Hillary . . . is that you?

I'm pushing for obama! I made hilary clinton toilet paper, lol...it's pretty big seller!

Real Democrats make Bush and Cheney toilet paper.

Obama Democrats make Clinton toilet paper.

Tell me again how Obama is making a change for the better?

Your article reads like standard slash and burn Republican talking points and yet your the one questioning "Obama Democrats."

Regardless of the original purpose of the superdelegates (I personally don't have a real problem with the system though I do think the number of superdelegates should be reduced), do you think it's a good idea to have a small group of mostly anonymous party elites decide the nomination potentially against the will of the people?

It's a slash and burn Democratic environment thanks to Obama. Back in October he decided he would go negative, because up to that point he was failing miserably, behind Clinton by 30 points.

Obama has profited from the slash and burn, and taught his Obamatronic disciples well, obviously. Then they show up and whine about negatives, while they laugh about Clinton toilet paper.

Heh.

As to the question of whether superdelegates should overrule the will of the people - my answer is absolutely - yes. That's why they are there. To exercise independent thought and judgment.

One need only look at the 1972 George McGovern debacle to see why. McGovern carried one state and DC in the general, and never should have been the nominee. Democrat party seniors knew he'd lose - but it was the "will of the people."

Here's another reason:

With Sen. John McCain cruising toward the nomination I'm wondering if my vote in tomorrows Virginia primary (Maryland and D.C. are voting as well - hence the Potomac Primary moniker) might have more worth elsewhere; specifically as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Having no dog in the Obama/Clinton fight I have no problem casting a ballot in the Democratic primary to try and get Hillary, who I consider the more favorable opponent for McCain in November, back on track for the Democratic nomination.

Imagine a scenario where the Dmeocratic race boils down to one state primary deciding who becomes our nominee - Clinton or Obama in... Pennsylvania.

Imagine a scenario where enough Republicans, like Kevin, switch registration and vote for Clinton, as Kevin advocates above.

Shouldn't the superdelegates look at that, and make the situation right by "ignoring the will of the people" and giving the nomination to Obama?

That's a pretty pathetic defense of this article--"Obama did it first!" Don't complain about Obama and his people going negative and/or ignoring the issues after posting an article like this.

As far as I see it, a superdelegate has the right to choose whatever candidate they see fit and to come to that conclusion by whatever means they deem appropriate.

About the scenario you mentioned, there is no evidence that such strategic voting by Republicans in the Democratic primary has had any impact on the results thus far. Independents have certainly played a role, but there is also no evidence (beyond the occasional anecdote--like the one you posted) that shows these voters are seeking to benefit the Republicans in the fall by supporting either Clinton or Obama.

I don't feel the need to defend myself or this article. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the Obama crybabies who whine about their widdle hero being attacked, when he's been in full-attack mode for over four months now.

"As far as I see it, a superdelegate has the right to choose whatever candidate they see fit and to come to that conclusion by whatever means they deem appropriate."

You and I agree, Obama doesn't.

And yes, I didn't think Kevin and his pals have been able to do any damage yet. That's no reason to throw out the rules.

I recognize you have no obligation to defend yourself, but I think it's fairly obvious that you are a Clinton partisan and I am glad to point out your own hypocrisy.

I would also point out that in no way is Obama explicitly attempting to bend or change the rules. He is simply making his case for superdelegate support (being that he currently leads in the popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won). Thus, he argues, he should be the candidate they support. No where does he suggest a rule change to force superdelegates to act as a rubber stamp as you so decry.

He just suggests that the rules be ignored and that the superdelegates don't go against the popular choice when he says that it is "problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters,"

It's not "problematic" it's the requirement to do that if they see fit.

So following the rules is "problematic" but he doesn't want to change the rules - just ignore them.

Ignoring the rules changes everything.

Personally, I would rather the votes of a few hundred party elites were ignored than potentially the votes of the Democratic primary electorate. Apparently you disagree. Hurray aristocracy!

Again though, his statement is simply part of his argument to convince superdelegates to support his candidacy. You can try to blow his statements out of context and out of proportion, but it doesn't change things.

Also, you keep saying he wants them to break the "rules" about superdelegates, when in fact there are no rules. They can decide however they want and Obama is suggesting they decide on the basis of the pledged delegate count.

"Also, you keep saying he wants them to break the "rules" about superdelegates, when in fact there are no rules."

The rules state they thye vote for ho they want, not follow the popular vote as Obama suggests.

Obama's suggestion that the rules aren't right wings hollow after they've been in place for 25 years and no one has complained - and Obama didn't complain until it looked like it would favor his candidacy.

"Aristocracy"... nice touch.

No one complained about the rules because superdelegates have never made any impact before and no one really cared what they did. You can talk about the 25 years they've been around but this is the first cycle they appear to be integral--not exactly a hot button issue before. That doesn't discredit the point that the superdelegate existence does put a great deal of power in the hands of a very few and many people, only now aware of this, have a problem with it.

And as you say, they can vote anyway they want, meaning that, as I said, there are effectively no rules. Obama isn't trying to create a rule or ignore the rules, he is simply making his case for support. Why do you have a problem with that? Why should he be able to say, "support me, I've gotten the most delegates"?

That last sentence was supposed to read "why shouldn't he be able to..." rather than "should."

" That doesn't discredit the point that the superdelegate existence does put a great deal of power in the hands of a very few and many people, only now aware of this, have a problem with it. "

Barack Obama has been aware of it for years. He's being grossly disingenuous by waiting until now to complain - and waiting until now to rile up his base to complain.

"Why shouldn't he be able to say, "support me, I've gotten the most delegates"?

He's not saying that. He's saying that superdelegates shouldn't cut against the will of the people.

And the fact is they should do exactly that whenever they feel it's needed.

Barack usually approaches any problem from the negative - we shouldn't do health care the way that Hillary did, and we shouldn't continue politics as usual, blah, blah, blah. It is one of the most frutrating aspects of covering his campaign - his positives are generalities, and his negatives are specific and downright "attacking".

Evasive. Ethereal. Nebulous... He doesn't tell you what he'd do, he tells you how he'd do it.

The rules state they thye vote for ho they want, not follow the popular vote as Obama suggests.

And many of them simply choose to vote along with their constituents. Suggesting that they do so is not changing, breaking, bending, or ignoring the rules. But you know that, you've just taken it upon yourself to constantly and dishonestly demonize the candidate, in your own party, that you don't prefer. Sick, sad, and stupid. You should switch parties. You'd fit right in with the Republicans.

If Obama wins the nomination I'll support him, and if Clinton wins the nomination I'll support her, equally as strong. Until then, I'll call them as I see them, and hope everyone else does as well.

The last thing any true Democrat wants (except Obama apparently) is a bunch of goosestepping voters who follow the masses.

Ah good, now Obama is a Nazi. Godwin called. He said you're an idiot.

Obama isn't a Nazi, he just wants the superdelegates to fall in line with the Obamatrons...

Lee,

He's not saying that. He's saying that superdelegates shouldn't cut against the will of the people.

And the fact is they should do exactly that whenever they feel it's needed.

And when, exactly, does it become necessary for superdelegates to go against the will of the people?

One more question: How do you define a "true Democrat"?

Just wondering.

You're a retard.

Obviously Obama will pursue all paths to get votes. And there's no contradiction there at all. He believes the voters should decide, but also recognizes that he has to work within the system as it is, and therefore must court the superdelegates.

Hillary Clinton on the other hand, is EXPLICITLY going against rules by trying to get the Michigan and Florida delegates to count.

"It's a slash and burn Democratic environment thanks to Obama. Back in October he decided he would go negative, because up to that point he was failing miserably, behind Clinton by 30 points.

Obama has profited from the slash and burn, and taught his Obamatronic disciples well, obviously. Then they show up and whine about negatives, while they laugh about Clinton toilet paper."

Specifics please. When did he go negative?

Youre blaming Hillary's problems on Obama? If she was running a competent campaign, why the shake up? Why is Bill being muzzled? They have made some serious miscalculations and have been politically tone deaf. When is anyone going to hold her accountable for some bad moves?
Why do people blame Obama for Hillary's eroding base? She lost the Black vote all by herself with help from Bill.

Just the way she has been running her campaign people should wonder if she is up to the General election.

Specifics please. When did he go negative?"

-- October 28, 2007

"Youre blaming Hillary's problems on Obama?"

No, Playing the victim is an Obama camp trait.