing candidates all along. It hasn't reaped anything for us except disrespect and disregard. It's time for the DNC to take responsibility for its actions.  No amount of SCOTUS blackmail will work. If the DNC follows its current path, John McCain will be the next POTUS. The ramifications of McCain's appointments may be felt for a long time, and I understand that Roe v. Wade is just the tip of the iceberg. Don't assume that we are unaware.

    [ Parent ]
    The voter has the last word about the court (none / 0) (#117)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    come November. Only you can prevent forest... er.. a right wing court.

    [ Parent ]
    why don't you go and lecture obama (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    supporters for awhile. we don't need or want it. in fact all it does is harnden our resolve.

    [ Parent ]
    I go where I am needed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    I was a participant on this blog before this election and I will be one afterwards.

    I have lectured supporters of all the candidates at one time or another on the need for civility, unity, and respect both here and on Mydd. I have done so today here on this blog with Obama supporters.

    The court is a big issue for me.

    [ Parent ]

    i can appreciate the court being a big (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    issue with you. i am sorry but i just don't think obama is the answer to your concerns.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain is not the answer (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    relying on a Democratic congress is not the answer. To me the choice is stark and thus easy for me to make.

    Respectfully, today we must disagree. Perhaps between now and fall we can find common ground.

    [ Parent ]

    we'll talk another day. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    have a good one!

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't it our elected democratic congress's (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST
    job to stop McCain or any other president from appointing conservative judges? Isn't Nancy Pelosi supposed to lead that charge? Isn't that why we elect them?

    I am more afraid that congress will rubber stamp Obama's choices than I am McCain's choices making it through.

    [ Parent ]

    Um - Nancy Pelosi I am sure would (none / 0) (#176)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    do her best to stop a bad SCOTUS appointment if she were actually working in the Senate.

    Still, given the fact that the Dem Senate has bowed to Bush's nominees, I think you're engaging in wishful thinking if you think the legislative branch is going to protect you.

    [ Parent ]

    And do (none / 0) (#192)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    you really believe that Nancy Pelosi would do her best to stop a bad SCOTUS nominee if she was in the Senate? I don't see Nancy doing much of anything except flapping her yap and knuckling under to Bush. My disgust with the Demcratic Party does not begin and end with the DNC and the actions taken in this primary. It begins with their election to a majority in 2006 and their absolute inability to do anything since.

    [ Parent ]
    I plan on (none / 0) (#94)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM EST
    using my diminished power and vote my conscience.

    The DNC needs to be schooled in using their power wisely, far more so than the voters. It's pretty clear we are at their mercy.

    [ Parent ]

    If your conscience can stomach (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    a far right court...

    [ Parent ]
    please don't threaten us! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    that argument about courts doesn't play well. take a good look at what the dems have not done including obama about judges.

    [ Parent ]
    Pointing out a reality is not a threat. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the reality is obama is going to lose in (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    november due to the highly divisive politics he has used and the utter lack of real leadership in the dnc and democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a counter-productive argument. (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    Strong-arming after the fact is obnoxious.

    [ Parent ]
    Just pointing out the facts (none / 0) (#123)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST