Obama and The Myth of Pledged Delegates

There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by dint of that achievement, be handed the party's designation. This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign.

Such a contention is belied by the modern-day history of Democratic conventions. In 1912, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, went to the Baltimore convention with the largest number of delegates, around 440, Woodrow Wilson was second with 324, trailed by a few others -- with two thirds of the convention vote required for nomination. Champ Clark was not then allowed to proclaim himself victorious simply because he led the pack. Rather the proceedings went through almost 50 ballots over a week's period that, after much maneuvering, resulted in Wilson accumulating enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Democratic Convention this time with the most delegates -- having won them through some primaries and some Democratic state organizations -- but still short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Despite this lead, the party did not hand him the nomination. He had to proceed through four ballots to achieve it.

Finally in the 1952 Democratic race, Senator Estes Kefauver went through the primary process, beat President Truman in New Hampshire, won Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Maryland and entered the Chicago convention with a lead of 257 votes, with four other contenders trailing behind, including Adlai Stevenson. On the first actual ballot, Kefauver held the lead but by now Stevenson had crept up to second place. Then ultimately Stevenson grabbed the designation from Kefauver on the third ballot -- all of this, despite his failure to contest a single primary, with no accumulated Democratic votes compared to those of Kefauver's, and in spite of his late entry into the race. But the party thought he would be the better nominee.

Now today some in the Obama campaign and in the media are dismissing the importance of Hillary Clinton's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island as unimportant. For they argue that, by any careful analysis of the delegate selection process under the present Democratic Party proportional representation system, whatever delegate totals Senator Clinton wins through the end of this year's primary season, will not be able to overcome Senator Obama's current unsurpassable lead over Senator Clinton and therefore Obama will deserve the support of the so-called "super delegates" and should gain the nomination. But that is not how it works as we have seen in past Democratic conventions. A lead in pledged delegates is not enough. You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee. That is what the next stage of this election is all about.

Comments

[Artos]

Mr. Schlesingers column boils down to one thing and one thing only, The truism that we the people do not in any real sense have any say at all in who gets elected. The U.S. might as well be Russia. They too pick who gets to run and they then see to it that their choice becomes President. I see very little difference.
George Bush the Dictator, also acts according to his own lights. Whatever he says goes, He's the Decider. Decider, Dictator sound alike, act alike.
So in what way is America better than so many other Repressive Governments? We have seen our rights usurped, We probably never really had a voice in who gets elected. So where are we really. Have we just been fooling ourselves?

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama could predict this unprecedented close race, and when they pledged to not campaign in both states, they did not. There was no demand to remove ones name from the ballot. Interestingly, we still have a close race, and will continue to have a close race with 100 delegate difference between the two candidates being maintained to the Convention.

The primary in both states went forward and people participated. Thankfully, they showed they have a right to participate, thank goodness for Democracy, especially now that neither candidate can win the necessary delegates to secure the nomination. To award a 50/50 split is an insult and reflects nothing, as it is meaningless and only amounts to a "present" vote. Gee thanks, but no thanks.

The argument that Obama won more states so therefore should win the nomination is the worst kind of logic as such an argument could be used to secure a REPUBLICAN presidency from here on out as they win the majority of states every election cycle.

I am proud of Senator Obama's stong performance against Senator Clinton in the Bible belt and deep South but I don't see how that equates to a victory for our party in November.

Again, the average voter weight of a delegate from a Caucus state is equal to 750 voters compared to the voter weight of a delegate awarded from a primary state like california, where 1 delegate represents 11,000 voters. I fail to see the math that supports that the delegate count reflects the will of the people.

Knowing this mathematical inequality of voter weight between pledged delegates from Caucus states and those from Primary states, I don't think it unfair for our superdelegates to make an educated decision taking into consideration these factors.

We need to change this system in the future so it really is in line with the will of voters so we don't have to back pedal to ascertain the real story. I for one think Senator Clinton has demonstrated she can win the right states and still win against all odds as she did this last Tuesday, where she was outspent 2:1 but where volunteers working on the ground going door to door and making phone calls to their neighbors made a huge difference. I wish some credit could be given to the volunteers and not rest soley on commercial ads.

[Elitnaurista]

"You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee."
Who is "the party?" I thought it was registered Democrats like me and the others here in Alaska who voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I always thought the winner was the one with the most votes. Thanks for correcting my thinking.

By the way, how did 1952 election turn out?

[vidiii]

To Elitnaurista ... But can Alaska vote for a Democratic president now? Yes, this is supposed to be Democratic primaries and caucuses, however, some states make it open to Independents and Republicans. I have read somewhere at Slate.com, that of the total popular vote that has been cast, before Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, Hillary leads Barack Obama by almost a miliion vote. It should be more than that now. It is clear then that among the Democrats Hillary is the choice to represent them in the general election. The votes from both the Independents and Republicans specially in very red states are questionable whetehr they can be there in the general election.

[Notapathetic]

This Schlesinger dude is just another blowhard living in the past, trying to gin up a way to get some ink with his crackpot ideas.

I was watching the 1952 convention on a little black & white tv. The men all had brylcreem-slicked hair and the ladies all wore pill-box hats. Everybody smoked, and they were happy to have a system run by a few powerful white guys with deep pockets.

Fortunately, that is not the way the game is played today. The delegates are elected as our surrogates and are a symbol of our will. For the supers to ignore that would be politcal suicide. The young are smarter than this blogger thinks, and the Big Bluff being offered by Bill Clinton and his entourage will be called if they try to strongarm the nomination.

Half the party will walk out the door and out of the Democratic Party if old-style manipulation rears its ugly head at the convention. The Republican victory in the Presidential election, and the victories in the Congressional races, will end the Dems for decades.

[lisakaz]

Just because the will of the people wasn't respected in the past, you expect me to be enthusiastic about HRC trying to take the nomination away from Obama? I thought this election was about looking ahead and GETTING THE F OUTTA IRAQ!

No thanks. HRC will come up with all sorts of excuses (oh, excuse me, "reasons") why over half the voters should be negated -- wrong state, wrong style of choosing, etc. I am supposed to respect this!? Why? And why should HRC expect me to vote for her in November?

If I have to, I will write in Obama's name.

[DavidWilson]

There is no myth that all the popular votes count. Ask Al Gore that one! Is Hilalry the next President by stoen election? No, because IF she wins by taking the election by super delegate, John McCain wins. Get real.

For a good read on the duplicity of your darling, take a gander.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Colbert_Pass_Protect_America_Act_with_0307.html

[vidiii]

This is what is real Mr. David Wilson, after March 4 primaries, Hillary Clinton leads Obama in electoral votes by 260 to 190. Although, Obama won more states than Hillary he won the smaller states and mostly red states and almost half are caucuses which is not the true reflection of the electoral process. He has not won in big states that the democrats need to win in the general election like CA, NY, NJ, MA, OH, MI and FL. TX, AZ and NM can even be in play because of the Latinos who love Hillary so much. So these are the things that the superdelagates will look into when deciding whom they will vote as the nominee. Do you know that American presidency is decided on electoral votes not by popular vote. The reason why AL Gore lose in 2000, because Tennessee, where he comes from did not give him the win he needs. Reason why, because Tennessee is a hard core red state. Do you think Obama's change message can make him win in ND, UT, AK, WY, AL, GA, NE overnite? These states never voted a democratic president for at least 20 years.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

I notice terrible inconsistencies with the logic framing most peoples' arguments to justify abandoning our party if this or that candidate doesn't win, as the winning of the nomination at this point to one candidate over the other must be the result of some theft. Well, if this is the attitude you choose to adopt, we're in trouble and you should switch parties to the self-defeatist party. We democrats play the blame game since we so go out of our way to avoid realities, which the Republican party is expert at understanding and happy to capitalize on our naive ideologies clouding all sense of rationality.

Fact: Short of some massive gaffe on either side, neither candidate can win the needed delegates without a combination of the superdelegates and some solution for seating the delegates from MI and FL if at all possible in the most fair of ways. Money should be not be a limiting factor as a vote shouldn't be shelved for a what amounts to less than $10/per vote cast.

Fact: Currently the popular vote has Hillary ahead, and though the delegates may not be seated from MI and FL, the peoples' voices have been heard and should not be ignored. In Michigan, 40% abstained from voting for Hillary to show support for their choice, the remaining 55% made it clear who they preferred.

Fact: In the general electiton of 2000, tens of thousands of votes were not counted and so Florida went red, as it did in 2004. To completely disenfranchise 2 million + voters who in good faith participated in their primary would be disastrous for our party come November considering the closeness of this race.

Fact: It is unfair that Wyoming with less than 10,000 people participating in their state wide Democratic caucus, awards delegates that represent 715 people per delegate and that these delegates are given the same voter weight as a delegate awarded from a primary state, like California where each delegate is equal to 11,822 voters. You will find similiar large gaps between the voter value of delegates awarded in Caucuses compared to the voter value of delegates awarded in Primary states.

Fact: The current situation definately shows that our primary system does not necessarily choose the best candidate to win in the General. We give undo weight to caucus delegates and ignore electoral college significance for delegates from important electorally rich states.

Fact: Both candidates have a responsibility to see this to the last Primary for the sake of their message, their candidacy, the people who have volunteered many hours for each candidate, and to their voters and supporters. For either to drop out, with less than .5% separating them in awarded delegates would be disenfranchising 1/2 our voters.

Fact: The current predicament is not Senator Obama's or Senator Clinton's fault, and will require leadership from the DNC to find a fair and balanced solution for MI and FL as it appears that the superdelegates alone will be unable to yield a winner if each superdelegate bases their vote on which candidate the voters from their districts voted for.

Like all contests, each candidate has strengths and weaknesses as well as different resource to draw from or call upon and a smart contestant uses each to their best advantage. Senator Obama said it himself, "we have to treat this as if Senator Clinton was the incumbent." That being said, he touts his inexperience as a strength rather than a weakness as he claims that he isn't tainted and subverted by all the nasty people in Washington D.C who will suck all the Hope out of him if given time. Senator Clinton has her experience and years of forming ties and relationships with long time public servants to our party and has an advantage in securing their votes. Senator Obama can't have it both ways: Postulating the value of being fresh and free of the D.C taint while claiming the Clintons will use their connections and experience to steal the election. Well, if you don't have the experience to stop that, then you don't have the experience! Both candidates have invigorated large turnouts in demographics not seen in such numbers in past election. Clearly Obama needs a larger popular vote mandate to make his case to the superdelegates that his multiple red state wins equate
to one of Hillary's large blue state and electorally rich wins. Since his message is so full of hope and inspirational, he shouldn't have a problem with this, unless voters base their choices on some other factor or issue.

There are facts and processes of solving the quesitons of what will determine the superdelegates final vote that are based on the will of the people, the reality of our electoral map come November, and most importantly, the will of our party. No evil subversive back room deal is in our future as some in this blogosphere suggest. Perhaps if you actually participated in the process,you too could be a delegate!

[apresdeluge]

Great post. Thanks for the well reasoned summary.

[YellerDawg]

Terrific post. Almost too reasonable for Huffpo.
We were all so outraged at the system when Al Gore was robbed despite winning the popular vote. Now, some people have forgotten.

[Gilda]

Actually Barak Obama currently has the popular vote.

Florida democrats knew the rules when they changed the primary date.
If the rules are broken, any state in the future, can change their primary dates at will, without penalty.
That wouldn't cause too much chaos and confusion!

Get a grip kids and stop your stoopid spinning for the Clinton camp.

Whether they counted the delegates or not, we still had a primary (and an amendment}, and I took the opportunity to visit the polls. What was your excuse?
Tough cookies to Hillary she won zip here.

[Notapathetic]

Fact: half the facts in the "fact" post are opinion, arrived at by eduction and, well, full of shit. The justification for one side or the other strong-arming the nomination just flat does not hold water.

One of the candidates will be considerably closer to 2025 than the other candidate. That is the one who will win.

For every attribute of Obama's that is a superlative you can postulate realities about red states and caucuses. You can point out inexperience or whatever you want. For every positive aspect of Clinton's "big state" wins there can be postulated realities that would almost surely bring about her rejection in the general... an instance of amorality, a pattern of contempt for the truth, financial irregularities. All of this means little.

Its about who is close to 2025 and who is a good distance away.

[skidz12]

Clinton supporter's do you really trust her? Do you really want to give your hard earned money to someone who has 5 million of her own money laying around and refuses to disclose where it came from? In hard economic times does it make sense to give up your money to the person telling you she will fix everything while simultaneously and without shame publicly pleaing for donations to her web campaign? When is the last time you heard Obama in an interview or debate on national TV hype up and plug his website and beg for donations? Hasn't happened because he doesn't need to, because his movement is real and his supporters are no sheep. Without being desperate he has shattered every fundraising record in history. I literally feel sorry and sick in my stomach knowing you people are kind enough to send your money to the Clinton's while they pretend to need it. Wake up folks it's over, don't give those crooks anymore of your money. The superdelegates will never choose her over Obama now because this is America and everything comes down to $$$. He is now the single most powerfull money raiser in the Democratic party even bigger than Bill himself. That means more than anything else to them because that means that new money makes the democratic party as a whole that much stronger in all the down ticket elections that lead to house and senate majorities which is exactly what they are chasing. If Hillary can't manage to do it fair and square by the numbers she's done. The math say's she's got less than a shot in hell.

[Spesabsquemetu]

This article is an interesting exercise which ultimately seems to suggest that beneath the questions surrounding whether the majority of the people in choosing Sen. Obama warrants support from the Democratic party"s super delegates, is the unstated implied suggestion that there is some reason to question Sen. Obama"s leadership. There is no balance in questioning whether the premise of leading in the primary delegate count is not also reflective of a vote of confidence by the people in favor of Sen. Obama.
Mr. Schlesinger seems to dismiss the people"s decision " as though we were children, needing the guidance of our super delegates to tell us something that we ourselves are incapable of perceiving and knowing within our hearts and minds.

Question Sen. Obama"s leadership?
Convenient, when the facts dictate that it is Sen. Obama who is continuously being vetted to the exclusion of Hillary Clinton.

What might that suggest, besides a bias by the media in their failure to vet Hillary Clinton? No one questions the need to vet each candidate.
What seems suspicious and cause for alarm is the notion that only one candidate should be vetted. The question becomes: whose agenda is being served by such a process " that clearly appears to protect Hillary Clinton from the serious questions about ethics and integrity regarding the management of the public"s trust to the myopic suggestion that somehow " it is only Sen. Obama who should be scrutinized.

For example, does Mr. Schlesinger believe that the press should investigate what Hillary Clinton did with the bundled money she received from Norman Hsu, being investigated for criminal conduct regarding his financing matters that are directly linked in his contributing to Hillary Clinton"s campaign? Is that an issue that needs to be examined?
How about violations of the very rules that are supposed to protect the American people from corruption in their government? Should issues surrounding the scrutiny of campaign financing matters and its influence on the governance of the people be fully vetted and explored as it relates to the will of the people?

Let"s be transparent, shall we? Perhaps Mr. Schlesinger should define what those very core principals are by which both " Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama should be vetted in order for the American public to discern which candidate best models integrity, ethics, honesty and the upholding of the public"s trust as would clearly already have been stated through the expression of where the majority of their votes stand.

[lifeinfullcolor]

I heard that Mr. Hsu, was using a public defender, shouldn't all the money he's given to campaigns go back to the taxpayers?

[Morcat]

All of the people haven't spoken, yet. There are 16 more states left.

[Ivotedemocrat]

Nice try. Hillary has actually won the popular vote when the votes in Florida and Michigan are taken into consideration. The primaries are not even finished yet. Write your argument again after all primaries are finished! As for vetting candidates, McCain and Clinton have been vetted for years! The Obama newcomer is the one that needs to be vetted. Also, please don't preach about ethics, integrity, and honesty since there are many questions concerning Obama and these championed traits.

[eddiestardust]

From the Associate Press:

Dems can't win without Superdelegates:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY742M_s1ttD_ycf2Zusn1o1fD3QD8V86DDO0

[zava91910]

hey buddy,

The most important thing to remember if you want to sound credibly is NOT shouting the loudest or using sarcasm (even if sarcasm is the most fun).

Simple point: YOU ARE WRONG. Obama is leading the national popular vote even when Florida and Michigan are taken into consideration.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[Twocentsworth245]

Most interesting, Mr. Schlesinger! Fascinating! So it appears that Obama's smugness regarding pledged delegates MAY be somewhat premature, eh? Ah! So the plot thickens in this ever-intriguing Democratic "Race to the Nomination '08." What's NOT to like!

[CalliDem]

Why do you think the Donna Brazill group are threatening to leave they party unless BO wins. Why do you think they are playing the politics of FEAR ... OMG ... there will be RIOTING IN THE STREETS
Why do you think they are bulling SuperDels to CHANGE their votes to BO. Why are they doing EVERYTHING they can to get Hillary to drop out. WHY are they ignoring FLA and MI when several other states changed their primary dates and were NOT punished?

Do the MATH

[Ivotedemocrat]

Well written. Strong arm the opposition with bullying tactics. If you can't win fair and square, do what you need to do to get the desired result.

[WaveFunction]

Except for that part where they ARE winning fair and square, and the idea that superdelegates would overrule the winner in both popular votes and pledged delegates is at the very least offensive, at the very most abhorrent and reprehensible.

Sadly, no, the only people who would be using bullying tactics to wrest the nomination away would be the Clinton team. And the only people playing fear politics are the people playing ads on TV implying that if you don't elect them to office YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN GRAVE DANGER.

[Gilda]

Because Hillary Clinton is a loser?

[terraprieto]

Hillary has been vetted and HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE to 45% of the electorate, who won't vote for her under any circumstances. If the Democrats want to win, they have to nominate Anybody But Hillary. That's been true since she announced her candidacy, and it's true now.

Hillary was given the choice to go out classy or ugly, and she chose ugly (no surprise). She might get an ugly win of the Democratic nomination, but it will inevitably lead to a big loss in the fall.

Hillary won't be able to pretend that 'Ohio is the new Iowa' when she's up against McCain.

[ashcom]

I am impressed with Hillary and Barack.

Hillary is more seasoned, and would make a great president. Her time is now. Barack will not lose his verve, and will make a great president in four years or in eight years. There could be Democrats in office for 16 years with Clinton/Obama followed by Obama/???.

What in your mind is so wrong with Clinton? She is intelligent, has both maturity and wisdom, with an impatience that she has learned to temper. Obama is intelligent, can accomplish much within a Democratic majority in congress and a Democratic administration -- whether as a Senator or as Vice President. He can be influential and effective for years to come. Together, they can be one heck of a team.

I want both! And I want them to get together and WIN. Either way, It would be great to see Edwards as Attorney General and Richardson as Secretary of State. We have so many strong Democrats. -- It's great to see the pendulum swinging back towards center again.

As far as party politics go, those active in the parties over the long haul have developed rules and procedures. Those who disagree with those rules and procedures should get involved -- and stay involved and work to make those changes. But those changes should come from within. The critiques are valid, but the bashing, in my opinion, is not.

Change has been in the wind for several years now. And it has been a concerted effort by many that has set the stage for change.

I agree with Obama, it is time that we work together.

[gallonjug]

I would've agreed wholeheartedly before she played the muslim card. If she is willing to stoop to that level, I don't want her representing me. Period.

[Ivotedemocrat]

Practically the same amount of people view Obama the same way. There is barely a difference, so please don't be so selective about what you right. One recent survey showed that 43% of people polled would never vote for Barack. Wow, what a difference, don't you think?

[TishiJo]

The selection of the nominee cannot go against the will of the people, and the rules cannot be changed within the party in regard to Michigan and Florida because all that has been accomplished for our party in this primary will be lost. What Democratic party leaders have valued in their endorsements of Senator Barack Obama is the fact that Obama has literally strengthened the Democratic party, inspired millions to become active in our government in unprecedented numbers. They know that he brings amazing intelligence, integrity, judgment and leadership to the candidacy. America will see a revolution or complete return to apathy towards the Democratic party if a behind doors decision over-rules the will of the people (to the delight of the GOP). Many will even see recent excessive badgering by the press, as a lynching.
In addition, too many people have learned to thier horror, of the willingness of Hillary Clinton to smear Obama with blatant lies. She has exposed her true colors to many in her base. In her efforts to win at any cost, she damages the party and undoes the remarkable phenomenon that has occurred in our country. Obama has raised more money from grassroots supporters, he has earned more delegates and even with pledged super delegates, he has the numbers. She can only take the party down with her unfair self serving petition for Michigan and Florida.

[Ivotedemocrat]

I am a Florida voter and a life long Democrat since I first started voting in 1976. The voters in Florida went to the polls on primary day in record numbers. Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama handily. What is unfair is that Florida voters do not have a say in this nominating process. It is the height of hypocrisy to see so many fellow Democrats try to negate Florida's votes. You were all for "let the votes count" when Gore was contesting the votes during his election run, but our current situation doesn't matter to you. The BIG difference this time is that there were no shenanigans during the voting process. The voting took place fairly. Floridians opted to vote even though we were being told that our votes would mean nothing. What does this say about the current Democratic Party? It tells me that there is a problem at the highest levels that should be addressed. In the mean time, let our votes count. We are being denied a right that is constituionally guaranteed. how would you like it if your vote did NOT count? What disturbs me is that while you are smearing Hillary, you should be looking at your "Democratic" candidate and asking how he can be so undemocratic.

[Horatio]

The big differenence is that Florida and Michigan ignored the rules set out by the DNC and then agree upon by the states in question.

[TishiJo]

Hillary Clinton did not object to the ruling against Michigan & Florida when it was incurred, and agreed with all Dem candidates not to campaign there. She had no objection to Florida and Michigan not receiving delegates when they broke the rules until after Obama became competitive and actually beat her in the early primaries. It was to her great advantage that the other candidates did not hold rallies or town hall meetings because she is well known while Obama is new on the campaign trail. Fact is, that when he holds rallies and people get to know him, they wholeheartedly support him. In my opinion, she tricked the other candidates by leaving her name on the ballot. I am not smearing Hillary! Her concern for Florida's voters is disengenuous or she would've protested in the beginning until waiting until she was the only one on the ballot. Everything I have said above has been widely reported.

[GeorgiaOrwell]

The rules were clarified in advance and this is backpeddling. Florida knew it risked losing its votes and yet chose to ignore the rules by setting the primary early. Why then is this unfair? Get over it.

[Gilda]

I support Obama, and even if he had won Florida, I think changing the "rules" all
parties agreed to, after a held election, smacks of voter rigging.
Maybe it is time for fresh blood in the state(s) and national democratic parties,
since they appear to be all assholes. Their internal fighting is so precious. Keep up the good work. Don't beg me to make a donation to your "cause."

Watch for Independent voter numbers to skyrocket.

[mjc]

Political parties are NOT part of the American Constitution or any of the amendments to it. They were established early on in our history but were not under the control of the Federal government and for the most part were regulated SOMEWHAT by the states. The votes in the caucuses and in the primaries are not part of the "will of the people" in that sense. The rules are made up by the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the Independent Party...,if there is such, and indeed they can be changed. That is what is being proposed, that the votes in Florida count since all the Democratic candidates names were on it, and that there be a PRIMARY in Michigan. Primaries are the best of the selection process because it allows more voters to vote and because it can be limited to Democrats in the Democratic primary and Republican in the Republican primary. The Republican party has their nominee. The Democrats do not. That is in the interest of fairness. If Obama objects to those states having some sort of delegation to the convention to represent their voters, he will be going against ALL fairness and democratic principles that he is supposed to be such a shiny spokesman for. And if he were to get the Democratic nomination he would probably have one helluva time taking those important states in the national election.

[Janskats]

It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could justify the concept of a "superdelegate", no matter who you support! It's even more ludicrous (and I never thought I could say this) than the Electoral College! At least the Electoral College had a purpose, once upon a time..back when few people could read and the "latest" news came from the town crier, riding from town to town on horseback. Of all the anti-democratic concepts though, "Superdelegates" wins the dolly! If someone can explain why several hundred people, who will have presumeably already voted ONCE in their own primary/caucus..and who are not, in kind, even elected to be delegates, but are appointed, by virtue of their past and present positions or because they know someone..are NOW going to be able to vote TWICE, without ANY regard for the already expressed will of the party's great and vast membership? HUH?? Could there be a more patronizing, non-representative system? Why bother to go through all the time and expense of holding primaries, when we can just let the party hierarchy pick the nominee and be done with it! We actually think, after approving of a set-up like this, that we have any right whatsoever to criticize Russia's elections?

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

Accordingly, you and your cohort must then either WIN control of the Dem. Party.....OR organize a NEW political party along the absolute, egalitarian lines you espouse. A rule change is not warranted because you WISH it so.....

[accountability]

I agree with the electoral college.
It is definitely time to get rid of it.

But then we all say that every 4 years but we never make it happen.

sigh

From what I've read here at some point this week, the super delegates are an insurance of some sort... for instance suppose someone like David Dukes got the popular vote and someone else got more delegates but no one actually got the amount needed, the super delegates step in to make a decision based on the good of the country and good of the party. Obviously we wouldn't want a David Dukes as President.

I want a popular vote and be done with it.
That to me would be the fair way to do it and announce it now before anyone knows what the popular vote will be.

Everyone is so nuts about this.
It's no big deal... I mean having the primary continue.

Its good to see Democracy at work up close and in our faces. How can we change what we don't like if we aren't ever aware of it.
It also gives us a closer look, a more detailed look at how each candidate deals with what comes at them. That is the primary process purpose.
People seem to think Clinton "went negative" and how vicious and unprincipled she is.
That is a distinctive non objective approach or point of view.

I've been watching elections since JFK/Nixon and what we have been seeing in this election has been remarkably civil.

Neither candidate has been inexcusably nasty and neither of them has been innocent.

Clinton does it one way, a way that is easier to detect and smack down.
Obama does it another way that is not as easy to detect.

He has a more passive aggressive way that is difficult to engage with, she has a more right in front of you, no guessing way.
He is somewhat disingenuous when he says she has thrown the kitchen sink or suggesting dirty tricks. After the racism card being inserted by the O campaign. (there is a clip on you tube with Russert asking him about it and he admits it... obviously not covered.) it isn't really fair to say she is pulling dirty tricks since they did it themselves.

Each candidate has to play with their strengths, each candidate MUST do what they can to win, Why? because we want a President who will not quit on us and this is where we see what they are made of. If someone is going to fold because things get nasty it isn't a good sign... not because it signifies weakness, but because it draws a line that the other party, or another country/government knows that they can cross without fear.
If someone is so fierce that they will not give up the other party then knows it will not be easy to screw with them and more importantly that another country who may have an agenda or desire to weaken us for whatever reason it is good if they see someone who does what it takes and can play hardball if need be.

All that being said I know that we all don't want to think that hardball is a desirable quality in a person, certainly not in our President, not in a Progressive.
There is also the matter of Ruthlessness... it is only called ruthless against who we don't like, it is called steely resolve or strength in who we do.
We do need it in President.

Personally IO wish everyone would chill and stop all the attacking back and forth between us, the voters and supporters. We are the ones causing the divisiveness not the candidates. Watching Democracy in action is informative, instructive for future activism hopefully.

I don't buy it when people say well, if Hillary is the candidate I won't vote... so the inspiration to be involved isn't real then. Wanting to change the structure and how things are done is something that comes from deep in your gut and requires commitment, tenacity, hard work, frustration, grass roots organization, networking, learning about how things work and figuring out where to shine the laser beam on what needs to change.

There is a lot of work to do and if you just say well, screw it, if my person isn't President then I'm not interested?

Why not? Would the candidate?
You need to do the grunt work, its never given it to you.

What we are seeing today is not some kind of tragedy or a battle between good and evil.
What we are seeing is the result of all the grunt work done over decades to change the inequalities and injustices in our world. This didn't just happen.

Sometimes I don't think younger people get the momentousness of this moment and what it took to get here. It is understandable because if people in their twenties or thirties have no idea that things were any other way than they are now. (not everyone of course) Some people do not know who President Kennedy was!
Seriously.
Vietnam?

So they don't know, didn't witness or participate in the gruntwork to bring us here. Maybe that is why their is so much ugliness because they don't appreciate the historicity.
I don't know. It is disappointing though.

sorry, I'm rambling.

I say lets all breathe and gear up to find a way to do the work we want done no matter who is President.

I guarantee you it will not be easy no matter who the President is... but it will be a lot easier if it is a Democrat, even if it is Hillary Clinton.


but not if we don't do the work.

Breathe.
Make love not war.
Breathe in pace.

[plooger]

It's not so much that anyone is really denying what the rules are or what *could* happen regarding the superdelegates, it's just that, given this year's unique characteristics, such an "override" may be irreparably harmful to Dem prospects in November.

Hillary needs to pull *much* closer in pledged delegates, or even pass Obama by, to avoid causing an implosion.

[DRHoen]

Clinton probably won by her attacks on Obama, such as "it's 3 a.m. and would your children be safe if you elect Obama" and "McCain has more experience than Obama". Many democrats see these attacks as divisive and counterproductive - in fact I have a hard time understanding how anyone could fail to recognize that this may help McCain. There are also some even darker problems - like Clinton's behavior on "60 Minutes" and the propagation of Obama-is-a-Muslim rumors by unknown people, to Clinton's benefit.

These hardly seem strong arguments, one might hope, to convince the Democratic Party that you are the best candidate.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

.....and tossing off a chain of airy words like "unity," "hope," "change," etc. are "STRONG ARGUMENTS"?The television AD may "strike you" as "divisive and counterproductive," but they MAY have helped HRC garner more votes than Obama. It's part of legitimate disquisition and PERSUASION that are intrinsic to POLITICS. Otherwise, a campaign is little more than a "play time" exercise....for toddlers....unaware of their soiled nappies.....

[Barbarossa03]

At least "unity", "hope", and "change" are not divisive as the slime that Hilary is trying to spew. It was Hilary that drew first blood against Obama's message of change and hope after he picked up a victory in Iowa.