The superdeligate concept completely undermines any notion that the democratic party is a party of its members.

Yes they can think on their own but everyone is ignoring this fact...

This is from the Library of Congress... - but it can also be found in "Dictionary of Politics" ---

The purpose of the "Hunt Commission" formed in 1980 -which created today's superdelegate system...was and I quote,

"to streamline the delegate selection process to party conventions and to DEMOCRATIZE the party itself, broadening the base of political participation by increasing input into the process of selecting presidential candidates, to strengthen ACCOUNTABILITY of public officials and strengthen the party itself whose base was weakened by the vigorous activities of the the Republican Party."

Speaker Pelosi's situation is entirely correct... the purpose of changes made to the selection process including superdelegates were in the direct goal of "democratizing the party" and holding public officials "Accountable" (and it references "to the members of the party" later in the section)to the party and therefore it's members/voters.

If caucus members (many of them Republicans) can overtrun the will of people in Texas and many other states, why can't superdelegates overturn the will of Repulicans and Obama supporters? Don't change the rule in the middle of the game. Shame on you, Obama!

If Richardson or Kerry can overturn the will of the people in their states, then every other superdelegate can!! Enough with this "issue". This is not even an issue.

“If they didn't want the superdelegates to have independent judgment, they wouldn't have created them,” Webb said in an exclusive “This Week” interview.

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!

After this election year, the superdelegate process should be abolished!

I gave 25 dollars to the DNC but it will be my last donation until each of the super delegates have donated 200,000 dollars based on the fact that a super delegates vote is worth 8000 to 1. The heck with it I am going to be an Independent. Let the
Democratic Party and its 800 super delegates see how far they make it in a general election. If they do not respect my vote in a primary they will not get it in a general. This is going to hurt down ballot democrats.

"Superdelegates" should not exist! EVERY state should have a BINDING primary election on a date established by the State Legislature, NOT by party bosses! America is trying to "sell" democracy to the rest of the world and we don't even practice it ourselves! The entire nominating process (as it now is done) should be unconstitutional. There are too many disenfranchised voters, not just in Michigan and Florida, but in any state which holds caucuses instead of a primary. Caucuses AND the convention circuses should be abolished, replaced by REAL primary elections. This way there would be NO delegates to make political deals (vote trading). The next thing to go should be the Electoral College. And they wonder why voter turnout isn't what it should be... maybe it's because our votes barely count! (Or in some cases, don't count at all!)

to: falsehope
So if we are not changing the rules you would agree that FL, MI don,t count.
bet id do not get an answer.

The superdelegates were created after 1968 to PROTECT the establishment, against new voters (i.e. the American people) coming in and taking over the party. (Like the Ron Paul Republicans this year) To say that these folks are "independent" and should have a veto over the will of the people who casts their votes, is an INSULT to the process of voting; As well as a complete turnaround from 2000. ("let EVERY vote be counted!") So when they lose, they want to circumvent the vote, when their ahead they want to "count" the vote. Folks, if they get away with this we truely are a Banana Republic, and should seriously consider the fact that we are given the illusion to "choose" whoever the party, the media, and big corporations deem fit for their agendas, and not of our own free will. But then again, Democracy failed us a long time ago. Do yourselves a favor and read US history, particularly the part which states we are a Republic, NOT a Democracy!!! Big government and corporate media NEVER we're meant to help elect or hand our choice of options of prospective leaders over into the hands of the few, verus the will of the people. The sooner you realise that and demand change in our voting process, you will be confronted with the same kind of disaster, you see today.

Obama Supporters,
Why is it you insist on following the rules when it comes to Florida and Michigan, but when it comes to allowing SuperDelegates to vote their independent judgements, and to overturn the pledged delegates (from making foolish mistakes), all within the rules, that you moan and complain. That seems rather hypocritical on your part don't you think?
========================================
Obama is green behind the ears!
Obama cannot close the deal!
Obama is unelectable!
========================================

It bothers me that instead on concentrating on earning this nomination by winning the remaining 10 contests by margins big enough to erase both Obama's delegate lead and popular vote leaqd, HRC is instead concentrating on having the Superdelegates overturn the will of the people and changing the rules on Michigan and Florida that she agreed to at the very beginning of this campaign. I will not pretend that i am not an Obama supporter. But i have consistently said that i will support Clinton with both my vote and cash if she "earns" this nomination. Mark my words, if Clinton somehow wins this nomination in any manner that smarks on shadiness, not only will she lose the black vote, young vote, and white liberal vote (which makes up 50% of the Democratic party). She will lose all 50 states to McCain in November. HRC, let me offer my humble opinion: Win the remaining contest by 65-35 split and you'll get the nomination. Concentrate on making your case to the voters as to why you think you, and not Obama, should be our nominee. This back-room, smoke-filled politics threatens to permanently damage the Democratic party. Let the candidate that has "earned" the nomination be the nominee.

The superdelegates will beigin to show who they are for after the PA Primary. Unless Hillary wins big, and she won't and perhaps not win at all, they will declare for Obama.

Obama08

THANK YOU, zyx! At least SOMEONE else recognizes the absurdity of the present nominating process! The way it is done now is an invitation to corruption, and leaves most of us out of the whole selection process.

Not only the superdelegates thing is hosed, and deliberately so when the left wingers historically produced candidates that won a handful of states in the general election, but this whole proportional delegate allocation thing, a politically correct nod to Jesse Jackson's runs, is insane.

Hillary won the popular vote of every large state except for Obama's Illinois and essentially split the delegates with Obama. The only way you come out ahead on delegates is some crazy caucus thing in Idaho or the Virgin Islands or whereever, certainly has nothing to do with democracy.

If superdelegates are to vote the will of the people, then all those Obama supporters in every state Hillary won need to be supporting the will of the people they represent, not the will of Republicans in red state Democratic caucuses.

But they won't. You won't see Kerry representing Massachsetts or Richardson representing New Mexico, but you will hear them say that superdelegates like them must not overturn the will of the people, even though they and every other big state superdelegate who supports Obama doesn't.

There are exceptions. There are congress representatives who represent districts that went Obama even though the state went Hillary, and they have a tough choice and can choose either, but most are ideologically opposed to democracy when they go against the will of the people they represent and stop Florida and Michigan from voting for Hillary.

So there's my take on the will of the people thing, Democratic Party circa 2008.

Hillary '08

HRC supporters ned to realize that regardless of their rage and anger about what's currently happening, their candidate lost 17 straight contests by incredibly large margins in February. She had the Democratic establishment around her, the initial money advantage, the Superdelegates, an incredibly popular ex-President husband, and a dashing ex-First daughter, all stumping for her, all beating her drum, yet she lost race after race after race, neglected the caucuses and got trampled. After the incompetence and idiocy of the HRC campaign, now she wants to play the victim and re-write the rules. HRC supporters, for all their anger, should at the very least agree that this campaign was their candidates' to lose. She lost it. She lost it badly due to her own incompetence. And to be so angry, to be so resentful, shows that just like Republicans supporting Bush, you guys are not willing to be honest about the facts. Obama, the so-called inexperienced politician, the so-called Green behind the ears candidate, the so-called unelectible candidate, is destroying your establishment candidate systematically. For all her advantage (4 homes states -NY, NJ, Arkansas, pennsylvania), she is still losing. You have to ask yourselves: Why is that?

ralphdaugherty

Your argument reflects the height of idiocy. Nobody is calling for Superdelegates to reflect the will of the people in their individual states. People are calling for the Superdelegates not to reverse the will of the American people that voted in the Democratic Primary nationwide. Are you seriously making this stupid argument with a straight face? If a candidate wins both the delegate race and popular vote, that candidate has earned the nomination. Period. Any other argument, is pure madness.

Why waste all the time money and energy spent on primaries. Lets let the super delegates just tell us who our candidate will be. We are way to stupid to pick a candidate, what kinda democracy would actually let we the people choose our leaders. Thats way to revolutionary an idea, the unwashed teaming masses in power. That could destroy the economy, lead us into unjustified and wasteful war, why it could even create a middle class that would demand to be educated, to demand health care & god knows what other horible demands gas maybe even a fair and just tax system.

Oh they will use their independent thinking alright.They will be thinking:
Who has the most votes.
Who leads in pledge delegates.
Who leads in the polls against McCain.
Who can bring in the most money.
Who can run the better Campaign.
Who can bring more voters to the table
Who can best represent Democratic ideals

These are the things that count.

Obama08

Kevin - enough with the hyperbole. Obama hasn't won by "incredibly large margins." Funny you don't mention CA, NY, TX, etc. "incredibly large states" that Clinton won. Instead of parsing the facts to suit your own ideas, maybe you should ask yourself a few questions. By the way, why do you think so many voters STILL support her? I'll answer it for you: because we think she is the best candidate; and not just a few -- millions. Interstingly, the bar keeps being raised for her. First they say if she wins this and that, then it's NOW she has to win this and that and NOW it's even if she wins PA. Face it, they keep trying to put barbed wire around the thing and we Clinton supporters keep showing up with the wire cutters.

Of course I'm arguing that superdelegates represent the will of the people they represent, not the will of other people. That's why they're a senator of congress member or governor of a state instead of a rubber stamp party boss machine.

Which is what they are if they don't represent their voters.

Hillary '08

Jim Webb is correct. The rules of the democratic party for 20 years is that the superdelegates can exercise independent judgment if no candidate reached 2025 pledged delegates. This protects the party from people like Obama who has racked up most of his delegate totals in red Republican caucus states where Republicans deliberately and willfully crossed over to prop up Obama because they are scared to run against Hillary in the general election. The superdelegate system which has been viable for over 20 years protects true democrats from the meddling of Republicans into the caucuses.

Kevin-What is WILL of the people? Texas showed the WILL of the people but an Obama caucus OVERTURNED the WILL of the people. Therefore until all states provide for a PRIMARY neither you nor I know the true WILL of the people. FL and MI showed the WILL of the PEOPLE but Obama supporters like you refused to acknowledge that will. You all refused FL and MI simply because Obama did not win and for no other reason. Therefore it isn't democracy you argue for by counting the votes of the people you actully come down on the side of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe whose party only count the votes of those voting for him to keep himself in power. That is placing yourself with the worst possible human rights violators on the face of the earth today.

to ralphdaugherty
Hillary is the one saying they do not have to represent their constituency

kevin: Why can't he win wihout superdelegates? He is not going to have enough so called pledged delegates to win! They will both need the help of superdelegates to get the nomination. The fact is that Obama can not win in Ohio,Pa,or Fl. He can not win the working class vote and thus he can't win in November. He will get the nomination because the superdelegates are afraid of losing the black vote! I know you probably think that is a racist statement but it is the truth!

yes, I know joe/ore, but that's my take on it.

Hillary '08

Look it is all a straw vote anyway. The Party is a Party not a democracy. They will make their decision, do they want our input, yes. But if you really want influence one needs to be involved every day.

These superdelegates are a diverse group, some are still accountable to the people some are not, their political careers at an end. They will vote, some according to the favors they owe, some to how the voters in there State, or precinct voted, some to who they think will be the best candidate, Etc.

Have your say how they should vote, and you can see it depends on who your candidate is. Us arguing about it will not change a thing.

I hope, and think they will brake for Obama.

Well Russell,

Pa hasn't voted yet, and some polls now give Obama the lead, so lets wait and see before we say it is a fact. OK?

The remaining contests will not likely produce enough delegates for either candidate to become the presumptive nominee. The delegates dont actually cast their votes until the convention when the superdelegates do. All of the delegates are fair game as a result. Voting is simply a guideline for delegates to use in casting their vote. Some will follow the voters, some will follow their judgement, and some will cast a ballot based on their re-election bids. Both candidates have been focusing on the superdelegates... in fact Obama has spent over 800K buying votes while Clinton only spent 19K (yet she has significantly more superdelegates). Pointing the finger at Clinton to get attention off Obama is a common republican tactic. Obama is just another Bush - empty suit, rhetoric, unqualified, born into money, unethical, poor judgment, great BSer, and questionable character and associations.

Thinking: You can take this one to the bank! Just like you could have called Mississippi three months before the election. Obama wins the state by more than 20 points and the MSM could not call it untill 10:00 who are the kidding what they did not want to report was the racial divide of the vote and they were afraid to lose the audience. You can call WV,and KY now also!

As a humble Sen Obama supporter I agree with Sen. Webb. I also agree with Speaker Pelosi. SD can vote any way that they want. They can watch how I voted during the primary or they can watch how I vote when they are up for re-election. That is their choice. I also feel that Both MI and FL need to direct their rage at their elected officials. The Republican and Democratic leaders of both states gambled that by moving up their primaries (knowing in advance of the consequences) that they would gain influence and money. they lost on both counts. I hope that the DNC is willing to make changes during the next election cycle but to change the rules in the middle of a contest is not fair. All of the candidates agreed to play by the rules. Sen. clinton herself has said that "It did not matter if her name remained on the MI ballot because the results of that primary would not count." So now that she needs it it does count.

What happens in 4 years when more states see that there is something to be gained by breaking the rules.

these two states are acting like children.

I have no doubt in my mind that when the women of the democratic party look at Obama vs. McCain they will vote the party line. Why? Because if McCain wins he will stack the supreme court with right wing judges that will over turn Roe vs. Wade. How far back will that set back the women's movement?

Obama will carry all the blue states and more of the swing states.
He can win in November.

Mixed-American: Thats the Truth! Nither Hillary of Obama are going to win this on their own, and the superdelegates will decide!

Have you started your collection of Obmaisms, yet?
It would be an appropriate and through befitting, complementary companion volume to Bushisms! While campaigning in Pennsylvania Sen. Barack Obama was talking about young girls and sex. He mentioned he had two young daughters and aged six and nine. He talked about the importance of instilling moral values in children, and he said they should also know how to protect themselves, because they should not be "punished with a baby!"
For all my life I have never heard such a thing-- even in the worst circumstances of an unwanted pregnancy--that any other human being on this planet earth used the phrase;
" Punished with a baby...!"

One person one vote, that's Democracy. Let's get rid of the delegates (including superdelegates) and have a national primary of six primaries starting in March. Yes, Bill, yours is a good idea but you only say you want to get rid of Electorates, not Delegates. In any case, Delegates should be De Facto only. They could be seen at the Convention but have no real power. Hillary's right, any delegate can change their mind, they are not bound to any candidate. Here again, the voter loses. 50 States (+ territories) with the only thing counting are the votes. What a novel idea. People would actually get out and vote. Abolish Caucuses, which of some allow the other party to vote, which usually have only a limited time to vote, which are abused by party insiders, excludes many qualified voters and can easily be manipulated by the party elite and the young and mobile. This results hollow victories with false support. No Electors in the General Election of which also there is no requirement to vote for the candidate you are elected to represent. An elector also could conceivably deny the election to his/her candidate by spelling their name wrong. Imagine the litigation on that! One man/woman one vote is the only answer, no delegates, no electors, no caucuses, just primaries. And wouldn't it be nice if we could also have Instant Runoff Voting which requires that the winner have a majority of the votes?

What hypocrisy within the DNC especially Kerry, Richardson and Kennedy who state HC won yet they are overturning the will of the people by supporting Obama. It superdelegates are required to support the will of the people the all superdelegates from state Hiliary has won should be required to support her. Let the delegates from primaries/caucuses be award based on the actual votes. But superdelegates should be winner takes all therfore, HC would automaticallly have the majority of delegate. Even if the actual delegates from FL and MI are not seated since HC won it superdelegates should have to support HC because it was the will of the people. Of course I am sure that Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson would not agree to that. Of course that means that Pelosi and all those CA, NY, TX NM, OH, MA, NH,RI, AR, FL, MI delegates would certainly place Hiliary ahead of Obama. Let the will of the people be done. Let Obama have what he desires just let require all superdelegates to vote with will of the people. Winner takes all superdelegates. After all they are elected official and the majority of voter have spoken in each case. K

So much angst over speculative nonsense. Let things play out and we'll see who wins. At some point, we must accept that the superdelegates will make a rationale decision. But they do have independent votes and can do with it what they will. I for one doubt that if there is a clear leader that they will go against that candidate.

Andre: Rove V. Wade is a dead man walking! The supreme court has the votes to overturn Roe and will do so after the election! So voting for Obama will not prevent Roe from falling! If this was so important to Obama or Hillary why do they not campaign on it! I have failed to hear Roe mentioned in any of the debates either from the canidates or the questioners! Roe is gone and everyone knows it!

charleschalpinc: I read those comments too, but they were never addressed by the MSM except for Fox! This is one the republicans are saving I am sure!

so it should be "blessed with a baby at 16"? We have big problems, collecting the odd phrasing here and there would take centuries to match Bush's, and we have more important things to deal with.

Hillary '08

I do not understand the Rankor on this issue. They will do what they will do, and we will have to go from there. It is for sure that they can not please us all, and we all can not agree on the best solution.

Now that sounds more like DCVoter... Don't agree with you always, but respect your opinion...

@Thinking:

Exactly - the superdelegates will do what they have to do. My guess is that they will split between the two candidates unless a clear favorite emerges.

yes, winning0853, you have perhaps made the argument a little better than I did, but FYI the MI and FL supers are also excluded from voting as part of the undemocratic Democratic ruling.

Yes, every one of the supers from those states Hillary won including FL and MI should be representing the will of the people and voting for Hillary '08, the way the people did.

rd

Open primaries and caucusues do not relflect party members either

All this nonsense point to the need to abandon the two prime idiots and vote for Nader. That would mean real change and not simply lip-waggling designed to appease voters who will be ignored after the election anyway. It's all about individual power and money and it is not about the electorate!

Need the independents and crossovers in the general election, hence the open primaries.

The nominating process is supposed to be "fair" to a point but the goal is to pick a winning candidate for the fall. I think both Clinton and Obama fit the bill. We all have our preference as to who fits it better. No need to take this personally if your preference doesn't win.

If Obama or Hillary wins in November, it will be Pelosi who controls the agenda. She's obviously stronger than either of these two inept candidates.

As it should be Homes. Pelosi is smart and well connected. She will guide a new democratic president.

The will of the people will be expressed as best as is possible in the Fall GE.

In the mean time this is a Party decision, not necessarily the will of the people. Both Parties court independents and crossover voters, as best it can it will express the will of the primary voters. In this case it seems it will be muddled, unless of course something happens and one of the Candidates makes a fatal error, not likely.

DCVoter, what qualification Hill the Bosnian General has? Could you tell us what her qualifications are? We are asking that question because we have never been on an interview panel to select a President of US.

WestCoastMessanger why do you want to tell to Obama's supporters what they SHOULD do? They can think for themselves and have a good judgement which Hill the Bosnian General does not have at all.
God bless America and God bless Obama. OBAMA08.

Hillary is more electable than Obama.

Hillary '08

the only reason why people are affraid of the superdelagtes is becuase they no that they are favouing hillary why els obama sopporter dont want the superdelagtes to vote they way they should who is more cableable of winning in nov

How many times can Obama throw his grandmother under the bus in a week? Answer: Two.

Pardon? Oh, your grandmother, Mr. Obama. Perhaps we can clear that up now.

In an interview with sports radio 610 WIP in Philly early this morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said "the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person."

Well, that clears that up.

dogsoldier, the race stuff is what the Repub 527's will be running around the clock. It's not really appropriate in a discussion on superdelegates. Leave it to the Repub's if it comes to that.

Hillary '08

Anyone who thinks the Dems are running a "democratic" nominations system is living in a fantasy. First of all, there have been states like Nevada and Texas where Clinton won the popular vote but got fewer delegates. Also, there are many caucus states that have awarded delegates, when everyone knows that caucuses unfairly burden the elderly, poor, people with lower english skills, and people with work and childcare obligations. Also, the Dems agreed to discount votes in two huge states. Also -- both candidates have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to brainwash us into voting for them. Finally, the media have spent their time worshipping one candidate and unduly influencing voters. This is far from a democracy. Ah, and yes, the Superdelegates are anti-democratic as well. So is the electoral college, the disenfranchisement of felons, the fact that every state gets two Senators regarless of their population, the fact that supreme court justices have lifetime tenure, and the fact that persons with seniority in congress wield so much power on committees that they get to decide what legislation hits the floor and how it looks. VIVA DEMOCRACY! What a joke! We do not have a pure Democracy. And we have a shaky republican form of government.

Oh, and the fact that DC has no representation in Congress....and the fact that some idiot can fillibuster legislation and shut down the Senate....

You should be equally outraged that in caucus states one persons vote counts many more times than one persons-one vote in a primary state.

ralphdaugherty-You have a problem with Obama's OWN words?

Yes, it is obvious that the rules will have to changed or overlooked and the end of this process which is why Dean would is putting pressure on superdelegates to make decisions before Aug. so he can save his and other short-sighted committee members from looking like complete idiots. As things stand now the Democratic nomibee wil be selected primarily by Red states who are for the most part happy with their current administration. Bush/Rep supporter are going to stay Bush/Rep supporters; no way are we going to miraculously going to see Red states go Blue. Therefore, if rules have to be changed, waivered in order to complete the nominating process then it should be in favor of the people. i.e (count FL and MI). That after all is the simplest thing to do. Obama received his vote in MI, (uncommitted). His assertion that had he campaigned in the state more people perhaps would have voted for him is just plain arrogant and ludicrous. Neither candidate campaign in either FL or Michigan even though he ran ads tell people if they want to vote for him to vote uncommitted. It was mere incompentence that he took his name of the ballot in Michigan. Too late to cry foul now. Apparently, his campaign must have realized that as well, they left his name on the ballot in FL. The DNC just need to suck it up, admit that they played right in the hand of Rep legislators in both states and revise, amend, waiver or whatever is necessary to count FL and MI votes and lets get on with the business of elected a Democratic nominee. This way superdelegates can continue to vote their individual conscience and the people's decision will be respected.

Obama-“It’s time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to begin to bring our troops home. It’s time to ensure that we complete the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of April 2008 – a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in January.”

Obama on troop withdrawl this week: United States should transition to an “over-watch” force of between 60,000 and 80,000 troops by the end of 2010, according to an article Friday in the New York Sun.

Russel-
Roe v Wade is note a dead issue. It has not come up in the primary because both of the Deomcratic contenders support it. The current make up of the court won't overturn it until they have a big enough majority to protect the new ruling. Electing McCain would enable just that. My point was that no woman that supports choice will vote for McCain no matter who is on the Democratic side ballot. Bush won re-election soley on the war and that he was going to fix the mess that he made. Well he didn't and neither will McCain. This election cycle is about a real change in the way we need to govern ourselves. Agree that both candidates have made misstatements and have their surrogaters and supporters make boneheaded mistakes. Both of their records are far from spotless. But they are both electable in different ways.

I am confident that there will be a Democratic Administration no matter what happens in the Primary. I think that it is McCain that is the unelectable one because he has all but promised to continue Bush's policy on the war, the economy, and health care.

I'm confident that the Democratic party will come together because McCain will only dig the hole deeper.

If they wanted the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people, then why have campaigns and elections. The will of the people elect the delegates and these, in turn are pledged to nominate the candidate to whom they are pledged. This is at the heard of representative democracy, NOT one man/one vote, or popular vote. These are the RULES. The superdelegates are given the final vote, but that is largely a symbolic role to "ratify" the will of the voters who have made the choice based upon pledged delegates through the electoral process. It gives them the chance to show their good will and support of the peoples selection. The ONLY time that superdelegates should consider voting otherwise than to ratify the majority of duly elected "pledged" delegates, is IF there has clearly been election fraud, or the candidate becomes physically or mentally unable to serve. Neither of these conditions should apply to the democratic nominations. If the superdelegates believe that they can deny and/or overturn the will of the people who have voted by the rules, then they are sadly mistaken, and will find that they are in a party of their own, without the critical support of the people who they will need to maintain their office. This is a WRONG-HEADED notion, and needs to be thrown out, as the undemocratic ploy that it is.

Justinteim write: "The superdelegates are given the final vote, but that is largely a symbolic role to "ratify" the will of the voters who have made the choice based upon pledged delegates through the electoral process."

Then you have no idea of the history behind the creation of superdelegates. It'd be nice but unexpected if you brought yourself up to speed on it.

rd

ralphdaugherty-I could even find myself agreeing with you. However, super delegates are not known as profiles in courage by their very nature as wind tested politicians.

GRGgirl: The votes of MI and FL if counted would not put either candidate over the top of delegates needed. The current 2024 number is without MI and FL. If they were counted, that number would up by half of 313 or so, whatever the delegate total is for those states.

Hillary would gain about 50 to 60 votes or so, cutting significantly into both the delegate and popular vote leads of Obama. That is why Obama stopped the revote attempts. He would lose big again.

As for not being in the ballot in MI, Uncommitted was for all delegates not on the ballot, and Obama would get all 40% of them which includes votes that would have gone to Edwards or Richardson, so he comes out ahead that if he was on the MI ballot.

Hillary got 55% of the vote and would again cut significantly into Obama's lead to a near tie. These last 10 primaries would still not put either over the top, and the supers will have to call it.

I argue they should represent the will of the voters they represent first, and also take into account factors their constituents didn't know if facts come out after their state's primary. They are mostly elected officials.

Hillary '08

Dogsoldier: You forgot the lie about his racial awakening! That at the age of 9ys old while living in Indonesia a country where his mother had taken him to live, he said that she would take him to a local library where he saw a Life magizine article about a little black boy that was disfigured by chemicals used to lighten his skin! He recalled how just looking at the picture would make his face feel hot and he would turn red! Well thats a great story but only one problem it is not true and when confronted with this fact he said that it was in Ebony but again that was not true!

dogsoldier, hardly profiles in courage, I have to agree.

More like blowin in the wind.

rd

and just to throw in

MI and FL can't be counted because they were not real elections... That is why they call them beauty contests...
Elections need voters to be able to meet the candidates otherwise all of the states who voted without meeting the candidates would have all gone to the woman the public knew for 8 years as the fist lady...as we saw in every state those numbers started that way and then changed by huge amounts once Obama came to that state.

So those weren't real elections and the state party officials should have not had them once they knew they would not count (you know when Sen Clinton said they would not and should not count)...

These rules were created before Howard Dean had any power in the party 2 years before the elections(Sen Clintons campaign chair Terry McAuliffe had more to do with these rules than Howard dean...and I am not a big Dean fan...but people should know that and know that those state officials could have fought the Republicans).

Then as soon as the elections were held Sen Clinton flys in after she has said those things and is suddenly losing ...and starts making it seem like the other candidates don't care about their votes manipulating the situation to a point where even the state officials know chances were getting slimmer and slimmer for a vote.

The reason these votes aren't being counted has as much to do with Clinton manipulation (it is very bad for a politician to say a voters votes don't count and then say after a huge election and money has been spent and change her story because she is losing...why do you all not see that is a bad trait for a leader of our country to have.)...as much as it does... as the state parties screwing up, and screwing over their own constituents.

Super delegates can certainly vote to recognize the votes of 2.3 million disenfranchised democrats, or to recognize the electoral college lead, or the poular vote lead, or whomever they feel can best withstand Republican attacks.

They can vote to recognize a lot of factors and that's exactly why they were created!

dl - You find yourself on the side of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Only count the votes for me to stay in power. Wow. One of the largest human rights violators in modern history and you support his stance on ignoring all other votes except for those who support him. Mugabe's rules for voting. And you call yourself a democrat?

Poor Ms. Hillary-- really likes playing a victim all the time, and her supporters are just too naive to think that she is putting on a well scripted act. Funny how she is always under some kind of sniper fire, attacked by right-wing conspiracies, and she mis-reads, mis-speaks, mis-heard, mis-remembered--this poor old rich white lady married to a pervert for too long is really suffering. After 8 years of a mentally challenged president, do we really need one with so many self esteem issues. I would vote for a woman, but not one that stayed married to a creep like Bill. Like her vote on Iraq, she shows a pattern of poor judgement. Get off the phone at 3am, and take a nap Hillary.

I'm kinda of new here so I want to start by saying that any candidate that gets to this level is by this accomplishment alone electable. Early on I was surprised by how man super delegates had sided with Sen. Clinton before the first contest in Iowa. But I never cried foul. I will admit that before this year i had no clue to the differences between a primary and a caucus. I did know that both ways of awarding delegates have been around for a long time and that both systems have their strong and weak points.

Neither of these final democratic candidates are perfect . They are both flawed. Having said that I'm confident that they will both do their best in service of their country if they are elected. I have been shocked and disheartened at the vitriol and bile that have been spewed by both sets of supporters. At how nit picky both sides have become. I was never a fan of Pres. Reagan's policies but he rarely if ever spoke I'll of another member of his party.

IOf we want to win the Whitehouse this year how are we going to do so if we are so busy tearing ourselves to shreds?

I freely admit that I am not a fan of Sen. Clinton for a variety of reasons that I feel are all valid. But I will gladly vote for her if she his the nominee because John McCain will be more of the same as we have now.

I know that both Clinton and Obama are electable. I voted for Obama during the primary and will vote Democratic in the General election.

It is ironic that a party which has as its name Democratic, has put itself in a position to disenfrachise peoples votes! To hear Obama supports declare oh this is the rules and rules are rules! I say to them how long can a political party exist if at its very core it is in contradiction to the most fundamental premise in a democracy,the Right To Vote! No party can maintain the support of its members or the country if it fails to count the votes of its members as required in any form of democracy! Who has the right to pass a rule that would disinfranchise voters and if so passed what individual with a conscience could accept it without challenge! There were rules once against black men sitting in a white resturant,driking out of the same water foutain,or voting without passing a test! Such law were against the fundamental basis of this country and when the mirror was raised to the face of american to was plain to see they were not just unjust but were incompatibale with a true democracy! So for those who say that there are rules agaist counting the votes I say just be cause their are laws doesn't necessiarly mean that they are just!

Remember in the movie Cool Hand Luke when the guard was going to put him in the box to keep him from running because his mother just died! The guard says "your know Luke I am just doing my job, you have to respect that"! Luke says " Just because you say its your job does not make it right boss"! So just because Obama says it is right does not make it right!

Large percentages of Hillary supporters will not support McCain...he supports Bush's war and tax cuts. What you say is all bluster, no substance. I can understand your being upset, but Obama has crushed the inevitable, institutional candidate...i mean, c'mon...Hillary has the greatest institutional advantage of any non-incumbent presidential candidate in recent memory and Obama, a freshman senator, cleaned her clock...Obama will easily win in the fall...He will energize new voters like you have never seen, and the muscle of over 1.3 million small donors will overwhelm McBush

HA-Perhaps if Obama could only win his own democratic primary you might be on to something. Lately, Texas, Ohio, and RI have each said no way Obama no how. Wonder what the folks in PA say next. Or did your boy peak too soon?