Shake-ups and Super-delegates

The situation concerning Florida, Michigan, and the super delegates could cause the defeat of the Democratic Party in the general election . If neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama receive enough delegates to clinch the nomination would changing the rules at the end of the game by including Florida and Michigan delegates to sway the results be fair or would it cause a rebellion .

John McCain is not so conservative that angry independents and moderate Democrats would not change their minds and vote for him if they felt like they were being cheated . Florida and Michigan were excluded for breaking the rules and the candidates agreed not to campaign in those states . If the Democratic Committee breaks their own rules now by counting them in then maybe they should be excluded by eliminating the super delegate count .

If Howard Dean decides to include Florida and Michigan then maybe he should count the uncommitted votes in Michigan as Obama votes and exclude all of the super delegates then adjust the nominating delegate count accordingly and let the leading candidate win . That would be more of a truly democratic process . This is America after all and the people should decide who their president should be and not a handful of politicians .

Does anyone bemoaning "inspirational" speeches read the position statements on the candidates' websites? Policy speeches get soundbites on the media and serve no educational purpose. But the positions are available -- at least stop complaining that there are no positions.

It is my personal opinion that Obama is the only candidate who can beat the republicans.
That being said, if this isn't settled by the convention you can rest assured the republicans will win again. And maybe, just maybe Obama will run as an independent.

To Daniel K.

It is prepostrous to suggest that Obama "... would or could mess up on Iraq". That's impossible!

Obama was dead against invading Iraq right from the start and all along. How can anyone now conceive making him responsible for anything that happens there. He is the only candidiate that CANNOT possibly mess up on Iraq. Why?

If he's got any sense, he must ignore all the bullshit advice from the 'experienced' and 'realist' phony politicians that will come out of the woodwork to suggest cynical reasons why the US must stay the course in order not to lose face and discourage other countries who will feel the US could dissapoint them etc etc etc! All that crap is only motivated by their desire to keep the big spending and big business on the road.

Obama. The first thing you must do when you become President is ORDER EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN SOUL OFF THAT GOD FORSAKEN LAND WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT!

Countries, nations, or whatever they want to call themselves, like Iraq MUST LEARN TO SORT OUT THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. They're not kids are they?

Same goes for the supposed countries that will feel that America might not stay the course in their own country - "Tough luck kids. Sort out your own problems instead of dreaming of someone sorting them out for you."

America became what it is because they were ready to fight a bitter war of independence and and a bitter civil war ON POINTS OF MORAL AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLE which they had the preponderance of people to believe in.

So dont look to America because you lack the preponderance of moral and ethical principles to deal with your lives; because you dont have enough people to stand for what is right.

Here is a country that simply had too few people willing to stand against Saddam so the few require external assistance.

If the majority choose to live without principles under the whims and caprices of injustice then hey, LEAVE THEM TO IT!

HAVE I MADE MY POINT CLEARLY ENOUGH?

I am Nigerian and the same situation exists here in my country. WE ARE TOO COWARDLY/LAZY and spineless to struggle against injustice so the majority of us just wallow in it.

America, despite your greatness, has its own domestic problems. The only benefit of the Iraq debacle is the $$$ your economy will get back from it; so let someone support Obama to get your troops out and make as much money from the Godforsaken morons as you can without your boots on ground. I'm sure enough 'infrastructure' has been put in place to ensure enough American goods are sold directly and through willing 3rd party accomplices in the medium term to make even the illadvised invasion 'worth the while'!

Seriously, you're comparing Obama and Bush? When was Bush ever supported in the media?

Dear spock

I think Obama's brain works like this:

War = Bad
Peace = Good

That's it. The message works well on Obamaists in activist friendly caucus states who just want to hear the Gospel of Obama.

However, superdelegates have been around for a while and know that if Obama screws up Iraq, then he won't be relected. Neither will they, because a messed up Iraq will make the Vietnam war look good and it will be their fault.

Too much is at stake here and the superdelegates know it. Obama is a good show, but is he really worth the risk?

Dear Tom J

"As for promoting loyalty over competence in the case of Patti...it's not limited to Patti, and it's not limited to the campaign staff. That's what's troubling."

Thanks for an interesting point. You're talking about nepotism or...?

The Commander Guy - I like Huck too , but unfortunately mathematically it is impossible for him to win the nomination. he needs 120% of the upcoming delegates.

He was not my first or second but he was my third.

DanielK - thank you, you said it correct'

FYI - in 2004 Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said there wasn't much difference between his position and George Bush's position on the [Iraq] war at this stage !
So what changed Obama? us winning?

Well You got to thank 7 of 9 for Obama, he would not be a thought if it was not for her!

Hillaryland makes a better soap opera than a campaign. History may show it was the 'win' in New Hampshire that actually marked the beginning of the end. Clinton got the sympathy vote from the backlash of women appalled by her projected double-digit loss in the polls, but her campaign staff took the credit - and used that to justify keep on keeping on.

As for promoting loyalty over competence in the case of Patti...it's not limited to Patti, and it's not limited to the campaign staff. That's what's troubling.

btw - what's with all the comments not relevant to the story? Don't these people have anyplace else to go?

Calling Planet Earth

"Catherine & Spock -

What planet are you both from???"

Same Planet. They Both want HRC win the Dem nomination and then, lose to McC in the general in the case of spock (wise pick here on his part) or for Catherine, win in the general (not so sure here).

Both are shillin to take down O. They are cooperating Mutt-Jeef style, but they got own reason.

Me...I'm down with Team Huck. We're living off the land and tellin things the way they are. Still got time to support Ol Huck if you are tired of the same old dirty tricks.

Dear Calling Planet Earth

"Obama gave a speech in 2002 calling the Iraq War "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.""

I sure hope he didn't say that, because if he did, then he should be ashamed of himself.

I grew up next to refugees from Iraq. The father didn't have any finger nails. He told me about his brother in Baghdad who made sure his teenage daughters were fat, so Uday Saddam's thugs wouldn't kidnap them. His cousin made the mistake of complaining when his 14 year old daughter was kidnapped. She was delivered back to him in two boxes.

"A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Sounds like Barack Hussein Obama didn't bother to read Amnesty International reports about Iraq before the country was liberated. Or, maybe his loyalties weren't with those fathers who made sure their teenage daughters were fat.

Catherine & Spock -

What planet are you both from??? Obama gave a speech in 2002 calling the Iraq War "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." Shortly thereafter Hillary voted to authorize that same war. This is NOT a media myth, it's reality!

Catherine

"Doesn't anyone get the feeling that this is like 2000 all over again? The candidate with momentum, Bush/Obama is being....... "

Ya it does, clever post ........

I mean you got one candidate thinking that occupying the Whitehouse is a Familial right that is to be inherited, bestowed and passed down like the inheritance of some spoiled Aristocrat.

So ya it does seem kinda like 2000. You got either the blank slate candidate (O) or birthright candidate whose main claim to fame is her name (HRC) going up against exerienced establishment candidate (McC).....

Guess that's what you were getting at. But will the 2008 version of AlGore win this time?

Solid observation.

Catherine & Spock -

What planet are you both from??? Obama gave a speech in 2002 calling the Iraq War "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." Shortly thereafter Hillary voted to authorize that same war. This is NOT a media myth, it's reality!

Catherine - What world are you from , the media gave Pres. Bush a free pass, the 2000 election is when the true liberal bias of the media came to light, no other candidate ever got as mush scrutiny and lies told about him from the press before and even now.
But this whole thing shows the fiasco from 2000 was the democrats fault.

Another note Obama praised Pres. Bush for going into Iraq on his website prior to saying he would run for President!!

Obama is a made up fantasy from the Press!! He says nothing when he speaks.

As far as Pres. Bush with Texas, he did a lot of good for the state.

Doesn't anyone get the feeling that this is like 2000 all over again? The candidate with momentum, Bush/Obama is being given a free pass by the media. Their inexperience is excused, even touted as being the only way to "change the tone" in Washington. Bush was the guy that "everyone wanted to have a beer with" and Obamais "inspirational". The press avoids any questions about Obama's lack of international experience (even with the stakes so high in world affairs) just like Bush's total ignorance of the world outside of Texas was accepted. Bush's dismal record as governor was ignored -- Obama is praised for being "against the war from the beginning" even though it is pure speculation that he would not have voted "yes" had he had that responsibility. On and on it goes.

We don't need another George bush (albeit one that is a very good speaker). Everyone needs to get a grip on reality. Enough of unbalanced reporting and Hillary bashing.

Charles,

You don't change the rules in the middle of the game simply because the outcome would favor you. This is just another example of the kind of politics people are tired of.

Just typical politic shenanigans folks. "Faitful" supporters love to jump back and forth. And, we are just getting started.
Oi Vey.

Whats with the polls?, they have been wrong all the time. Did the polls say Obama was going to win like he did in DC, Viginia and Maryland, of course not. He won but the polls where way off.