Obama Camp seeks to change rules after the game has begun, by altering the role of Superdelegates.

[susankh4]

"Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But 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. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated."






http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[ingac70]

1. The Supers have decided before...

1984... Mondale had slightly more delegates than Hart so they gave it to him.

[casus belli]

2. Story has nothing to do with your Subject line

At all.

[Window]

34. Thanks. I thought it was just me.

[Why Syzygy]

3. Lame lame lame accusation.

Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re “unrepresentative,” but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.

GERALDINE A. FERRARO has noticed that most of the people complaining .. are supporters ... So that qualifies as *OBAMA CAMP* SEEKS .. She likes to trash Obama's supporters just like her GF does.

I never figured her for a drama queen. I guess it takes one to endorse one.
McChillery is the one bleeding SDs. Add flight from logic to arrive at anything close to the OP header.

[earthlover]

4. Right. The Hillary Herd is great for PROJECTION of their faults onto others

[nebula]

9. The Shillaries are great at catapulting the propaganda. n/t

[Kahuna]

5. Wrongo on so many levels. As a hillary supporter you ASSume that

they are more likely to support Hillary, when just as many are uncommitted and could go either way.
Hillary is the one making baseless claims (as usual) that she owns those uncommitted SDs. Most of us really do know that she's just blowing hot air.

Now what Obama supporters have been doing is letting the SDs know that they dare not overturn the will of the voters. We're pretty sure that they have received that message. Now it's your turn.

[Why Syzygy]

10. Clarification..

I do not support McChillary. That is a quote from the article posted. That is the rationale the OP is trying to get us to accept. Their whine is that WE are trying to change the rules. There is NO EVIDENCE presented. Sound familiar?

[Gore1FL]

13. What argument will she use to get the 60%-85% Super Delegates?

Perhaps:

"Please vote for me. My pyrrhic victory will:

A> be a great boost to my ego"
B> make sure there is an experienced president in the White House -- John McCain"
C> stop me from releasing pictures of you and Larry Craig"
D> allow us to get that flag burning amendment passed"
E> help me to have more power when making sound decisions to use force"
F> make sure we end the idea of appealing to voters nationwide, and just stick with important people"
G> show the world we can ignore 6 months of elections"
F> prove we can wield as much power as the 2000 supreme court"
H> have a nostalgic trip to the 1968 convention"
I> stop the need for a homeland security alert from preventing our convention bump"
J> fracture the our party"
K> compel a generation of voters from participating"
L> curtail the need for Obama to wake up at 3:00 am"
M> help us lose both houses of congress again"
N> drive off our base"
O> halt the need for Nader to ever try to stop a Democrat from being elected"


Or maybe some combination of the above, depending on the super delegate?

Seriously. The part leaders with super delegate votes aren't so mentally challenged that she could ever earn the 60%-85% super delegates she would need to pull off such a reversal of the voters.

[susankh4]

18. This has nothing to do with it

the party leaders need to be allowed to vote their conscience.

New primaries in MI and FLA? That's alot of delegates. Anything can happen.

[Gore1FL]

29. A few things

As it stands now, hillary picks up at most 50 (assume other in MI goes to Obama) with MI and FL at their current levels.

Super delegates should refer to my list if they have trouble making their decisions.

How many Super delegates do you suppose Clinton could get, trailing by 100-175 pledged delegates? The 60%-to 85% she needs? If so, how so?

Super delegates are NOT going to overturn the pledged delegates. It just isn't going to happen. Part of having the best nominee for the party requires that the choice not fracture the party for a generation. Overturning 6 months of elections would do precisely that. There is no wiggle room here. The super Delegates recognize this. There is simply no way in hell 60%-85% are going to join the infamy of the 2000 SCOTUS. It just is not going to happen. I don't know how to be more clear.

No one has come up with a realistic scenario where Clinton can win the nomination. No one. The math is not on her side for pledged delegates. The math is not on her side with super delegates. Add FL, Don;t add FL. Add MI, don't add MI. There is no way matyhematically she can get enough pledged delegates to overcome the gap. There is no way that even a majority of the super delegates would hand her a slim nomination victory.

It can't happen. I won't happen. she is on her 10 yard line, 4th down, 20 seconds left in the fourth quarter, and trailing by 14 points. The game may not be over but it is not winnable.

She is the student with in her last semester who needs A+'s in 9 seven classes, to be valedictorian, but is enrolled in only 6. It's not going to happen. it can;t happen. The school year is not out, but there is no way it can be done.

It's over. She is Huckallree RondPaulm Clinton at this point. She can keep staying in the race, but she is;t going to win it. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it. It isn't possible.

I'm sorry, but this is starting to remind me of the Monty Python Parrot sketch. The feet of hger campaign can be nailed to to the perch, but it's deceased. it's dead. it is no more.

[susankh4]

20. No I don't think I want to....

"Now what Obama supporters have been doing is letting the SDs know that they dare not overturn the will of the voters. We're pretty sure that they have received that message. Now it's your turn."

Actually, we wouldn't sink to bullying Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Patrick... the way the Obama folks have bullied Supers in areas that went for Obama. That is unconscienable in a democracy.

[Kahuna]

28. "Unconscienable" in a democracy that representatives actually

represent their constituents???? Yeah okay. :eyes:

[susankh4]

50. So you would be fine with the bullying of

Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick?

Is that what you are suggesting?

[karynnj]

49. I've seen them repeatedly target Kerry and Kennedy respectively

Clinton herself did.

[Kahuna]

25. Sorry. My bad.

:hug:

[joshcryer]

31. Actually, Obama stated explicitly, himself, that they should chose based on pledged delegates.

This came from Obama's own mouth.

So yes, he and his campaign seek to alter or manipulate the role of superdelegates.

But surprise, that's what they're there for, you have to persuade them to vote for you. The "pledged delegate majority" argument would only hold if you own the PV, have big blue states in your pocket, and are seen as ultimately electable.

Thus they will not chose based on one single deciding factor.

The longer this race plays out the longer we have for a given candidate to blow up. The first one to blow up loses the nomination.

[KittyWampus]

44. excuse me? It's Hillary's lemmings who think the Super Delegates will move to her at the Convention

that is the only fucking rationale they have for this farce continuing.

[Gore1FL]

6. What????

"Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses,


She is going to win every future contest by over 60%???

Really???


She'll be lucky to cut him down to an 100 delegate lead.

[TomClash]

7. The correct title is "Got a Ptoblme, Ask a Super"

You simply slimed Barack.

Ferraro thinks the pledged delegates are not selected by "rank-and-file" Dems. It's an imperfect system but far better than the smoke-filled room she supports.

[susankh4]

8. Ya'll can't handle having your own rhetorical tactics

turned back at you, eh?

Gimme a break. We all know that the Supers are being "pressured" and even "threatened" by Obama supporters. They have told us so.

[Why Syzygy]

11. Evidence?

Op has zip. Nothing to support that claim. Do you?

[susankh4]

14. Try this:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1882

Look... I like both of these candidates. But, the slandering of the Clinton camp here, on DU, has really gone over the edge. I am only trying to point out that... what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

[Why Syzygy]

57. Huh? Nothing there about Obama. strike out . n.t.

[charlie]

12. Sort of a disconnect here

On the one hand she says the superdelegates are party leaders who have the wisdom to do what's best for the party and country.

On the other, she says it wrong that MI and FL voters should be penalized for the boneheaded cock-up engineered by... state and national party leaders.

[susankh4]

16. There's no disconnect

One person/ one vote. Our nation is founded upon that.

And, noone should be able to coerce another person in the voting booth. Another essential principle of democracy.

What's not to understand?

[charlie]

19. Well, apparently you didn't understand

I wasn't making a comment about whether MI and FL should be seated. I'll restate:

Party leaders are wise, we should trust them.

Party leaders are screwups and MI and FL shouldn't pay for their dumbassery.

There's the disconnect.

[susankh4]

21. Party leaders are wise, we should trust them.

Thank you.

The bullying has got to stop!

[charlie]

23. Lol

You'll use me as a prop for your agenda regardless of what I was talking about.

Thank you. For not listening.

[thoughtcrime1984]

15. Hillary started with over a 100 SD lead

It has dwindled, and should dwindle further to reflect who the frontrunner truly is.

[susankh4]

17. It should dwindle if

and only if.... the individual Supers make a determination of conscience.

The "will of the people" is already reflected in the election of the Superdelegates.

[thoughtcrime1984]

22. It continues to, many want to reflect their districts/states

many have decided he is the best candidate. No worries here.

[Gore1FL]

35. How in good consceince

could they vote to overturn the elections to install Clinton?

And even if some could, do you really think 60%-85% (depending on Obama's lead) will?

Somehow I think the consciences of the super delegates will take into account the generational destruction of any chance at the White House such an election-overturning installment would cause.

[indimuse]

24. Obama has NEVER just run a CIVIL campaign!

He has to cause problems in all the elections he's in...istigator and cheat...

look up "extended access to ballot boxes 1996 Chicago obama"
...what will you find?

[GalleryGod]

27. I looked! Guess What I Found......

Hillary's Rose Law Firm bills....and Bill Clinton Foundation donors/cross referenced with Presidential Pardons....Vetted? My ass? She hasn't been "vetted" in 10 years!

[olkaz]

45. Is it just blind hatred?

"He has to cause problems in all the elections he's in..."

You realize he destroyed Alan Keyes, right? Like demolished?

What sort of nefarious activity (no doubt) caused that?

[Eric J in MN]

26. Geraldine Ferraro claims the superdelegate system works, but...

...the last time superdelegates made a difference was 1984, and the Democrats lost that year.

She knows this, since she ran with Walter Mondale.

[NoBorders]

30. This makes no sense

She's inferring that somehow the SD's don't have a reason to vote for OBama. Pretty weak.

[susankh4]

32. Of course some of them

will vote Obama.

And some will vote Clinton.

Just like the rest of the party..... we are evenly split.

But, the coersion must stop. And the role of Superdelegates cannot be altered, just cuz Obama wants them to be.

[NoBorders]

39. Both sides are 'coercing' the SDs

Of course they are lobbying the SDs.

I think the problem here is that because of the nature of this primary, with so many people engaged and voting, the SDs would be taking a huge risk by not voting for the candidate that has garnered the most support in the 'rank and file' voting. Maybe that's an 'alteration' of their role, but I don't see how they can successfully vote in a way that contradicts the results of the primaries/caucuses.

If Clinton ends up with more pledged delegates, they should support her. I would also say that if she ends up with more of the popular vote, that should be a determining factor, but the problem there is that you don't have a 'popular vote' count from the caucuses.

[bowens43]

33. another Hillary supporter trying desperately

to justify the attempted theft of nomination and the off hand dismal of the will of the people by hillary.

Are there any Hillary supporters with integrity?

[foo_bar]

36. so a Clinton endorser thinks the SDs should be a "House of Lords"?

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow.

I respect Ms. Ferraro and her contribution to history, but this statement doesn't account for the notion that superdelegates are by design elected representatives, people who have to "face the music" from their own constituencies if they plan to survive politics until the next convention. That's not to say there's a constitutional prerogative for SDs to follow "the will", it's simply a question of politicians choosing whether or not to go down in flames for something they might believe in. Take John Lewis; he said marching in Montgomery was easy compared to the pressure from his community following Obama's rise, and he chose being perceived as a flip-flopper over involuntary retirement (i.e., the "unexamined life").

[susankh4]

52. And another Obama endorser thinks that

the DNC's rules should hold sway over the rights of voters??

Guess that makes us even. If the "rule" benefits our candidate we like it. If the "rule" is bad for our candidate we don't.

[Window]

37. Next time, try using the title of the article instead of your own snarky shit.

"Got a Problem? Call a Super"


By camp pain Hilly supporter Geraldine Ferraro.

[pampango]

38. At the start of the campaign the goal of all candidates was the same.

They wanted to win as many pledged delegates as possible in the primaries and caucuses, and convince as many superdelegates as possible to support them. They were all faced with a set landscape of open primaries, closed primaries, and caucuses and, one would assume, developed a strategy to win the nomination given that landscape. If the landscape were different (all primaries, all caucuses, all primaries closed or open) a candidate might have pursued a different strategy or decided that the format did not fit his or her principles or campaign style.

It seems weak to me to argue that my candidate would have done better if the landscape had been different. That may very well be true, but all candidates would have pursued different strategies if the landscape were different, so we will never know for sure.

We all agree that superdelegates CAN vote for whomever they wish. However, I am sure that we all reserve the right to give them advice on what we think they SHOULD do. Supporters of one candidate will urge the sd's to nominate theirs because of reasons a, b and c, while supporters of the other will urge the opposite for reasons x, y and z.

Unless there is some kind of deal between the candidates, I don't envy the task of the superdelegates. Both candidates are qualified and historic in their own right. Each has enthusiastic supporters, some for "traditional" reasons such as character and policy positions, others for more a "unique" reason - first woman or first African American presidential nominee. In any convention there is the problem of the supporters of the losing candidate becoming disaffected, but the danger seems larger this year due to the "unique" nature of our nominees.

[MH1]

40. You mean "Hillary Camp"

Unless this was some attempt at sarcasm.

Hillary wants the FL and MI delegations seated based on the outcomes of the "no it won't count" faux primaries in those states. THAT would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.

[Tellurian]

41. Yes, but Obama is against the Super Delegates..he wants the delegates to follow the people..

[susankh4]

42. No changing horses mid-stream tho!

That's what the Obama camp says when it's in his favor.

[Tellurian]

56. Just gets me to wondering about the candidate's competency?

[KittyWampus]

43. Obama will have about 100 more pledged delegates at LEAST. That is NOT 'about the same'

[JimGinPA]

46. HRC Was All About The Super Degates When She Had Significantly More Of Them...

Now all of a sudden they shouldn't make the difference. Laughable.

[karynnj]

47. The first sentence is dishonest

IF HRC and Obama end up with the same number of pledged delegates - the super delegates have to break the tie. What the Obama people are speaking of is that IF Obama is ahead - as he is now with between 130 and 150 more pledged delegates (every source seems to have a different number), the superdelegates should not change it.

[PurityOfEssence]

Just like MI and FL, it's a shitty rule, but it's the rule

This should be abolished for the next cycle, there should be some form of uniformity of the primaries (although good luck with that, since states do at they please) and the schedule should be set with some kind of rotation of states, so there's a long primary season, but a handful of states don't constantly decide for us.

Nevertheless, the rules are the rules, and changing them now would be favoritism and shouldn't be done. The concept of selective obedience to rules when they suit one is an alarming trend of late and something not to be tolerated.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. delete accidental repeat post

Hmmm...how'd that happen?

[Medusa]

51. The one trying to change the rules is Hillary

who has no problems whatsoever trying to claim Michigan when she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot. :eyes:

[SeaLyons]

53. Great Post

I think it's difficult for all the newcomers to understand the democratic process of electing a President. The superdelegates are there to insure the best interests of the party are met. Let's pray they do their job.

[goletian]

54. superdelegates know that going against obama puts mccain in whitehouse

if they go against obamas obvious lead, many dems and crossovers will be lost as a result, and hillary has even put mccain above herself as someone capable of being c.i.c recently - shes got no chance of beating him. superdelegates are leading, they are trying to lead our party to victory. hillary seems to be leading herself into a vp spot for mccains presidency.

[Upton]

55. Lets just not hold primaries at all

I mean, why bother? when the loser and her supporters are going to look for ways to justify overturning the results.