Ferraro is a loser backing the wrong horse. This time it's the dark horse, and elitist whiners like you, Gerry, are going to be left in the dust.

I read her comments and was seriously considering her ideas....right til the end when she started talking about the MI and FL delegates, sorry to give Hilary Clinton those delegates would simply be unfair and not necessarily representative of the wishes of Democrats in either of those two states.
If super delegates are to determine the outcome of the nomination process they should do what was the intended purpose of having them in the first place, they should choose the strongest candidate, the one most likely to bring a victory in November, which from the polls I have seen lately indicates Barack Obama. I supported Hilary Clinton off and on throughout the campaign but victory is more important to me than any individual candidate's ego or sense of entitlement.

Geraldine Ferraro not very impressive.

How about trying for Chris Dodd or someone else with current credentials.

Oh How Far Have We Come From:

"We The People"

She Keeps This Up And She Will Be In The Fucking Trash Can.

70% Of The Democrats Don't Like The Idea Of Superdelegates.

In This Day In Age Of 24 Hour News And The Information Highway, There Is No Longer The Need For Them. The American Population Is Inform.

-Sarge

I supported Hilary Clinton off and on throughout the campaign but victory is more important to me than any individual candidate's ego or sense of entitlement.

Indeed.

One can only hope. Like I have said, the entertainment value of a brokered convention would be incredible. Now that would be reality TV.

more important to me than any individual candidate's ego or sense of entitlement.

i.e. Bob Dole

Well, I have to say that Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he wants to "follow the rules" when it comes to seating the Michigan and Florida delegates, but on the other hand says that Superdelegats should follow the popular vote when in fact that is not what Superdelegates necessarily are bound to do. Well, what can you expect from the candidate that also waffles on publicn financing. "Following the rules" is only good when it benefits him.

The Superdelegates should vote as they wish.

For example, Kerry and Kennedy support Obama, does that mean they should swtich to Clinton because she won the state? when you cnosider that they both publicly stated their support for Obama before the primaries in that state, I don't think it makes sense for them to switch now. The people of the state knew well in advance who their Senators stood on the issue.

Democracy in action, apparently the democratic party is not interested in a democracy.

It will be interesting if these supposed powerhouse super democrats delegates decide to choose outside the bounds of the will of their people.

If the move away from the actual popular vote, the democratic party will surely lose the presidency and more than likely lose many of their people in the house. It will hurt the party for a very long time.

This will indeed be a good time for an independent party to take root.

Ferraro, then why even have primaries where "the people" choose their candidate? Instead, why not bypass "the people" altogether and let the elite "superdelegates" choose the candidate?

Your rationale would have us believe "it's for the party's best interest", but it's pure B.S.!!! You're an elite, arguing for oligarchy and NOT democracy.

Ferraro, then why even have primaries where "the people" choose their candidate? Instead, why not bypass "the people" altogether and let the elite "superdelegates" choose the candidate?

Your rationale would have us believe "it's for the party's best interest", but it's pure B.S.!!! You're an elite, arguing for oligarchy and NOT democracy.

But don't the Obama people pontificate about the sanctity of party rules? According to this line of thinking, "the rules (about superdelegates) are there, like them or not and so let's follow the rules."

Or are you guys picking and chosing now when you follow the rules according to your convenience?

Has anyone conducted a poll of whether or not Hillary supporters will go to Obama?

I'm just curious because this race is getting really nasty, and McCain is viewed by many as a moderate republican. So its not like it will be Obama v. Huckabee and there is not choice but for Demcorats to go completely to Obama. I'm sure the majority will... just a little curious if there has been any study as to whether the winner will take the others' support.

Rob, I haven't seen studies, but let me offer my brillant insight and analysis if you will.

Many Obama supporters would probably not support Clinton because of the war and other issues. On the other hand, I suspect that many Clinton supporters will support Obama. In fact, I believe that many Clinton supporters actually like Obama, but for practical reason think he can't handle the job on account of him being so idealistic. But if given a choice between Obama and McCain, they would vote for Obama, even if with some reservations about his performance.

It will be interesting if these supposed powerhouse super democrats delegates decide to choose outside the bounds of the will of their people.


Posted by moneywar


And if they don't, will you simply go away?

The democrats are in true form. There is a select few of them that knows what is good for the country and they shall have the final say.

More sophisto-speak for the party of moral debauchery and hooliganism!

And if they don't, will you simply go away?

Why? Do you have a problem with me?

I don't seem to have the pleasure of meeting you, Oh, I am sure in some other ID but for this one being used it is quite vague.

....another Dem elitist who knows what is best for the rank and file. What in the world would the Dems do without their elitists to show them the proper way..........

Good thing you have such leaders to let you know what the master plan will be. Oh yes, now follow along.....class........CLASS!

P.S. Shame on you Barack!

well well isnt this typical. she must be a real high memeber of the republican party because she is talking some real elitist shit here. She must have taken time off from vacation around the world and back at the little house in the hamptons or some place like that where all of the rich republicans get together to screw the little people..........

WHAT WAS THAT?...

wha.......she is a DEMOCRAT?????????
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OO

that cant be possible because we all know they are OF THE PEOPLE and all about the downtrodden and the poor and the suffering most of which is all brought about by those scurilous bastards of the GOP.

I was going to post a thread on the new Clinton talking points memo - any superdelegate who backs Obama is a coward/cultist - but it seems the Clinton supporter Ferraro (who was a beneficiary of superdelegates backing Mondale because Gary Hart, like Bill Clinton, couldn't keep his pecker in his pants) has beat me to it.

What Ferraro fails to recognize is that the superdelegates had a reason to back Mondale even though he was behing in the popular vote: the scandal ridden Hart couldn't beat Reagan (of course, neither could Mondale). I would definitely support the superdelegates switching to Hillary or Obama if the nominee they were backing was suddenly ridden with scandal. Moreover, Ferraro fails to recognize that if the superdelegates were to override the will of the people without cause they would be causing the undoing of the demorcratic party.

hey I know what it is. she was just busy going after bastard corps like walmart...that suppressor of the masses because.....NO that might not be it because one of the demcrat candidates was on the board of that company which employs millions of people who might have to sweep streets.
well she got confused going after haliburton, that company that screws us all for billions.....ummmm I dont know about that because one of the absolute darlings of the left, michael moore,...well his wife has stock in haliburton, so I guess thats not it.
I continue to be amazed that its the party of the people that is the party who might have a candidate decided in a board room or a back room rather than the polls, although I really dont know why I am surprised.

Ferrero is discussing the rules and the history of the rules that created SD's, nothing more or less.

Those who want to change the rules should certainly try to do so for the next election, but not this one. The SD's responsibility is to vote for whatever they think is best for the Party and the nation at the time they have to vote, which isn't now.

P.S. Shame on you Barack!

Posted by ride_on


I just now realize that Clinton could have made that quote worse by saying "Shame on you Barrack Hussein Obama!"

More implosion threats from the dems...what a mess this party, MY party, has become.

Is Ferraro still alive?

The SD's responsibility is to vote for whatever they think is best for the Party and the nation....

Posted by Corky at 2008-02-26 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

...awwww, I love the smell of elitists in the morning. Plus, the shrill of this voice "class.....CLASS.......SHUTTTT
TTTTT UUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!"

Brought to the Dem rank and file by the Dem Super Delegates...."now ya' all will do what we know is best for ya'"

And we start to eat our own young, I LOVE IT.

You guys keep throwing out the word 'DEMOCRACY' as if we live in one.

Correct, Many....especially the Democratic party....they live in the land of the elitist know it all Super Delegates.

"So its not like it will be Obama v. Huckabee"

Well, it wasn't but then John McCain started trying to appeal to the right wing of the Republican party so now we don't really know where he stands.....it is becoming apparent that he will change virtually any long held position if it will curry favor with the right wing....he can't really call himself a moderate any more.

Once again, the government tries to ignore the people and do what they want.

The Dem primaries, unlike most Repube ones, at least have proportional representation, making it the best of some bad systems.

Some should remember that this is Party politics, not American election rules. The Party has the right to decide it's nominee. Period.

That the Dem primaries are such a mess is at least a tribute to an effort to incorporate as much of the will of the people into that process as they can without losing control of their own Party.

The point is moot on March 6th.

Correct, Many....especially the Democratic party....they live in the land of the elitist know it all Super Delegates.

Posted by ride_on

Say what you want, but the GOP is notorious for getting its guy on the ticket. No matter WHAT it has had to do in the past.

Black Baby McCain ring a bell?

We all know that Democrats are more educated than republicans, but that doesn't mean they are elitists. Smarter? Yes, but not any more elite.

Fact is, these are the rules that the Democrats have established. Go run on a third party's platform if you don't like it.

I don't think that it is right to have to cough up $35,000.00 to put your name in the Republican hat but those are the rules that the GOP have established.

Apparently, in order to be considered by the GOP, one must be elite enough to cough up top dollar just to get into the race.

You want to talk about the party of elitists, let's look at the GOP's process and who they have elected over the years..........

good post corkster......so have you come to understand the democrat texas primary system and when you do, maybe you can explain it to us.

and the proper name, I think, is the democrat party as there is little democracy in a party that MIGHT select thier nominee in direct opposition to the will of the people.

MANY......we ALL KNOW that we live in a democratic republic where the majority of votes might not decide the president, for instance, and we marvel at the wisdom of the founders everytime the electoral system they put into place works like it should (regardless of who it selects, as in when blowjob billy was elected because of it).
so let me ask you a question......like in lousianna they have 4 or 5 candidates running and if one gets majority they win, but if 2 get a certain amount, then there is a runoff....is that pure democracy where majority rules or is it something else?

How is it that 80 New York Voting Districts (with computer hardware) registered zero votes for Obama?

This result is impossible and speaks to the ongoing problem of rigged elections in this country.

The Oligarchy doesn't really care if a Democrat or Republican is in charge, only that they own them. And they own Hillary, Shrub and many others in Congress, make no mistake about that.

They prefer to beat populists using the TV and radio, but if necessary will resort to murder if a populist wins.

and you know, the entire level of respect and debate might actually rise some if you from the left would get off this.....republicans are stupid thing youve got going. all it does it seperate us from each other and cant be good for this "unification of america" that we hear from barry obama.
okay thats enough of that kumbaya bullshit..
LETS RUMBLE BOYS......its a lot more fun.

like in lousianna they have 4 or 5 candidates running and if one gets majority they win, but if 2 get a certain amount, then there is a runoff....is that pure democracy where majority rules or is it something else?

Well I do like the idea of having to have a majority of votes to win, but frankly I really don't give a rat's ass what goes on in LA.

Sorry. It's the libertarian in me.

Geraldine Ferraro?

Well of course she would be for Hillary no matter what.

She wants the Independents and Republicans who voted for Obama in Primaries to have no influence on the choice of the nominee - these are the same people who will vote for Obama in the Election and make him a Democratic President, you stupid woman!

Well I do like the idea of having to have a majority of votes to win, but frankly I really don't give a rat's ass what goes on in LA.

Sorry. It's the libertarian in me.

Posted by Manypaths


I can understand that in one state but when you are talking about the UNITED STATES, its again, a marvel of the founders, this electoral system.
if it werent there, why would any candidate spend one dime in wyoming or new mexico?
and if you are against the electoral system, then how do you explain the senate. why should rhode island have as much representation there as california or new york.......LIBS should just face it. when it came to this, they got it right and its only politicians on both sides that came up with these screwy ways to elect a nominee.

why would any candidate spend one dime in wyoming or new mexico?

I live in Oregon.

Our primary is in May.

How many political commercials do you think I have seen this year?

ZERO!

They aren't spending a dime in my state. Hell, not one candidate has even mentioned it.

I don't like our process but WHAT IN THE FUCK AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????

NOTHING!

So, true to their nature, the Democratic Party "leadership" once again states by their proposed actions that it is the liberal elite who should do the thinking and make the decisions. The rest of you labor flunkies and hurricane refugees making up the party should just shut up and toe the line!

The arrogance underlying "Democratic" principles was never more naked. According to them, some are fit to rule and the rest of the proletariat should do what they're told.

Worked for Hitler and Stalin for a while. It's not played all that well here for 70 years or so. They wonder why they can't win an election!

Confusing a general election in America with a Party nominating process may be convenient, but it is still confusion.

They wonder why they can't win an election!

Posted by jonryker


SCOREBOARD BITCH!!!!

"Worked for Hitler and Stalin for a while."

No one is forced to vote for a Democratic candidate but that doesn't stop nit wits from comparing the Democratic Party to the Nazis. Folks like you make me glad I'm a Democrat. I doubt even the Republican party would want a diseased hater like you but I could be wrong on that they might want all the diseased haters.

When it comes to winning and the good of the party I always look to the sage wisdom of "one state" Ferraro.

Looks to me like they are really trying to give this thing to clinton. What ever happen to let the people decide.

The dem race is kinda like a socialist banana republic process...the big dictator thug Hil against the socialist rebel upstart Obama.

"The dem race is kinda like a socialist banana republic process"

the term "banana Republic" really refers to right wing dictatorships much like the government of GWB.
At least his party has tried to overturn elected governments in Central America to bring back the right wing dictators....as in Iran Contra.

When I hear Geraldine on TV or radio, I see it as a commercial...a chance to use the bathroom or grab a snack. She has absolutely zero credibility.

I thought she died long ago!

Manypaths,

I'm sorry, but apparently you don't know this...

NAZIS WERE SOCIALISTS!!!!!!!!

National Socialist Party....in German! Check it out.

Stalin WAS a socialist. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...in Russian. Check it out!

Union members are forced to contribute toward the candidate of the union membership choice, and they are, in many cases, forced to vote for said candidate. WAKE UP!

Corky!

Last I checked, Bush was a Republican and has been in office for a long time, in spite of liberal assertions that they're smarter than he is... Is that the scoreboard you're talking about?

Ah, the old "We know what's best for you..." argument. Funny how even though that sort of thing is what the Bushites have been doing for the past 7+ years some members of the Democratic party establishment think that is the way they should go. Well, I guess it's time to sit and wait for the Revolution to come.

-National Socialist Party....in German! Check it out.

Jeebus! The Jonah Goldberg Fiction Award lightweights we have around here!


scoreboard = manypaths

"Last I checked, Bush was a Republican and has been in office for a long time, in spite of liberal assertions that they're smarter than he is..."

JonRyker? They named an island after you? Bowa, Ooey and The BLT welcome you aboard. Yes, Jon, Bush is a Republican and the fact he HAS been in office a long time reflects the flaws in the system that got him there. As for those "liberal assertions" ... Jon, most of us libs think that even YOU are smarter than he is. herm

The superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country.

Why don't we just skip the primaries then? Who needs voters? Let the superdelegates, those wise, all knowing folks, decide. Shame, shame, shame on all us silly citizens, who don't know nuthin' about pickin' no candidates. As Bush once said, "It would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship."

Geraldine Feraro?

There's a name we haven't heard in a very long time.

Fortunately. And now we know why. She isn't very bright. She's a party hack that represents no one but the party elite. She hates democracy.

She isn't very bright. She's a party hack that represents no one but the party elite. She hates democracy.

Spud agrees that she's a hack. An undemocratic elitist. She's also got the vaginavision*, a truly bad case.

Be Well.

/* Vaginavision is like tunnelvision, only with a touch of pink-eye.

National Socialist Party....in German! Check it out.

Stalin WAS a socialist. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...in Russian. Check it out!

Well if we are going to accept the labels people choose for themselves...

North Korea, the DPRK, is a democracy and a republic! The Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Check it out!

As Bush once said, "It would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship."

GAL T, what else is it? We the people had no say on who got into the White House, no say on the various wars that the guy who got in fought. We have no universal health insurance, the poor pay the taxes. They listen on out phone calls and read our mail. How much worse would this "dictatorship" be? herm

Killing the messenger won't change the facts, the history nor the party rules.

What was truly hilarious was Obama and his manager David Axlerod coming out with exactly the opposite statements on the subject of SD's on the same day.

Axelrod being forced to admit he knows the rules, and Obama spinning whatever seemed convenient to his situation at the time.

Quell surprise.

"GAL T, what else is it? We the people had no say on who got into the White House, no say on the various wars that the guy who got in fought. We have no universal health insurance, the poor pay the taxes. They listen on out phone calls and read our mail. How much worse would this "dictatorship" be? herm"

Posted by: herm

What a load of drivel. Nice talking points, to bad most of it is complete tripe. You forgot to mention they want to take away the old people's Social Security and let the children starve. Oh, you also forgot to mention all the Katrina conspiracies and... George Bush don't like black people!!! But hey, Democrats are smarter than Republicans.

Dethspud,

I wasn't referring merely to titles, but to philosophy. The general attitude of "We know best, so poor people, shut up and let us help you or we'll put you in your place" was the center piece of Hitler's, Stalin's, and, apparently, some current Democratic Party leaders philosophies.

The structure itself is clearly geared to hedge against what the rank and file democrats might choose to decide in a primary. I'm sure they have elections in North Korea too, they just allow elitists to trump the results.

Herm,

Poor people pay very few taxes. Check it out.

Of course Ferraro wants Hillary--and doesn't care what happens to the Dem Party.

The Dems are going to implode and the press is going to have a field day--because they are for Obama.

If folks think the Clintons are going to go away quietly--there is a great bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

What is hilarious is that Obama sets the rules and expects everyone to follow them.

Gets a free pass for his father's heritage, can't talk about his ears, can't ask about the judges he will nominate, can't call him a Liberal! Can you imagine we can't refer to the guy as a Liberal!

That is gutter talk and Obama says no one can talk about it. Can't talk about Rezko, can't talk about the photo with a turban (which like most photos--is a stupid photo), can't talk about his lack of a flag pin, can't talk about Farrakan--who will be invited into the WH if elected, can't talk about his church--although Romney was reamed over the coals for being a Mormon.

Can't talk about his utter lack of experience, can't talk about how he would have voted for Iraq if he was privy to the vast amount of intelligence and he would have voted the same way. But he's so smart and hopeful and wants change!

The Clintons will not follow the rules--unless they favor Hillary.

Looking forward to the debate tonight...

Murphy

Stalin and Hitler used the word "Socialism" to enslave their constituents. What they did has nothing to do with Socialism.

Lying Leaders in this country pounced on our enemies use of the word "Socialism" to paint those kinds of policies in the worst light possible. The purpose of our leadership was always to permit the Oligarchy to rob us all blind. Thus Rockerfeller got all our oil for free as did those who are drilling in the Carribean today. The same with minerals, forests and rangeland. Socialism for the rich and a stick up the ass for everyone else. The fix is in. The masses can't win, because the rich must never lose. That's the central political rule in Government by any name.

"We know best, so poor people, shut up and let us help you or we'll put you in your place" by Jon

Jon--This is the entire platform for the Dem Party for the last 40 years.

Power over the people by making the people beholden to the gov't.

Like Universal Health Care--same premise.

And income redistribution--let's steal from the rich and give to the poor. The gov't knows best how to spend everyone else's money. BS.


Murphy

"Jon--This is the entire platform for the Dem Party for the last 40 years.

Power over the people by making the people beholden to the gov't.

Like Universal Health Care--same premise.

And income redistribution--let's steal from the rich and give to the poor. The gov't knows best how to spend everyone else's money. BS."


posted by: Murphy

AMEN!!!! Sink in the claws and a generation or two later the sheep will never know the difference.

Murphy,

The fact is, they were avowed, practicing Socialists. You don't get more socialist than Hitler and Stalin, unless, perhaps, Al Gore had won. It is not difficult to paint mass-murder by the state in a bad light. It was no stretch to say that those were evil regimes. They were evil because they were socialists left essentially unchecked.

You can decide that "Socialism" is a bad label if you like, but that doesn't make its application inaccurate.

Sorry Murphy, that last one was directed to Nutcase.

You're so right ryker. We need only look at Denmark to see the true horrors of Socialism. They say Denmark has the happiest population on the planet, but we all know what liars socialists are!

"You don't get more socialist than Hitler and Stalin, unless, perhaps, Al Gore had won. "

Jon, I think you're new here. You SHOULD get an immediate reply to that from An A Hole Named Rob, who has been stalking me for over a year over my comparing Bush to Hitler and Stalin.

You don't get more socialist than Hitler or Stalin! Wow! Neither of those dudes were even remotely socialist. But suggesting that wimpy, wishy-washy, centrist environmentalist Al Gore would have been "socialist" does boggle the mind enough to require a drink. herm

"And income redistribution--let's steal from the rich and give to the poor. The gov't knows best how to spend everyone else's money. BS."

I guess I must pick and choose among the most ludicrous dicta and decide which to answer. This one always gets me.

The rich, squatting atop all the material wealth one can accumulate, at the expense of less endowed neighbors, bitch at paying a small percentage of that filthy lucre for their own police and fire protection, to say nothing of their neighbors.

The government does know, Murph. But I find it peculiarly ironic that those who bitch loudest about taxes are least aware of the essential fact that THEY (we) are the government. This is democracy - and basically what the social contract was all about. herm

I am not a Democrat but have to say that the idea of super- delegates deciding who the Democrat candidate will be is ridiculous! This is not democracy!

"This is not democracy!"

Excellent. It's not a democracy, it's the way one political party picks it's nominee, and in America, you're free to do that, too: start a political party and nominate your standard-bearer however you choose, from popular vote, to delegate vote, to picking out the short straw.

A nice game a Yahtzee might do. Or even rock, paper, scissors. But remember: this is not a democracy!

We all know that Democrats are more educated than republicans

Manypaths - Mind providing a link to this? Since the core Democrat constituency is the poor, working class vs. the "wealthy" investor class, this would seem to be counterintuative. Are you trying to tell us that the less money you make, the better educated you are? Or that people who are better educated choose to make less money?

If Obama goes up against McCain, with Nader playing his games at the same time, it's 4 more years of George W. Bush, aka John McCain.

If Obama goes up against McCain, with Nader playing his games at the same time, it's 4 more years of George W. Bush, aka John McCain.

Posted by Apocalypto at 2008-02-26 05:17 PM


From you lips to Gods ears!

Kerrin57 - We all know that most college professors are liberals and that the primary reason to get a PhD. is if you want to teach. That says nothing about being educated, or the general political affiliation of people with undergraduate or non-PhD advanced degrees, vs. people without degrees. So again, I would like to see a factual demographic link to support this. I've been unable to find one either way.

Redman...I know. I rant against the liberal indoctrination of our kids alllllllll the time.

"more educated" is the catch phrase ...not necessarily smarter or more successful.

"with Nader playing his games at the same time, it's 4 more years of George W. Bush, aka John McCain."

Ha! What'd he poll last time, .3%? Dream on, this isn't 2000, and people have better memories than that.

Plus, he turns 74 tomorrow. Whaaa...is he running to make John McCain look young?

Still an awful lot of posters - not our most progressive lot - who seem to believe that people with more edumacation than they have are somehow dumber than they are. Thus was it always. Those at the very bottom rung of the schooling ladder think that they know more now than they will never need to know, and just scorn - even hate - those with more insight into what makes the world tick. herm