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

[fullkelly]

This is the same problem people like Obama have in running for this position to begin with---They know nothing about the historical precedents that go into electing our nations highest officials. They try to make up the rules as they go. they try to change the rules, regulation, and laws to suit themselves. It is the same as Obama trying to tell US forget about what I said about NAFTA , it doesn't count , unless it benefits me.

[HowardRoarke]

Kinda the same way you repeating a story discredited by the Canadian government proves you'll repeat lies, as long as they benefit you (or your candidate).

[mjc]

Howard, there was indeed a meeting and it generally was to stress that Obama did not, does not, want to be taken at the words he mouthed. Sorry, the facts are not with you on this one.

[cincigal]

It is so encouraging to see that many people are starting to see this charlton for what he truly is before we actually allow a gang of radicals to hand him the keys to our country without questioning him and demanding straight answers.

[jstock]

Changing the rules as you go is what the Clintons are doing. Trying to go back and get credit for MI and FL? She agreed before the primary season had begun to the rules, one of which was that the Michigan and Florida delegates wouldn't be seated. She knew this and agreed to it - until it turned out the pledged delegates would be at a premium, at which point she did precisely what you ironically accuse Obama of doing. And the Clinton Camp moves the goal post on a daily basis.

BTW, Clinton gave us NAFTA, and Obama has been consistently against it, although he's nowhere near as "protectionist" as I would like. The Canadian government backs up Obama's story, so, once again, it appears the Clintons are playing with the truth.

Bottom line, the one with the most votes, regardless of which states these votes were received in, should be our party's nominee. This is what democracy is supposed to be all about. Shouldn't the party who takes it very name from the word "democracy" practice what it preaches?

[GeorgeKaplan]

If Hillary has the power to change the rules... she would already be the nominee. People die in Iraq to vote so... why can't we run an election in America.

"Changing the rules as you go is what the Clintons are doing."

[cincigal]

Exactly right,and Hillary has more votes over all because she has won all the larger states,without having to share the votes,as is the case in delegates.­The states Egobama has won are small and sparsely populated.­There is no way to spin this any other way Hillary wins.

[TimSearl]

Just how did that Adlai Stevenson Presidency go? Bit like that Walter Mondale Presidency. Split the Democratic party using loathsome fearmongering and racism and expect to win the Presidency? She is poisoning the water because if she doesnt get the nomoination she wants to make sure that Obama can't win in November. As a result both may become unelectable. I guess this is what she wants.

[bestyf]

and in addition to that, is all the young people who are for the first time excited by a candidate and his party. They could all be sent in the other direction quickly if they feel the Democratic party has let them down. We can keep them to build the Democratic party of the future, or lose them and our chances for any real future. I don't think Hillary Clinton cares about any of that. Even her own positive comments comparing she and McCains "experience" shows she cares little about her party.

[DTGB]

but you're forgetting that it is VOTERS who have kept the Clinton campaign alive, so you are saying that almost as many people who have voted for Obama care little about our party and our country. i seriously doubt that is the case and i refuse to question other's patriotism based on their candidate choices.
And enough about these young voters, i believe it is their duty to participate, not their perogative. i've been voting since i was 18, i've seen my chosen nominee lose many times and i still vote, i always have. what is it w these kids that they always have to win or they drop out? i didnt want john kerry to be my nominee, i didnt want bush to be my president but i didnt give up, i fought harder, there's always the next election. what little fortitude these young people have if thats their attitude.
democracy requires participation to work and it has no guarantee that we like the outcome. considering that they are "young" and the next president could possibly pick up to 3 supreme court justices, its seems even more self defeating that they would throw a tantrum if they don't get their way and let McOldy win and stack the courts for the rest of their lives.
i think it is very sad to read post after post from supporters on both sides of the primary who are threatening to walk away from the process if their candidate loses. it's pathetic.
I'M A DEMOCRAT AND I WILL VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IN NOVEMBER, i encourage all of you to do the same b/c regardless of how much you hate, loath, detest EITHER OBAMA OR CLINTON, i can guarantee you that you will HATE McOLDY MORE!
wake up people, this is about ALL of us, not each of you. it's not "yes we can" or "yes she wil", it's LET'S PUT A DEM IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER.

[cincigal]

No,this is not what she wants.She is running for President,in case you hadnt noticed.An­d she has won all the states with the most votes required to win in November,the real election .Egobama hasnt won even one.Get with the program.

[TimSearl]

It is the swing states that matter. Can you please get off your program and start to THINK?

[Herrington]

1912, 1932 and 1952 are not examples of a superdelegate decision process. The superdelegate system was put in place in 1984. The cited nominations were before a national system of primaries was put in place, hence were decided by party bosses. Superdelegates are intended as a safety valve if something goes terribly wrong in the nomination phase, because the primaries are locked in time and cannot consider current conditions. The poster's arguments are based on false assumptions.

[cincigal]

You are the one who is confused.S­top with the intimidations.

[Herrington]

Since when are the facts intimidating?

[patrice37]

Ah, yes, let's do things the way we did in 1912. Are you serious?

[Davwbaird]

1912 is in the past as is the stevenson election.T­hings have way changed and the party of the people need to listen to the people, for we stand before a deep crevace and a leap of faith is all w2e have left.

[cincigal]

You can have your leap of faith.But not at the expense of my country and its citizens.T­his is why we need the super delegates,to protect the nation and it's citizens from the loonatics who are just looking for a god to worship,who will preach hope,inspiration and change,instead of cleaning up the mess created by just such a one they are trying to push us into voting for.You can have your little tin god.We want good jobs,universal health care and peace and prosperity­.Hillary is the one.

[falgiano]

ha ha. good one.

[editrix66]

Women couldn't vote in 1912, and blacks were disenfranchised in the South. Do you want to go back to that voting practice too? The reason we had the primary system pushed during the Progressive Era was to prevent the smoke-filled room--to increase democracy, not to reduce it.

[swanky]

The party should pick the candidate who has proven that they can win in the important states. He wins states that the democrats cannot win in a general election. Why should he be anointed king of the party? He can't win the states that matter. He'll get trounced everywhere except Illinois. Come on and wake up. No state he has won will go blue in November. This is going to the convention. Right now the only thing Obama can do is scare the voters by saying that McCain is getting a free pass. He knows he'll lose at the convention. All he has to do is scare the voters by raising the specter of a Republican President. He has to. He can't start lobbing salvo's at McCain, cuz McCain and Hillary will gang up on him. What's left? Fear!!! That's his ace in the hole. Watch.

Great article.

[Davwbaird]

Gasp are ypu saying us dems.have racist amongst ourselves?It would seem to me that showing in Ohio of both our candidates is where it is at. We can only win Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin with both on the ticket.

[mshawn]

This is a baseless, ridiculous assertion. Does anyone truly believe that New York, Massachusetts or California would go for McCain in the general election? Of course they wouldn't. As Hillary's camp loves to say, winning votes in a democratic primary is not the same as winning votes in a general election. Every state-by-state poll conducted shows Obama doing better in the electoral college versus McCain than Hillary would do. Obama's the stronger general election candidate. Even the majority of Hillary voters think so.

[swanky]

Baseless and ridiculous? I forgot that poll data is entirely accurate. California, Texas, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, shall I continue -Obama's ability to close the gap and pull ahead, according to the polls, were constructed out of whole cloth; if I was an Obama supporter I'd be extremely concerned with that. New Yorkers are soured on Obama. Hillary's real popular here - especially among working men and women; McCain knows this and he'll use it to win NY. If you knew anything about electoral politics in the NE you'd know that NY goes blue based on the results from two counties - Niagara and Erie - NYC is a given for any democrat; but Obama's got no working class cred within the rust belt of the state, and those two counties are NY's swing counties. NY, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx are the only true-blue counties. Everything else goes bright red, unless you can swing the working class. She can - no way Obama can. If he got trounced in every single working-class district, what's gonna happen in the general? Same thing that happened to Kerry. Look at where she wins - those are the voters Obama needs, yet he's repeatedly shown he can't get them.

And what majority of Hillary voters think he's a stronger general election candidate? Or are we now swapping baseless assumptions?

[cincigal]

What makes you think you know what the majority of Hillary supporters think.WHAT WE know IS THAT HILLARY IS A WINNER NOT A QUITTER NOR A LOSER.TELL YOUR LIES AND CRAP TO SOMEONE WHO WILL LISTEN.

[jmyoung666]

Actually, you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Hillary has won a number of unimportant states such as California and New York. Of course, Obama would take those in the general. The democrats could run a fycus and it would take those states. Obama may actually take some traditionally red states. Hillary probably will not. If the superdelegates give the nomination to Hillary you will disillusion many of Obama's current supporters and McCain will likely win. A Hillary/Obama ticket would be the only way Hillary could win office.

[swanky]

Don't be so sure. He had two senators and a governor from Mass endorse him there and he got soundly trounced. Dems are centrists in the big states. Tacking to the left only leaves him vulnerable in the general election. And what traditionally red states could he take? Next thing I'll start reading around here is what a great idea it is that Bob Shrum and Donna Brazile are going to run his campaign. Republicans come out and vote against Hillary in the primaries (how that's allowed I'll never be able to wrap my head around) and she still beats him.

[pgate127]

SPLAT!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!

Oh...excus­e me while I clean off my computer screen, now that I sprayed coffee all over it.

New York and California­...UNIMPOR­TANT?

jmyoung666, New York and California are the reason we will never move from an electoral system to a popular vote system. The sheer number of people in those states overwhelms the process. But more important, the diversity of those two states more truly reflects the overall makeup of the US than, say, North Dakota.

You are also a bit confused about how the general election will work. People will actually vote all day long, as their schedule permits, in the privacy of a voting booth. They will not be required to show up at a particular hour and stand with their friends in public. They will not have to let anyone know that they decided they'd rather vote for an experienced McCain than an inexperienced Obama.

I have three words for you: George Bush 2004. We Dems thought there was no way that we couldn't win that one, either...b­ut when it came right down to it, too many supposed Dems went into that booth, held their nose and belayed their Rove-driven fears by pulling the Bush lever.

I want to win. I want a candidate that can carry the swing states. Frankly, I don't consider Wyoming one of them.

[LTCKal]

Mr. Schlesinger is right on target. The broader issue is the passing of generations, the older not willing to yield or even accept the younger, no matter what damage it does to its cause. This is a phenomenon happening in other American institutions. The American Legion and the VFW are both losing members because they won't criticize the Iraq policy of this administration -- the new veterans won't sign up and the old ones are dying off. Ditto Kiwanis clubs, Rotaries, and the like.
With the Democratic party, the Obama phenomenon has provided a whole legion of new, young enthusiastic supporters as well as a new source of funding that does not need lobbyists. What more would anyone want. I hope there is enough wisdom in the older generation to see this. If somehow Hillary wrests this nomination, this new group will disappear; instead the older group will have to rely on the same base that failed to elect Kerry. Are the superdelegates wise enough to catch on to this, or are they willing to hold on to the diminishing status quo? I really don't know what the answer will be, only that this 68 year old is hoping that the torch will be passed with a great deal of gratitude to Bill, Hillary, Al, John and all the others who fought the good fight!

[eddiestardust]

Heck, which generation?

Obama is older than most of his supporters.

And he is only 6 years younger than myself.

I'm voting for someone a bit older, not McCain

[swanky]

Doesn't need lobbyists? What about the SEIU? The Teamsters? MoveOn? What are those? They're lobbyists. Don't say that Barack is pure when he's doing the same things that Hillary is doing. You can't have it both ways.

[cincigal]

The point is not,being willing to "pass the torch",but being careful not to pass it to a radical out of control gang of cut throat individuals who want to change all the rules and laws to fit their own personal agendas.Yo­u are confused by all the rhetoric put out by these radicals and their tin god who would be our king if they had their way.

[davg]

The historical anecdotes are interseting but not very relevant. Not relevant because in this day and age, the electorate are under the impression that they choose the nominee. Technically, you're right, Hillary could win after coming in 2nd in the popular vote and pledged delegates. And technically, the supers could put Hillary over the top, despite all of that. But practically, a lot of Obama supporters will be outraged and stay home in November (that is if they don't go vote for Mac). And practically, most of those independent votes that Obama garnered will be lost to McCain.

Hillary already suffers from a reputation of being politically ruthless with a propencity to use underhanded tactics if that's what's required (part of the Clinton baggage she has to carry). This will only serve to drive home the point. She will lose support of many democrats, despite pleas from Obama himself to support her. It has to do with character.

So yes, she could win by virtue of a super delegate "save". But she'll probably lose in November. She's already behind in those polls, has (and will continue to) promote experience over relative inexperience in the primary (someting the McCain camp won't forget to mention later on) and is a deeply polarizing figure who will only make herself even more polarizing in the process.

If, by some miracle, she were elected president, she would not only have to deal with a pissed-off GOP, but also a still angry and uncooperative half of the democrats, led by none other than Ted Kennedy himself, just like he did in the Carter years. From having a slim chance of passing her legislative agenda, she would now have virtually no chance at all.

If she has fewer pledged delegates that Obama come June 8th, she should drop out... as a practical matter. If, on the other hand, she can somehow get more pledged delegates than Obama, I'm behind her all the way.

[AnninCA]

Well, as thte front-runner, Obama had the perogative, rightly so, to get out front and set the agenda for how people view the delegates and Super Delegates, etc.

Hillary really could not mount an argument UNTIL she met her commitment to her supporters to win the big states. OK, so now.......­she did it.

Now, her campaign can begin to discuss this issue with more credibility. Clearly, she has a very strong argument to be heard.

Clearly, the question of why he cannot close the process even with the money he raised is on the minds of a lot of people.

He'll continue to spin that it's all about delegate count, but that's false.

And right now, the expectation is high that she'll be equally strong in yet another big state: Pennsyvania.

I believe right now she's very close in popularity vote if you add in Florida and Michigan, so those states may well really have to redo their primaries to log in.

In short, the notion that he's selling: He's inevitable. That's anything but true.

The press wrote her obituary based on the false assumption that he would continue the momentum established in Wisconsin.

Penn rightfully pointed out that Wisconsin really is flukey. Penn was correct.

It's very clear from last night that she has a very solid base of supporters and actually made inroads in some other categories­......incl­uding men.

Right now, both of them have very strong arguments that they are the nominee. He has a SLIGHT edge.

[HowardRoarke]

You think there is anything Democratic at all about adding hundreds of thousands of votes to Hillary for Michigan and ZERO to Obama?

C'mon, this isn't a Castro nation. This isn't those mysterious NY Harlem precincts with 0 votes for Obama that Bloomberg called vote fraud.

If you want to be taken seriously, lets stick to REAL numbers when justifying our positions. Hillary is NOT ahead in popular vote when you exclude sham elections.

[swanky]

I think that's a very good point. I think Obama has to do more than continue to complain that because he has the delegate lead he's the winner. He needs to refocus on why he cannot beat Hillary soundly when by all reports she was dead.

[TurnThePageGA]

I will go you one further. I will argue that if she closes the pledged delegates to around 25 she gets the nomination. In order for her to do that she would have to run the table with about 57 percent of the vote. She would have won 14 straight contests including the three from last night. Other than having voted for the war and not admitting it was a mistake I would have no problem voting for her under that scenario. She would obviously leading in the other two metrics, popular vote and number of contests won. That is her task. You go Girl.

[tabatha]

the electorate has chosen

and they've chosen Hillary, in one big crucial state after another, including crucial swing states

Ohio will go red if Obama is the nominee

[cincigal]

Excuse me,you dont sound like you are behind her all the way.You sound more like an Egobama nut.

[MaureenSharkey]

Hillary, Billary, Barack!!!

Hillary, The Sage: President
Barack, The Puppy: Vice President

and Billary, well, the New Eleanor Roosevelt

[bestyf]

Hillary is no sage or Eleanore Rosevelt. Between the Clinton administration's deregulations and Nafta, her votes on the war, Patriot act, bankruptcy bill, etc. she is hardly even a Democrat. Actions speak louder than words and I don't see how you can justify all of these actions. Also, look at her campaign, it looks like the war...lack of preparation, thinking she was inevitable, not expecting Obama's popularity, having to loan your campaign money and the secrecy behind her tax returns and info about the Clinton library donors. She's only a Democrat in words.

[Horatio]

I'm not sure what your point is? We will never know how those other candidates would have fared had the superdelegates not stepped in. You're arguing a hypothetical.

[jasonsabio]

Thank you for some lovely examples of very old nominating contests all decided through back room deals and smoke filled rooms.

Of course, you are so right... Forget 2008, we should nominate our candidate just like they did in 1912! Instead of choosing our nominee based on the actual delegate count, or even the popular vote (both of which are on Obama's side), party insiders should make the decision for us!

The real history is that the Democratic party changed the nominating process after 1968 to avoid the sneaky and undemocratic nominating processes just like you mention here. Putting the vast majority of delegates in the hands of actual voters so the people can decide.

These are all examples of election situations that we should try to avoid, ones that would disenfranchise voters and ruin our chances in November, not examples of how the party can move forward.

[demfromtheD]

What absolute, total and complete BOLLOCKS.

Just because something is and has been the rule doesn't make it right. 50 years ago, when all of your examples took place, no civil rights for blacks was ALSO the rule. Does that make THAT okay? For the superdelegates to hand Clinton the nomination basically says that "we the people" don't know what we're talking about and can't be trusted to make our own decisions about who we feel should be the nominee!

THAT IS REPREHENSIBLE and flies directly into the face of EVERYTHING this country supposedly stands for!!!!!!

Unbelievable. It is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE to me that anyone would support and defend the superdelegate system. This entire debacle is making me ashamed to even be a Democrat, and if the party hands the nomination to someone OTHER THAN whoever has the most pledged delegates at the convention--whether it's Clinton or Obama, whatever--I will withdraw my membership and will never donate another penny to the party. Absolutely disgusting. We're so fond of accusing Bush of Fascism and then people like you actually SUPPORT this sort of vote rigging? What the hell is wrong with you?!

THIS SYSTEM IS WRONG. PERIOD.

[cynicism101]

demfromthed said:

"Just because something is and has been the rule doesn't make it right." and then said "flies directly into the face of EVERYTHING this country supposedly stands for!!!!!!"

One of the most prominent things this country stands for is the rule of law. Thus, if it's in the rules, and that rule is not found to be unconstitutional, ...well, then it is "right."

If you are unhappy with the "rules" the DNC employs to select the Democrat candidate for the presidency, well, the ball is in your court. If you find this to be reprehensible then you need to tell Mr Dean, and get him to change the well-known, published rules that guide the DNC.

[mjc]

Demfromthe­D....., it is not an election. The parties.., both of them..., make the rules. IT IS A SELECTION! That is why the Democratic Party decided that there would be no democratic ideals in place for Michigan and Florida. The two states broke the rules and the Party punished them.

[gallonjug]

Dear Mr. Schlesigner. Um, nobody is disputing the rule that allows superdelegates to determine the outcome of this election. Yes, we know they CAN overrule the primary results-- the question is, is that really best for the party? If you want to champion the better judgement of party insiders in picking the 'best' candidate, then why have primaries at all? What was the point of all this blood, sweat, tears and money? If you insist that the results of the primaries are irrelevant, then why not just have the party elders pick the nominee from the get go and save us all the trouble.

[cynicism101]

I read nothing in the article suggesting that the primary/caucus process is not important. This article is merely reminding us that the primary contests are not about collecting the most delegates - it's about collecting the *required* number of delegates.

Further, this really has nothing to do with the superdelegates. The three examples Mr Schlesinger cites were from 1912, 1932, and 1952. The DNC implemented "superdelegates" in 1984.

I agree with your comments about "best for the party," but that's entirely why the primary system exists. The primaries and cauci are the means for the people to inform the party of their choices - but it's the party that ultimately chooses the representative.

[eddiestardust]

Actually, it's the party members who CHOOSE to vote that gives the delegates.

[cincigal]

"the primaries and cauci are the means for the people to inform the party of their choices-but it's the party that ultimately chooses the representa­tive."You neglect to say that THE PEOPLE ARE THE PARTY.

[Truthortradition]

I'm so glad Hillary did not get slapped down again by Obama last night. I don't like this man of Muslim Heritage. Period. .
Barack has managed to divide this party right down the middle.
Black people vote for him just because he is black.
Yet, women, don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.
Wonder what would happen if no man of any color had ever been elected to the White House. Don't you think men would crawl to the poll to drag him over the finish line, regardless of whether a more qualified woman was on the ticket.
I do.

[waveali]

...And they call Republicans racist

[Janskats]

Uh-huh..mo­st of the racist, sexist comments ARE coming from Republicans trying to "pass"..bu­t ya know that already, doncha.

[kobe]

He may be wrong about Obama being a Muslim, but he is right about the reverse racism and horrible sexism that's going on here....

[ProudNeoCon]

Wow... I assume that this is a joke... I am Republican and enjoy Dems infighting. But this post is scary...

[Dalicious]

Our choices is between a man who's half white and a white who's half man.

[ducatichk]

hillary-ous

[TheAirport]

I like how "women don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman"

That's right, they don't vote for her. Obama has been chipping away at this base for weeks now, and there is a legitimate back lash among women AGAINST Clinton and FOR Obama.

But this is an abusive post and contributes nothing. Flagged.

[boyleebob]

If the superdelegates try to throw their weight around, Mccain will win in a LANDSLIDE and the gop holds the white house for at least 12 more years.

[avcar]

The results of last night’s Democratic primaries call into question some commonly-held ideas. One important issue the Democrats need to consider is electability – not in primaries, but in the general election in November. And any way one crunches the numbers one realizes that Obama can’t win in the general election.

Most of Obama’s wins in the Democratic primaries are either in caucus states (reflecting a very small and biased, and therefore unrepresentative, voter pool) or states where blacks comprise more than 20% of the population, and hence more than 40% of Democratic voters. As blacks vote almost en bloc for Obama, Clinton can’t prevail over these numbers. Unfortunately, Obama’s wins are going to become inconsequential in the general election, especially as the black vote, concentrated as it is mostly in red states, is not going to be as helpful in wining the general election. Furthermore, the small caucus states are not going to be as helpful in the general election as big primary states (there’s no comparison between a primary in California and a caucus in Idaho, I’m afraid), or the even more important swing states like Ohio and Florida. Yet another drawback is the fact that Obama is perceived as ‘progressi­ve.’ While this perception is helping him in the Democratic primaries, it is likely to hurt him in the general election. Or to put it a bit differently, what’s good in the Bay Area or Vermont is bad in the general election.

So, either the Democrats come back to their senses and back Clinton or the White House (and possibly Congress) will go to the Republicans in a landslide!

[MikeB08]

Finally, someone making clear sense. I just don't get why so many Dems don't get it. In 2004, it should have been an easy win over the Repubs and Bush but the Dems nominated a MA liberal who looked really good to progressives but didn't stand a chance to win nationally. We are well on our way to doing it again with Obama. We have to nominate someone who can win OH and PA and FL. There is no way Obama can do that in the fall. Now many would argue that neither can Clinton but if that's true it just reiterates the point. Dem voters just don't get it. Say what you will..Clin­ton bash, Obama bash, or whatever, but our only slight hope at this point is a joint ticket.

[cincigal]

WELL PUT AND RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

[Purple Girl]

Waht are You really saying- Our Democracy should be left in the hands of back room, back patting super Delegates.
Frankly you've just convinced me the system has been rigged by the elite for near a century.
Thank You for that Clear arguement which could be the opening statement to the trials that should be held agsint Public Servants and Multi Nationals which have used our Reputation, Resources and blood to pave their way.
Your point about Obama's attempts to 'sway' the elections sounds more like waht a Democracy should be.
In fact I still see no reason for an electorial College, Delegates adn certainly NOT corrupt Superdelegates.
One Person One Vote - KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid! Go ahead keep yankin Our Chain- M. Vick would have paid dearly for the Pitbulls which lie at the end of this now short leash.

[kobe]

do you realize that you are calling your own candidate corrupt?

Obama, as a senator is one of those corrupt superdelegates.

Guess what, so are Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Janet Napolitano, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Daschle and a host of others who are helping to run your campaign.

[gba]

Obama just has to win 2025 pledged delegates and no superdelegates can deny him the nomination