by Taylor Marsh
This is classic.
Obama on superdelegates last week:
Obama said superdelegates "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.' "
AXELROD: I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party...
LAUER: David, you're not answering. Should those two senators vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?AXELROD: I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country. And I think that we need the strongest possible candidate against John McCain...
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pimping
When it comes to hypocrisy, the Clintons really get first prize on classic hypocrisy and outright lies and deception.
A big difference and a telling one, I think.
What we have here is a case of Obama saying something with total integrity, while his campaign manager hems and haws and spins and hedges his bets, refusing to directly answer the question. If anything, it shows that Obama isn't beholden to those who whisper in his ear and that he has his own clear and independent sense of judgment.
Obama's comment couldn't be more crystal clear, and while it contradicts his own adviser has said, so what? You can't blame Obama for saying these words because he hasn't. He should disavow Axelrod's comments about Massachussetts and reiterate his stance.
However, in Clinton's case, it's not her advisor doing the spinning and hemming and hawing. She doing it herself. Again.
That is the main difference between the two candidates, and why I'm choosing integrity and consistency over cynicism.
Obama was able to get all the other candidates removed from the ballot because some came up a few signatures short, and the timing of this political maneuver was within a few days of the election, therefore the candidates did not have time to obtain new signatures and have them validated by the board of elections.
This tactic though legal in its nature, was in essence unfair to the voters of Illinois because it deprived them of the opportunity to choose from a fair slate of candidates. Some might even say the voters were "Disenfranchised" the current Obama supporters favorite buzzword. So in the end Obama was the only candidate on the ballot, and this story is not a "Fairytale".
LOL*
I didn't expect to see this from you. I'm glad to hear that when Obama wins the majority of the state contests, you're going to support the Superdelegates choosing to support him!
:)
I hope that if Clinton wins a minority but pulls over the superdelegates, I'll get to read your outrage.. and your supporting an Obama nomination in the face of the establishment.
You can also count all delegates OR all voters. Not some delegates and some voters and some states. No more and no less. This is the only “democratic” solution that is both “ethical” and does not disenfranchise voters who have already voted. Nor does this change the rules of the game because an election was held a different day or whatever internal gripe exists in the party.
The current endless permutations will only give life to additional “corruption” issues with the Democrats. It is amazing every rationalization to the contrary continue to be oblivious to this obvious blind spot and fundamental flaw in objective thought.
Keeping this issue unresolved helps Obama since objectively he is way behind, but the media and the campaign can portray him as the leader and thus increase his non-objective lead.
What this all means is that the objective best candidate thus far against McCain may not win the primary. The flawed truth in the primary will be stunningly evident in the presidential election since that system with all its issues will be more honest than the Democratic Primary.
In the future would too much to suggest the obvious - a primary that resembles the actual election the nominee will participate in and try to win? Or we would rather continue to select the best checkers players for the upcoming chess match again.
The Democrats - in the process of snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory. Again?
SORRY, BUT THOSE ARE DNC’s RULES. All the Democratic candidates agreed to this, including Senator Hillary Clinton (who now wants to change the rules in mid-campaign because her loosing the nomination is imminent).
Don’t be mad at Senator Obama. Be mad at your Florida state legislature for silencing your vote (same for those who voted and live Michigan).
As for the inane criticism of Senator Obama and David Axelrod, Ms. Marsh, you clearly do not “have it.”
It was best that David Axelrod did not answer the question directly. Because, as Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist and former chief political consultant to Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said in his essay in this Sunday’s past NYTimes Op-Ed, ‘superdelegates... were created to... provided the margin of victory to the candidate who had won the most support from primary and caucus voters... The superdelegates were never intended to be part of the dash from Iowa to Super Tuesday and beyond. They should resist the impulse and pressure to decide the nomination before the voters have had their say.’
One more point to Ms. Marsh, and all Democrats in Florida and Michigan who may now be harping for Florida’s and Michigan’s primary votes to be counted: The record shows the more divided the party, the more likely it is to lose in November. There have been three divided Democratic conventions in recent decades – 1968, 1972 and 1980. Democrats lost each time.
GET IT, NOW?
Although since there's no one else left (except maybe Gravel), I guess I'm now a Hillary supporter by default, but I will vote for either of them in November because as far as I'm concerned the only difference between them is that he has a Y chromosome and more melanin in his skin and she has two X's and less. Their policy positions are virtually identical and either would be VASTLY better than John McCain or any other Repug.
Article. II. - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
So there you have it. While it isn't illegal to have Representatives and Senators acting as electors (superdelegates) choosing a candidate, it seems to me the Democratic party is, at the least, going against the intent of the founders.
Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep the INTENT throughout the entire (primary) process. Just a thought, Lynnn.
great, taylor: you are now qualified to replace tim russert.