The idea behind superdelegates is very similar to the idea behind the electoral college in the US constitution. Both aren't truly democractic (emphasis on small "d") but that is the nature of our country that we don't have unrestrained democracy. I think placing the honus on Clinton to step down though is unfair because if Obama could've won the requisite number of delegates outright then this wouldn't be an issue. At the same time if you are arguing this from the small 'd' democractic standpoint Clinton trails Obama by only about 500K votes and if Florida and Michigan are counted she would be ahead of Obama in popular votes. Perhaps Obama shoud step down for the good of the party then.
I don't think it's just Obama supporters that are getting upset anymore. I think the country is starting to get Hillary fatigue. She can't mathematically get those votes to get the nomination. So now its up to the Superdelegates to steal the election for her. The longer this drags out the worse its going to get. How does this make it better for Obama? Even when he wins, how is he going to unite the Democratic party after all the damage Hillary is going to do in 2 months before the General election?
Nor has he ever dismissed the voters in those states as irrelevant or second-class. I think if you polled people and asked "should the delegates you voted for vote the way your state wanted them to", the vast majority of people would be on one side of that poll. It has nothing to do with Obama supporters or Clinton supporters. It's pretty much common sense. Like I said, there's a difference between ethical and legal. I'm not arguing it's not legal. There's a reason it's legal - it's to allow the delegates to deal with a situation where a massive scandal takes place and the party pretty much agrees that the candidate needs to be removed late in the process. It's not made legal so that candidates in a competitive election can essentially bribe delegates (that's how you turn them - offer jobs in an administration, etc) in order to negate the vote of the people. Ethical vs legal. That's the difference. There's a huge difference between a good President and a good Candidate. Hillary is certainly the latter. Both candiates are sticking it out to win. One is just far more willing to destroy everything in her path - including her own party - to get there. If you don't have a problem with a Presidential candidate that dismisses 40+ states in the country as unimportant, and criticizes substantial portions of her own party's base as irrelevant (latte-sippers not needing a President, etc), then we simply disagree on what makes a good leader.
She's not even talking about superdelegates anymore. She's talking about *pledged* delegates. Those are the ones apportioned based on the vote. These are the most dedicated supporters of each candidate (hand-picked). The only way they don't vote for their candidate is essentially through bribery - promises of job offers and the like. If she actually intends to pursue those delegates, that's the only way it will happen. And that will destroy the party from the bottom up. If people thought having superdelegates overturn the vote would cause all hell to break lose, that would be *nothing* compared to what would happen if she got pledged delegates to switch. Realistically, it will never happen because of the nature of those pledged delegates. And the party would turn on her in a heartbeat if she tried it. But it's just amazing she's even talking about that as an option right now.
Gotcha! So basically she is going after the 17 delegates in my precinct? Good luck in trying to change their minds. LOL
Well, if you are talking about flip-flopping, I know at least two things Obama flip-flopped: 1. He promised to not to attack Clinton but now he decided to attack after his recent losses. 2. Obama made a pledge to use public financing in the general election but now since he found that he can raise a hell lot in private, he is backpedalling it. Obama is just a seasoned politician like Clinton. But in the eyes of Obama supporters, everything he does is ethical and godly....
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vh3BgMbqdDM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vh3BgMbqdDM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kL3_JOl_PIE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kL3_JOl_PIE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Funny, this article's premise is that Obama voters will go to Hillary if she wins, but look at the poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...issippi10mar10,1,3144989.story?vote36461086=1 Nearly 15,000 votes, and McCain just edges Hillary but Obama trounces McCain (72%-28%) in this non-scientific but interesting poll.
I don't believe that Hillary's campaign believes that Obama in the whitehouse means that we might all die and our children will no longer be safe if he's in the whitehouse. If that is what she believes then she's incredibly stupid, and her "experience" taught her nothing of how decisions are made by the President. There isn't just one person making decisions. It comes down to a team of people using other teams of people's intel, facts, relationship with allies etc. in order to make those decisions. I don't think Hillary or her campaign are that stupid. The message of the campaign is clear. If Obama is the President your children aren't safe. She further engages in this by saying that McCain is more ready to be CC than Obama. Not really. The only thing I have against Hillary is her sleazy style. That won't damage her in a general election against the GOP. Obama's attacks are about her judgement, her health care, and her unwillingness to be open about the experience she is boasting about. None of those things would hurt her in a general election against John McCain. Saying that She and McCain have the experience necessary to be CC, and Obama doesn't, would hurt Obama.
1. He has not attacked her since losing Ohio and Texas. I haven't seen the flip flop. Just your claim that it will happen. On the contrary she's come out and said McCain is more fit to be the CC and her campaign compared Obama to Ken Star. 2. Nothing has been decided about the public financing, and even at the time Obama left in the clause to negotiate it. 2.
An article from the Feb 19th Politico where the Clinton campaign denies going after Obama pledged delegates.
I think he will reward his supporters for their support and efforts in his campaign. I don't think he's gotten that support by offering them anything though (campaigns don't need to - they have enough hyper-supportive people in any given state already). The difference is that they are supporters first, instead of being converted to supporters by bribes.
There's no hoping to it. Internet polls are dominated by the young and upper class. If they had any meaning, Ron Paul would be not only in the race but dominating the Republican race right now... instead of claiming under 5 percent nationally. http://majorityrights.com/index.php...demolishes_other_republicans_in_online_polls/
Yet again, the Clinton camp is denying that they'll go after the pledged delegates. This is the second time they've brought it up and then denied it the next day. I'm not sure what the purpose is. Bizarre. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm...ign_No_change_on_pledged_delegate_stance.html
