This must be highly disappointing news for the ObamaNation...... that SDs actually feel compelled to live up to the responsibilities of their positions under the DNC rules.

I am highly disappointed that Hillary Clinton has yet to disassociate herself from Ed Rendell and his effusive praise of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

After all, she was so indignant over Jeremiah Wright saying almost the exact same thing, as Corky reminds us at every opportunity.

C'mon, SA

You put up a thread about that and you are badgering me to respond to that on yet another thread, how about being a good little Member and try to stay on this thread topic, eh?

Coward

I responded on the proper thread, so, so long and thanks for all the fish!

If somebody was upset with the idea of superdelegates being able to "overturn the will of the people", somebody interested in some day becoming president, the best way somebody could have addressed that would be to run for a different party's nomination.

I mean, a rule's a rule, right? And this one has been in place for over twenty years...

SDs Want A Winner

So how'd they end up getting to choose between a libber elitist and a fibber defeatist?

Interesting article Corky. Sounds like she still has a chance to knee cap the guy.
I wonder what she has on him....

"So how'd they end up getting to choose between a libber elitist and a fibber defeatist?"

OK, it gives me a sharp, stabbing pain above my right eye to say it, but that is actually sorta funny.

Sounds like she still has a chance to knee cap the guy.

Posted by kerrin57

Of course the only way she has a chance is if she "knee caps" Obama....

Super Delegates are still autonomous human beings with free will, right?

If somebody was upset with the idea of superdelegates being able to "overturn the will of the people", somebody interested in some day becoming president, the best way somebody could have addressed that would be to run for a different party's nomination.

The fact that something can happen doesn't mean it should happen. Our system also allows "faithless electors," Electoral College members who choose their own candidate and ignore the dictates of the state that sent them.

It would destroy the Democratic Party for a generation if Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates going into the convention and it is overturned by party insiders.

I say "would" instead of "will" because it will never happen. The superdelegates who are too scared to have chosen a candidate by this point are not going to develop enough backbone to overturn a lead. If the Clinton machine couldn't squeeze enough superdelegates by now -- Obama's been winning more of them since Super Tuesday than Clinton by a wide margin -- it's not going to start happening now. She's toast.

SDs want a winner, but are going to end up with one of the two yahoos running.

/ sorry, couldn't resist
// doesn't matter which of the three gets it, we're done fer

Poor Florida and Michigan.

Talk about a real Mandate from the people, right?

I think even Bush cringes at the audacity of the whole thing.

Corky: Do you really believe what those superdelegates are telling pollsters? It's not like they'd say "I'm holding out for the best political favors", or "I'm waiting to go with the certain winner." These are political insiders -- people who have gotten to the top of the party by playing the game. Many hold no elective office and are completely unaccountable.

-Do you really believe what those superdelegates are telling pollsters?

Do you really believe you are down to assuming some mass conspiracy by SDs to thwart your theories?

rcade, maybe you're right. but why would you refer to the undecided super delegates as spineless?

don't you think it makes sense for them to play their vote close to their chest?

I think the spineless ones are the fools who rushed to show their sd support in race that is so contentious that 50% of the party is going to feel alienated from the other 50% regardless of who wins.

Hagbard,

If you'd read something besides Corky Lieberman's incessant attack posts you'd know that it's not 50% that will be alienated among Dems if one candidate or the other wins. It's actually closer to 18-29% with Hillary voters being in the higher end of that spectrum.

"It's actually closer to 18-29% with Hillary voters being in the higher end of that spectrum."

It would be even higher if more people were aware of the way so-called democrats treated one another on this site.

And I don't have to read corky's posts, you or s.a.rogue, or blehspud will quote the relevant parts in one of your posts in a minute.

We had better candidates in the days of the "smoke-filled rooms." These efforts to secure the nomination have provided us with poor choices.

The Democrat Party would be well-advised to reject both Ms Hillary and Obama, and choose someone without all of the baggage that they carry, Obama as a corrupt racist bigot dedicated to advancement of blacks, and Ms Hillary as a confabulator and also corrupt and with a bad personality.

McCain is so weak that I would feel compelled to vote for him only because he would be "the lesser of two evils," and not for what he presents. Clinton and bama have far too many disfiguring warts.

Maybe if these two caricatures are dumped by the Democrats, they can find a viable candidate.

Are you volunteering ?

Do you really believe you are down to assuming some mass conspiracy by SDs to thwart your theories?

Self-interest is not a mass conspiracy. I believe the uncommitteds are either holding out for the best deal or hoping Hillary Clinton gets knocked out before they have to take the risk of backing Obama. People who were going to support Clinton would have done it already to help her legitimacy.

Corky,

You really cannot read a polling. Yes, one third of SDs say the most important factor in selecting a candidate is their electability but I would assume roughtly one third of the reaming SDs are not currently elected officials and therefore free agents if you will. It's their job to cast their vote for the most electable candidate. But of course as can be easily read in the article this was a ranking of importance of the factors for making a decision and not the sole determiner. so a combination of the other factors (popular vote, most pledged delegates, most states, etc) could outweigh the primary factor of electability. You know don't disenfranchise voters for the future.

Don't you Hillarites discuss this stuff on your morning conference calls about working web blogs for hillary?

-People who were going to support Clinton would have done it already to help her legitimacy.


That is an assumption without merit.

Much like picking HRC by only 4-5 points.

Perhaps SDs are typical hard-working honest Americans who want to wait to see what happens in the race, and then will take their responsibility very seriously and vote for who they think would be the best President.

Or perhaps that isn't cynical enough for the new politics of hope.

"Perhaps SDs are typical hard-working honest Americans..."

You're probably right. And 2 more of them endorsed Obama today... from those notoriously elitist states of Oklahoma and Nebraska.

The SD lead continues to shrink, as does the pool of uncommitted.

Ok 2 questions. Number 1 how could ANYONE support Hellary after the way that She has behaved?? Even if She gets the nod (which I highly doubt) doesn't that mean You condoned Her behavior?? Just like with the Iraq War if one opposes it from jump street but wishes for a positive outcome haven't they crossed the line from nonsupport to that of one who supports it?? How can one be consitant if they didn't support Hellary from the get go turn around and then support Her?? Seems to me if You didn't support Her after the shit She pulled You must then not support Her if She gets the nod. Am I full of shit or does anyone see it that way??

Larry Mohr

I'm sure you have all noticed that 2 super delegates from New Mexico and Oklahoma had no problem throwing their vote to Obama when both of these states were won by Hillary. She won Oklahoma with 55% of the vote and New Mexico by less but still a win. This opens the door for the super delegates to vote for Hillary without the other side screaming that she stole the nomination. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Obamanuts don't seem to mind taking super delegates that rightfully should have gone to Hillary if they had followed the will of the people in those states.