We have been doing a pretty sorry job of selecting a nominee.　I wish people would stop criticizing superdelegates so much. People keep saying that Obama has won more states, won more votes, won more pledged delegates. That all may be so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he should win. Sometimes, we may need the party leaders to save us from ourselves. We’d better face facts. Not so long ago, there were no primaries and all nominees were selected by party big wigs (now called superdelegates) in the proverbial smoke filled rooms. Sure, not all choices were great, but some of our best Presidents were selected this way. I’m all for the democratic process, the will of the voters, and all that, but if that alone were enough, why have superdelegates at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Laura Ingalls:
...why have superdelegates at all?

Precisely.

End of discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Laura Ingalls:
Sometimes, we may need the party leaders to save us from ourselves.

No thank you. I'll think for myself.

And that belief pretty much sums up why I am not a Democrat. Funny that the party so named runs a process that is so far removed from it. "Oh, sure, you can vote and all, but if we don't agree with the outcome, we'll just overrule it, because we're smarter than you." (Not that the Republicans are much better these days)

quote:

I’m all for the democratic process, the will of the voters, and all that, but if that alone were enough, why have superdelegates at all?

Excellent question! I will say it again, if the supers decide this thing against the will of the people I will be staying home. JohnO, is 100% right in criticizing the Democrats for this. Supers should be done away with yesterday. How can you be in the Democratic party and not believe in democracy?

quote:

And that belief pretty much sums up why I am not a Democrat.

It does not excuse the Democrats 1 iota but I can think of 123 reasons why you might direct some of that moral outrage at the Republicans. There are 123 RNC unpledged delegates that are appointed undemocratically.

quote:

People keep saying that Obama has won more states, won more votes, won more pledged delegates. That all may be so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he should win. Sometimes, we may need the party leaders to save us from ourselves. We’d better face facts.

and

quote:

I’m all for the democratic process, the will of the voters, and all that,

Don't belong in the same thought process. If you're all for the democratic process, then having party leaders select your candidate doesn't make sense.

It harkens back to the days of the smoke-filled room and the closed-door deals that used to select candidates. We've had enough political bosses in this country. While it's true a good candidate was sometimes produced through that system, it was in spite of the system rather than because of it. Men like Lincoln and FDR and Truman and others rose above the slimy process that got them elected. And the truth is we have never had a true democracy in this country, and probably never will. Because moneyed interests don't trust democracy, and will always find ways to rig the process in their favor.

For those sincerely interested in the vagaries and details of Democrat delegate count, this link is something I've been watching almost daily since January... VERY worthwhile, accurate and comprehensive.

Pay special attention to the superdelegates who are designated as "DNC": THOSE are the ones who will have the power to throw the election.

As of today, only 291 (of about 800 total) supers are not committed.

Link:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Well Mr. Bell I must say after looking at that site for about 20 minutes I feel as though I am suspended in a state of "Rigged Demoracy"

I've come away with a whole new passion that says "my vote counts"

quote:

Originally posted by leftcoastlooker:
Well Mr. Bell I must say after looking at that site for about 20 minutes I feel as though I am suspended in a state of "Rigged Demoracy"

I've come away with a whole new passion that says "my vote counts"

I'm with you, leftcoast... and we haven't even started adding in electoral college, gerrymandering or closed primaries.

Political party fear is what they call "Direct Democracy"... a fear held also by our sanctified "Founding Fathers".

Many people don't realize what a knock down drag out fight it took to get the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution... and ONLY under threat that proponents would refuse to ratify the entire document did the BOR get included, reluctantly.

Obama's superdelegate count keeps rising every day, but if anybody thinks the Feminist constituency isn't gonna raise a ****storm for Hillary at the convention, was born yesterday.

Everyone seems to have missed my point. I am not saying that the voters should have no say in the process but we must face facts the voters sometimes make foolish choices. The voters came up with Mondale and McGovern and Dukakis and other unsavory candidates. We need the party big wigs (superdelegates) to save us from similar foolishness.
If the voters were wise enough, we wouldn't need superdelegates but they voters are about to make Obama the nominee. Enough said!

quote:

Originally posted by Laura Ingalls:
If the voters were wise enough, we wouldn't need superdelegates but they voters are about to make Obama the nominee. Enough said!

I think what you are trying to say is that the will of the voters is stupid and unreliable unless and until it matches with what YOU believe they should choose to do... right?

That's why a superdelegate system destroys democracy and is a threat to our Republic.

I have to assume that you are a Clinton supporter.

If so, bear in mind that if your party had not created proportional awarding of delegates, and superdelegates (among other idiotic populist measures), your candidate would be the nominee of your party right now.

Obama has all but won this thing, fair and square, against huge odds, playing by the rules. He deserves the nomination and the support of your entire party... at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Laura Ingalls:
Everyone seems to have missed my point. I am not saying that the voters should have no say in the process but we must face facts the voters sometimes make foolish choices. The voters came up with Mondale and McGovern and Dukakis and other unsavory candidates. We need the party big wigs (superdelegates) to save us from similar foolishness.
If the voters were wise enough, we wouldn't need superdelegates but they voters are about to make Obama the nominee. Enough said!

You need to get your facts straight. The "voters" did not "come up" with Mondale or Dukakis et al. The voters may have turned out to vote for them in the primaries--but the party big-wigs are the ones who donate money and put their support behind candidates. The voters are left to choose from a limited field that has been recruited, vetted, and promoted by the party insiders. And the big shots do all the deal making at the conventions and run the campaigns. The Democrats consistently lose with Northern liberals, when the only two successful candidates the party has produced since JFK have been Southern moderates..or at least they were perceived as moderates. Even if Obama was not in the picture, Hillary has zero chance of winning. She's too liberal, she's from Illinois, and she has a 200lb liability named Bill.


Superdelegates are akin to the electoral college and the British House of Lords: Undemocratic, unnecessary and elitist.

quote:

Obama has all but won this thing, fair and square, against huge odds, playing by the rules. He deserves the nomination and the support of your entire party... at least.

Best thing Obama could do is announce Edwards as his VP. Yeah--I'm not crazy about the guy--but the ticket needs a Southerner to have a chance. The two of them have a lot of charisma, and the crowds sure liked the combination when Edwards made the endorsement the other day..

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:

quote:

Obama has all but won this thing, fair and square, against huge odds, playing by the rules. He deserves the nomination and the support of your entire party... at least.

Best thing Obama could do is announce Edwards as his VP. Yeah--I'm not crazy about the guy--but the ticket needs a Southerner to have a chance. The two of them have a lot of charisma, and the crowds sure liked the combination when Edwards made the endorsement the other day..

A WHOLE lot hinges on who Obama ends up picking, Pete... we both know that, and I think we're hoping for the best.

One thing is for certain. If Obama picks Hillary, the Democrats WILL lose the general election, for the reasons you stated above.

We're all going to have to endure several years of having to hear that Hillary lost the election due to sexism and the "Old Boys Club", which ain't so... but, at least she won't get the office... so, the suffering will have been worth the effort.