A system in need of improvement
By Steve Benen Thursday Feb 14, 2008 3:44pmNo matter who wins the Democratic nomination, or what happens in the general election, the DNC has to realize the nominating process is a flawed system.
Democratic National Committee members—whose party is tied up in knots over the role of superdelegates as well as Florida and Michigan at this summer’s convention—already are talking about a review of the party’s nominating process once the elections are over in November.
The tight race between New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama means the nomination could be determined by superdelegates or the outcome of a fight over the two states’ right to cast delegate votes. That’s proving a double embarrassment for the party, pushing some of its leaders to call for an appraisal of party rules that have been in effect for decades.
Let's see, controversy over the superdelegates, controversy over Florida and Michigan, controversy over caucuses vs. primaries, controversy about starting too early, controversy surrounding which states can and should go first ... yeah, it's probably time to "review" the status quo.
Login or Register to post comments.
second!
DAMN
This system works for the party bosses.
An ice cube will stay frozen in hell before they change it.
Everyone Loves Obama Romano
They both are bribing the superdelegates by donating to their campaigns just like the lobbyists.
Obama is leading on this legal bribery.
Change?
Please, business as usual.
I frankly don't understand the CURRENT controversy over Michigan & Florida. I understand the problem of dealing with the scheduling of primaries and the 'me first' crap that F & M pulled. But the decision was made long before the primaries ran. Obama seemed to respect the rules and Hillary agreed to them. Now - she wants the delegates to be seated and says how unfair it was to the million plus that voted.
Unfair? How is that unfair? I don't get it - if their votes were so damn precious to them - why weren't they storming their respective state party headquarters long before the primaries and demanding a fix?
I suppose to Hillary it's a matter of how you define the word 'promise'.
She will definitely not now - nor ever - get my vote - not after this display of irreverence to rules. Hey - don't we already have a president that doesn't play by the rules?
Two million wrongs do not make a SINGLE right.
The entire system is screwed up and needs to be changed. I wish we had a nation wide primary and the top two vote getters from each party would then go to their party convention and attempt to win the nomination of their party.
When Nebraska caucus'd I had to work and couldn't go and express my choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties
as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4425
well plus, I mean, it would be nice if Oregon had *SOME* kind of a say in... you know... anything besides the November vote? shit its like every other state gets to pipe up, hell even Washington got to say something about it. our "primary" isn't until April. wtf. California gets to play but we don't? is it something we said?
Why don't they just count the Florida and Michigan votes... and split them fifty-fifty between the two candidates? Seems like it would work.
Otherwise, well, 'American Gladiators' is back on the air, maybe Clinton and Obama could duke it out there!
We got so screwed down here in Florida and it was a primarily state republicans in Tallahassee that did it to us. They moved up the primary knowing full well the democrats were going to get punished by the Democratic party if it happened. The republicans lost only half of their delegates, the Democrats lost all of theirs.
This superdelegate thing needs to hit the trash can. We don't need to be told who our nominee should be. We vote to decide that.
So if my primary vote doesn't count and if the superdelegates decide the nominee, my vote in November may not count either.
As I understand it, Hillary's name was the only one of the democrats on the ballot in Michigan. Here in Florida, all their names were on the ballot.
Lollimom @ 3:
Lollimom @ 3:
getalife @ 5:
Care to backup your claims with a reliable source instead of smearing recklessly?
Something to think about speaking of a system in need of improvement.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has unleashed another flurry of jabs on Washington, ridiculing the federal government's rebate checks as being "like giving a drink to an alcoholic" on Thursday, and said the presidential candidates are looking for easy solutions to complex economic problems.
The billionaire and potential independent presidential candidate also said the nation "has a balance sheet that's starting to look more and more like a third-world country."
Any changes will not effect this year. So no use bitching and moaning. The time to fix this was 2 years ago.
Hillary will use every trick and call in every chit, to throw this convention up in the air and steal the nomination.
She will polarize everyone and end up causing a hair loss to the GOP in a year when the Dem Party should have won the Presidency in a runaway, and won large majorities in both Congressional houses.
Bush's dad is going to endorse McCain in a couple of weeks but they announced it today so McCain can get as much mileage out it has he can before Texas votes.
It was understood that Michigan and Florida would not count and now Hillary wants to change the rules in midstream. And Hillary supporters wonder why people cant stand her. She gets the nomination I stay home in November.
Forever
Legally
Onerous
Ridiculously
Inept
Democratic
Apparatchik
pissed off patricia
Believe me - I empathize with you, really I do. But Hillary's pre-established identity, first throughout the south, then via the oval office was undeniably an edge that heavily favored her in Florida and left no real opportunity for Obama to campaign directly in your state. It also makes one wonder how much was going on 'under-the-breath' the enabled a highly organized celebration party to materialize for Hillary in Florida.
The very fact that she NOW wants to change the premise of an arrangement that she herself agreed to LONG ago smacks heavily of Bush logic.
Lord knows - we don't need anymore of that.
It seems like superdelegates should be tie-breakers only, like the Senate in a too close to call National Election,
And we need first past the post, winner-take-all primaries, not proportional delegate counts.
javol @ 13:
ya know I could say something like maybe the Javol has womens intuition but I won't
getalife @ 5:
Did you read the artcle about that?
He has given to more super delegates, yes, but they average the same donation to the supers!
You can bash Obama all you want but the truth is he doesn't have the clout that the Clinton's have. They have been offering Ambassadorships to superdelegates!
Speaking of Change, look at their Foreign Policy advisors!
Hillary has MICHAEL O'HANLON!!!
I think the solution of the Carter-Baker commission of rotating regional primaries makes the most sense:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html#sect9_1
Cheers,
getalife @ 5:
natisman @ 21:
Huh?
J>S> @ 17:
At this point I don't think Florida or Michigan primary votes should count. That's the rules and we just have to stand by them. But there is no way that I would stay home in November and not vote. I want the white house back and if my vote will keep McCain out of that oval office for four years, I'm voting. I want that more than I want to throw a hissy fit. If McCain wins and gets to appt a couple of supreme court justices, women have a hell of a lot to lose. I want to help prevent that too more than I want to throw a hissy fit.
I don't think that in this day of hi-tech, super-speed interconnectivity that these rules could possibly apply. The whole system should be dropped and we should consider where we are today. In this overhaul we should also consider where we are headed in our interconnectivity and apply some fluidity in said voting and nominating rules, such as saying that the rules apply for the next three elections and then must be re-evaluated.
This should apply to ALL voting and nominating.
Also, superdelegates seem to me to be a way of keeping the inner-party members in control and out of the hands of the outer-party members.
burnt @ 8:
Um, burnt? Our primary is in May. May 20 to be precise. So it's even worse. Oh, and just so you know, this is the first year California got to play. It's primary used to be in June.
For those posters who say that, if Clinton wins the nomination they will stay home, and refuse to vote for her, I say get ready for a bumpy next 4 years, because a President McCain will be the result of their foolishness. Do you think McCain would be better for the country than Clinton? Whichever Democrat gets the nomination, support them to the hilt. We can't afford another conservative Republican president on top of the last 8 years. I prefer Clinton, but if Obama wins the nomination, I will be behind him for November. I won't be staying home in a snit.
pissed off patricia @ 11:
But they all agreed not to campaign there . Without campaigning or organization, and with the voters being told it didn't count to pick delegates, it wasn't an honest election. If Obama had his organization getting out the vote, at the very least it would have been a much closer race.
pissed off patricia @ 16:
And you can rest assured folks will think, "hey if he's good enough for President Bush Sr, he's good enough for me!"
A real dynamic, independent, and self reliant mind set.
Here's where you can read about the candidates donating money to the superdelegates. If someone on this thread has already linked it, sorry to repeat.
the DNC could fuck up a wet dream. If we end up with Pres McCrazy, I'll be pissed.
af @ 29:
People have to learn the hard way unfortunately. I pity anyone who's so weak as to not turn out and hand it to the Cons for another 4-8 years.
The superdelegates issue alone might maintain a two-person horse race to the bitter end while the repugs pile on, reload, etc.
As giddy as we are at times, we should NEVER underestimate the dems abitility to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Can't they just wrestle in Jello for the nomination?
Its time to start considering a national primary, IMHO. I know everyone is in love with the idea of rotating regional primaries, and everyone always talks about how the candidate with the most money will win.
I don't think thats the case. There was a post at mydd, that talked about the importance of ground game.
Further, it makes everyone truely equal.
af @ 29:
That's pretty much what I said in comment #26
I'm supporting Obama, but if Hillary gets the nod, she will get my November vote.
Not one person in the world will care if I sit home and pout. This election is just to damned important to put self before action.
c. atrox @ 36:
The superdelegates?!? Man, I sure don't want to see my old committee man rolling in jello!
This isn't going to be changed. Our owners don't want to risk, us approving of a candidate that they haven't vetted.
That is why the heavy hitting news organizations focus on makeup and hair styles. When we go to the polls, we aren't supposed to know what our candidates think about the real issues. We're just supposed to choose the corporate pig or sow that looks like Grade A bacon.
Javol says to Getalife@5's comment:
"They both are bribing the superdelegates by donating to their campaigns just like the lobbyists.
Obama is leading on this legal bribery.
Change?
Please, business as usual."
Care to backup your claims with a reliable source instead of smearing recklessly?
http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/02/14/bribing-the-superdelegates/
Blue Lensman @ 39:
Christine Pelosi, daughter of the Speaker and (more notably at the moment) a superdelegate,
Interesting find.
af @ 29:
Really? She has all advisers who thought the Iraq war was a great idea, and they think it is going well! AND they are all for Israel's attacks on the Palestinians whereas Obama has surrounded himself with people who are against the Iraq War(always have been) and are AGAINST Israel attacking the Palestinians!
I think the media is stirring this up more than is necessary. They are predicting the democratic party will split and come all apart. They are shooting holes in the democrats so no one will notice how pathetic the republicans are right now. Don't let them dictate what you do. Vote!
af @ 29:
I have no idea whether McCain or Hillary will be worst for our country. I don't feel that either has been honest or trustworthy enough to form an opinion.
Hillary, Obama and McCain broke their oaths to defend the US Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic on the Telecom Immunity Bill.
If they break their solemn oaths as Senators then they will break their oaths as President.
Their word is no good, when it really matters.
John @ 43:
So you would rather have four more years of exactly the same as the past seven rather than give Hillary a chance if she's the nominee?
There are problems, but a lot of the issues started to surface
and get whipped into the frenzy when ONE thing happened.
Hillary's coronation got derailed.
Look, they front loaded the primaries JUST so she could
wrap up the nomination early, and start on the general.
She didn't give a rats ass about ANY states past Super Tuesday,
or really any "SMALL" states (as she so nicely puts it now) so
Obama just outworked and out strategized her.
He has field offices in states she wasn't even thinking about.
SUDDENLY, Caucasus are "ONLY GOOD FOR ELITES"....
And "WINNING IN RED/PURPLE STATES DOESN'T MATTER".....
Way to write off Washington State, Hill! I'm sure the 60%
of us elites are just happy that California counts and we don't.
Did ANYONE hear Obama suggest "If I'm just a LITTLE
BEHIND" in the elected delegate votes "THE AUTOMATIC"
delegates should pull it out for me...
Just that alone "AUTOMATIC" delegates, should tell you who
has studied the Republics more...Shades of "The Patriot Act"
or the "Clean Skies" initiative.....
And, come on..This "We must seat Florida" mantra started After
she started to get behind, and she needed those delegates...
DID SHE SAY BOO about disenfranchining them WHEN THE DNC
made the ruling?
Come on, at the time, SHE HAD ALL THE POWER! She could have
raised a stink then.....
What bothers me is, rather then suck it up, realize she was in a fight,
she and her team FREAKED OUT, and just started to see how they
could "Triangulate" their way out of it.
So, IF there is a crisis, IF she tries to win it with "AUTOMATIC DELEGATES"
or forces the current seating of the delegates from MI and FL, you can
bloody well write off the election, as every black voter in the country
will sit it out, probably for years to come!
Things need to be changed, and Howard Dean was TRYING to change
them when Florida and Michigan decided to pull the power play....
He needed to stop the stampeded to jump to the front of the pack,
and those kind of death penalties did it?
Will Dean and the DNC go back and look at these problems
long term?
Hint: He will if Obama wins, If Hillary wins, she will stick Terry
McCaulife back in charge....
There's an agent of change for you!
They should start the whole damned thing over. Every candidate gets the same amount of airtime. No outside funding of any kind. Everyone votes the same day(s). Paper ballots. Everyone votes twice: Top 3 in 1st vote runoff against each other in 2nd vote. Gives everyone nationwide a chance to have their vote counted throughout the process.
Obama voted against giving the telecoms immunity. He showed up and voted against it. McCain showed up and voted for it. Hillary didn't show.
Would it not be cheaper, faster, and easier, to just have ONE day set aside for the Dems and one day set aside for the Reps, have all the primaries on that day (like a general election), all at the same damn time, and it's over and done with? Wouldn't it make more sense? Hell, have it as a national holiday or something or do it on President's Day. Would that not end all this superdelegate nonsense once and for all? The Dem Party is not supposed to be a corporation. Let your party members decide who they want as leader for the next election, and to hell with it.
pissed off patricia @ 44:
POP, this keeps me awake at night. If HRC wins, some dems may stay home but the repug base will be reenergized and the general election results will be well within Diebold operational tolerance.
The fact that 'superdelegates (otherwise known as elected Democratic officials) have been flipping to Obama in response to his massive public support shows that the system is not as broken as people try to claim.
The idea that the nomination should be the public's decision only is not a good one -- the average person in the public has no concept of politics, and elected officials have the experience to rule out seriously divergent ideas which might ruin the plank.
In a presidential race, the whole party has to conform to the candidate, so it is not at all unwise to allow the actual caucus in gov't to have a voice, along with the public voice, and the only issue is how many 'additional' delegates the party should allow into the superdelegate category -- the ratio may need adjusting, but the idea itself is sound.
Obama/Clinton will be a good ticket, and so would Clinton/Obama. That's what Dean is trying to engineer -- not a shoe-in for Senator Clinton. The way things are going, it is highly unlikely that Clinton will retain the presumptive position at the top of the ticket -- we will know soon enough.
pissed off patricia @ 46:
If Obamas kids don't vote because they hate Hillary and the Dems lose they will have to deal with the results and blow back of their folly and inexperience.
And thats exactly what is going to happen with a McCain win if Dems aren't put over the top by a convincing margin.
pissed off patricia @ 46:
No, I'll give her a shot! I never said I wouldn't.
But she is surrounding herself with the type of "idealists" that got us into this shit hole.
As for the Telecom Immunity, McCain voted for immunity, Obama voted against immunity and Clinton didn't vote......
pissed off patricia @ 44:
I think leftwing blogs such as this one, proves without a doubt that the Dems are already a party split. The only thing holding it together is...well...what's the alternative?
Blue Lensman @ 51:
Keep in mind just a couple of months ago we were being told the religious right would all stay home if they didn't get the candidate they want. The press likes to stir this shit up so they will have something for their talking heads to talk about.
Anyone who stays home to pout deserves what they get, but we don't. If you want something, you don't stand in the corner and pout, you fight for it with all your might. You might not get everything you want but fighting gives you a better shot at it.
Blue Lensman @ 51:
If Clinton is at the top of the ticket, the crossover vote from Republicans will be huge, as it will be for Obama (as already demonstrated).
As for Diebold, they are in DEEP shit. Their stock value has plunged, they are being sued by several states and districts (more to come), and their equipment is exposed as fraudulent. The primary season has served to show that E,S&S cannot be trusted to run voter rolls for the states. The new loyal SecStates in CA, OH, and to some degree places like CO and FL, have new ammunition against crooked RoVs, and the scandal of insecure electronic voting is becoming generally known.
So, no, Diebold cannot be the basis of a 'margin' -- by contrast, we're not going to need much of a margin, McCain has as much chance of winning the presidency as he had keeping his fighter jet in the air.
Paul in LA @ 52:
Yes, let them eat cake!
Okay guys, it's been fun chatting but I gotta bug out. Have a great weekend!
John @ 43:
That's an utter falsehood.
[Deleted. Two days in a row, you guys. I'm watching you. Don't start a flame war. Site Monitor]
Blue Lensman @ 58:
ELECTED officials are not 'royalty.'
The attempt to make it some sort of elitism is absurd. This is the elected talent of the party, and not to allow them an influence is to ignore what conventions have been FOREVER, and will always be.
Maybe you aren't happy as a Democrat, or are not a Democrat. The party is fundamental to the party; nominations are not just a plebicite.
[[Deleted. Two days in a row, you guys. I'm watching you. Don't start a flame war. Site Monitor]
Paul in LA @ 57:
I wish I shared your optimism, but I'm surrounded by Hillary-Haters and I know it's real. Furthermore, this year's slime machine is going to get so revved up that it will make 2004 look like a game of paddy-cake.
John @ 54:
All that really tells you is not to vote for McCain.
Obama/Clinton will be a good ticket, and so would Clinton/Obama. That’s what Dean is trying to engineer
Clinton wouldn't take that deal for VP...She will be too old to run in 2016.
Obama wouldn't take that deal. Why be the THIRD wheel in the Clinton
power team. Ask Al Gore how that worked out.
He can risk she loses in this year, and run in 2012 against McCain.
and BOTH of them need a running mate with other characteristics.
Obama needs a Richardson or a Biden, to shore up "The experience" card...
Hillary needs help in the red states, because SHE HAS to campaign there,
and she needs to send a more acceptable surrogate.
Clark would work for her, or some other red leaning Governor?
Besides, it's not always a slam dunk that "the dream ticket works"
rival put together?
How did that work out for Kerry/Edwards?
Blue Lensman @ 62:
Fine, you aren't the entire nation, and neither are your Hillary-haters.
By November, the economy will sweep a landslide to the Democrats not seen since 1932, when Roosevelt's party picked up 101 seats in the (much smaller) House.
We're not voting tomorrow. This whole year is going to be a disaster for what's left of the Republican party -- as you saw yesterday, when the R in the House made laughing stocks of themselves.
Paul in LA @ 61:
I wasn't trying to highlight party elitism so much as YOUR elitism. But I confess that I really can't do that nearly as well as you.
WashStateBlue @ 65 "Clinton wouldn't take that deal for VP...She will be too old to run in 2016."
Yes she would, and no she wouldn't. In '16 she'll be 67. Reagan was 70.
"Obama wouldn't take that deal."
Yes he would. VP is the highest transition to President there is in our history. If you are VP, you have a better chance at being elected than as Senator.
"How did that work out for Kerry/Edwards?"
They WON a stolen election. Didn't you know?
Blue Lensman @ 67:
Are you a Democrat?
Paul in LA @ 62:
I am not responding to his bait, just labeling it in the hopes he gives it up. I'm here posting reasoned arguments based on facts. I am not interested in having heated battles with non-citizens who have defeatist views, I guarantee you.
Paul in LA @ 69:
Not any more. The two party system has failed us.
Paul in LA @ 60:
Actually it's not...
Michael O'Hanlon
O'Hanlon and Pollack "were not only among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well".
Richard Holbrooke
Holbrooke's more hawkish inclinations showed on his farewell press conference as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations on January 11, 2001. There he said, "Iraq will be one of the major issues facing the incoming Bush administration at the United Nations." Further, "Saddam Hussein's activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world, not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime. His willingness to be cruel internally is not unique in the world, but the combination of that and his willingness to export his problems makes him a clear and present danger at all times."[1]
Martin Indyk is another CFR hawk!
Look it up, they are al hawks and on the CFR...
Paul in LA @ 68:
I can't believe that you, of all people, Paul in LA, have gone right by the obvious: why give up two high profile sitting Senators when you only need lose one?
If Clinton is at the top of the ticket, the crossover vote from Republicans will be huge, as it will be for Obama (as already demonstrated).
Is there ANY emperical evidence for this statement? A poll or something?
What we have seen is, in the primaries, Obama gets the independent/Republic vote, and on the Republic side, McCain gets the independent vote?
Sure, the Republic base HATES McCain, but they have been trained for years
to believe the Clintons are the devil incarnate.
Suddenly, Hillary is acceptable?
Yeah, Rush and Coulter are screwing with people's heads, but I have a HARD
TIME seeing a HUGE crossover to Clinton.....
Blue Lensman @ 71:
Ultimately, it's always a two-party government: the party that votes "yes" and the party that votes "no", isn't it?
As a person who desperately wishes to see the blind obedience of the republicans in both the white house and congress voted out of power, I am equally as worried that there may be a fraternal suicide should a popular vote place either Clinton or Obama in the lead only to be countermanded by "superdeligates".
Whether this weighs in on either side is of little concern to me--only that the infighting and consequence thereof may cause the democratic party to lose an honest advantage to a profligate and cowardly republican obomination could occur. FYI: I am speaking as a lifelong republican who is sickened and horrified by what has taken place in the past seven years.
Weaseldog @ 45:
Wow, then you need to get out more.
McCain't has serious mental instability. Unlike him, HC was never tortured for five years, isn't a racist, and isn't a warhawk whose instinct is to bomb his enemies as soon as he can make that happen.
Paul in LA @ 64:
Are you serious "Paul from LA"
No, it tells me she was in town when a VERY important bill was being voted on and she SKIPPED IT!!!
Our primary system has a lot more problems than that. The field has been narrowed down to the 2 weakest corporate Democratic candidates by the corporate press by who they did and did not cover.
Obama and Clinton just had the most money, not the most votes. We need a better press. The reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, and the break up of the big media companies.
Blue Lensman @ 71:
Not any more. The two party system has failed us.
Well then, you should disclose that disaffiliation when you opine about what the Democratic party should do. I've been a loyal member since the late 60s, and I will die a Democrat, thank you very much.
You have outsider opinions. No wonder you think it should be plebicite, plebicite, plebicite.
With a few notable exceptions (Kucinich and Feingold being an examples) democratic insiders have since at least ‘94 been all about shoring up there own bank accounts, safe districts and power perks. The nominating schedule and process are just the tip of the iceberg. The whole incumbent protection racket, regardless of that incumbent’s record, is the subterranean 9/10 that has ripped open any semblance of democracy in the democratic party. Lazy, numskulled, venal, it doesn’t matter, you will have the party’s support. Of course, if you get out of line, put your head up and try to really change things, you are dogmeat to the dem leadership (Pelosi does fundraisers for bush-dog yellow-Al but ignores and behind the scenes undermines Kucinich). Congressional approval rating is in the teens. They have waved the white flag on any kind of accountability for this administration and, conveniently, for themselves. Now they make a few oink-oinks about FISA without addressing the most egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment in history - that every phone call, web visit, and email of every American have been sucked up and stored up for years. You can be sure that the dem leadership knew it was happening and said nothing, did nothing because for them the most important, only important thing was their own political and financial position, never their oath to “Protect and Defend the Constitution”. You can be sure that any change in the primary rules will not come at the expense of any go-along-to-get-along incumbent’s right to a perpetual meal ticket.
John @ 78:
She was not TMK in town, she was in Texas. And her vote, or Obama's, did absolutely nothing to change what was a foregone conclusion for all of last year.
She opposes the profer of 'immunity.' She did not join the caucus for the loss, which made no difference whatsoever to the history, and the caucus does not blame her one bit. Ask Feingold if he thought she should be there. He'll tell you that campaigning is legitimate political work for change, and that IF the vote was tight, she would have been there.
Ok, it's known that less democrats will show up if Hillary is the nominee, which means a more difficult time for our D Rep's and Senator's...
We NEED a working majority and we need someone to sweep the dems into office!
I prefer Obama, due to his broader appeal!
Personally I am not a Hillary fan, not because she is a woman but because she accepts money from Rupert Murdoch, voted for the Iran resolution, wont apologize for her Iraq vote, seems very selfish in her speeches. I know that sounds petty but the thought of WE can make America better is far more appealing then I can fix problems...
Besides, it is going to take more then 50% of America behind us to get this fixed!
It is nice to see that Pelosi is so willing to comply with the will of the voters in picking our candidate. It too damn bad that she can't seem to find the same willingness to comply with the 78% of voters that wanted Bush and Cheney impeached in 2006.
Lets hope that Sheehan will be when she replaces Nancy this year.
Paul in LA @ 80:
Well then, you should disclose that disaffiliation when you opine about what the Democratic party should do. I've been a loyal member since the late 60s, and I will die a Democrat, thank you very much.
You have outsider opinions. No wonder you think it should be plebicite, plebicite, plebicite.
I never made any statements regarding what the party should do, I simply disagree with this statement of yours:
That's elitism, plain and simple.
Paul in LA @ 82:
Do you actually just READ talking points?
VIA Politico
The vote also provided an opportunity to showcase the key differences on national security between presidential candidates, as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted against immunity for telecoms, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), voted to keep immunity in the bill. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not show up for the vote. All three candidates were in the Washington area Tuesday morning for the region's three primaries.
Lt @ 84:
Pelosi has zero to do with it, except as a superdelegate.
John @ 86:
News to me, but it doesn't change the meaninglessness of that vote. She had to decide if her supporters would dun her for not being there for symbolic purposes, and she clearly decided no.
You don't support her, that's probably a preexisting dislike, and so the claim that this vote is the dividing line for you is probably hyperbole.
Blue Lensman @ 85:
No, it's a fact, as is clear to anyone.
Elected party officials are NOT royalty. They were elected; they are expressions of public will (at least in general). Your argument is false.
Lt @ 84:
This is a common misconception.
GSM Sheehan will NOT become Speaker. She would be one vote in 435.
john in california @ 81 "Pelosi does fundraisers for bush-dog yellow-Al but ignores and behind the scenes undermines Kucinich"
The Speaker campaigns (minimally) for the caucus, that's correct. She has ZERO choice about that, it's part of her job.
As for Kucinich, the Speaker has not 'undermined' him. That claim is false.
Paul in LA @ 80:
Well then, you should disclose that disaffiliation when you opine about what the Democratic party should do. I've been a loyal member since the late 60s, and I will die a Democrat, thank you very much.
Paul in LA @ 88:
I listed items that I disagree with her on, actually the Iran resolution is one of the main reasons.
There is no dislike for her, and I find it arrogant that you know why i like or dislike a candidate. All I said was I think Obama is a better candidate. Also, I think he has stronger coattails to bring D's into offices...
You and your delusional support for Hillary can join the O-Train in June!
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Back on topic, please. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Back on topic, please. Site Monitor]
John @ 101:
I voted for Obama. I'm a Progressive. I have protested the Clintons for a good long time, but I'm not of the opinion she would be a bad president, so I'm not unhappy about Obama's successes and wish him more -- but I'm not going to trash Senator Clinton for the love of leftists to make the rightwing happy.
[Deleted. Back on topic, please]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
[Deleted. Get it back on topic, people. Site Monitor]
John @ 94:
Well, I missed your list, sorry.
That resolution didn't change anything. Quite obviously, H Clinton is running on the center-right agenda, trying to be tough enough to win an election in a country with some really serious opponents to pacifism. Obama himself is not running as a peacenik -- he doesn't go as far as H Clinton, but he would if he had to (when he has to).
Unlike many, I don't look at candidacies (and especially utterances on the stump) but at people. H Clinton is smart, she's capable of change, she enjoys enormous name recognition, and Obama is handing her her arse. If he can keep on doing that, he's going to be our candidate, which is fine with me.
My candidate this time out was Edwards. I'm not a natural supporter of Obama, but I support the grassroots. And unlike many of the supposedly more liberal critics here, I will be protesting in the streets for two hours today, as I have for four years -- HOW MUCH ARE YOU DOING?
"No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, or what happens in the general election, the DNC has to realize..."
I don't think Howard Dean and the DNC are even awake right now. Maybe it's their hibernation season. Where in the hell is the leadership? When is Howard Dean going to come out of his cave and show some leadership and unite this party again? I've read blog after blog of nasty fighting among Dems with Obama backers saying they will never vote for Clinton and Clinton backers saying they will never vote for Obama. At a time when we should be taking our country back, we are split down the middle and will likely hand the White House over to McCrazy. Thanks one hell of a lot, Howard.
simple fix
rotating regional primaries by lottery
leaving both nh and iowa out of the mix to start off the giant mess
kill the superdelegates
states are still allowed to choose whether to use voting or caucus, but caususes need to ease up on rules (saturday voting may seem ok, but it cuts out observant jews and 7th day adventists)
of course, this has to all be voted on in each state legislature, which will eff up the whole thing
liberalista @ 107:
You mean like two weeks ago when he said that he would be working to combine the ticket?
Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is as much a 'unite the party' move as there is to make. And he's on it.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 108:
No it doesn't. The Dem party is free to have its 'superdelegate' system of giving some say to elected party officials, without recourse to any state legislature.
After taking part in my first caucus, I do really like that system. Maybe it's just my precinct SEA 37-1647 King Co., supposedly the "most diverse, and bluest" in the state, but I was very much overwhelmed by the awareness there. Most everyone there seemed to know their stuff quite well. This was reassuring to me, to actually be able to tell that the voters knew just what the hell they were voting for.
I just skimmed the thread so I don't know if I am in the majority or minority, but I do not like the Republicans winner take all rule. It makes the lesser known candidates completely irrelevant and makes a 51-49 outcome also completely irrelevant.
I agree with most that I saw above that the media is making way to big of a deal about this right now. I agree that it does need to be talked about, but the knee-jerk manner they are doing it in helps no one...well maybe the Republicans....
I highly doubt the superdelegates would do something so stupid as to go against the will of the voting public of their own party.
My prediction: Should Hillary some how get the nomination either via supers, FL, MI, or all of the above despite Obama winning either the popular and/or pledged totals, then Al Gore steps in to save us all and runs as a third party, perhaps even taking Obama with him on the ticket. Hmmm, now that I'm thinking about it I'm almost rooting for Hillary.
Paul in LA @ 109:
Well, two weeks ago is an eternity these days, but I hope you're right, Paul, and "He's on it...". I had enormous respect for him before this and I gave him full credit for the 2006 wins, but seriously, we need to be seeing more and hearing more from him so we can pull this party back together before it's too late.
cmhmd @ 23
I agree with you. California moved the primary up to February, but what was the point. We were only left with three choices. The others were still on the ballot, but that vote would go down as undecided, or not count.
I still don’t get Edwards. He had to stay in just one more week. What the f*** was he thinking? There must have been a deal made.
The leaders of the Parties have too much power. There needs to be major changes, including eliminating the super delegates. I will not vote for Senator Clinton under any circumstance. I will also not vote for any ticket that includes Edwards as the V.P, like they would care. I will vote third party or do a write-in.
I never sit-out an election.
As for Michigan and Florida, those voters were screwed by the party, but, sorry Hillary, you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game.
Did Hillary have a signing statement where she could count the delegates?
Heck, maybe this is why they haven't done anything about the paperless voting machines - our votes don't mean shit anyway.
And who knows, maybe the reason we aren't hearing much from Howard Dean is because the media controls so much of what we hear. Sad sad sad...
javol @ 13:
Here you go -> http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superd...
Obama is a hypocrite....the more I learn about him the more I dislike him. All he is is a feel good motivational speaker. I can't believe how many people are blinded by his words.
He speaks of change.....
Example 1 - His wife was on the board of an company whose biggest retailer was Wal-Mart.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/wobama13...
she quit only when he decided to run for president....if he is not running for president it is okay for her to keep her job, but not okay when he runs for president. hmmmm......
Example 2 - He first states that he wants the superdelegates to vote the way their state votes....now he wants superdelegates to vote according to who has the most pledged delegates, most states, and the popular vote (depending on which he wins).
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/08/649765.aspx
I am still waiting for him to tell kerry and Kennedy that they should change their vote (not their support).
There are more examples, if you are a hypocrite in one area, chances are you are a hypocrite in other areas.
Also, It is interesting that he states he makes the right decisions by touting the fact that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning....but, he made a bad judgement call when dealing with Renko. So when president, which one will it be....good decisions or bad decisions. He has made both just like other candidates.
When you put yourself up on a pedestal like he does, he only has one way to go and that is down.
The last time I saw the media in love with a candidate like they are with Obama, was in 2000 when they couldn't say enough good things about Bush while trashing Gore at every turn!
Someone let me know if Obama walks on water while I'm asleep tonight.
If he is the second coming, I want proof!!
Now would be a good time to start pushing for reform to the primary process or maybe in the interim between their being a de facto candidate and the convention. Once the convention is over the general campaign will take all of the national party's energy and once the election is over people will start tuning out.
The question is what form would a new Democratic primary process take? It can be done completely independently of the state governments though then lots of the overhead costs will fall to the party.
At one extreme you have a single national primary but that would seem to favor either establishment candidates or celebrity candidates. At the other end you can have a series of small primaries but then the states doing the winnowing may not be representative of the country at a whole; that's the problem now as the first states to vote are rather more conservative than the mainstream of the party. I was thinking we might have some sort of phased national primary where people are randomly assigned a phase; the big problem with this is that it would still end up requiring too much money to communicate with the voters.
How about a two step process where we select delegates who meet extensively with the candidates and then vote on them. These delegates wouldn't knock anybody completely out of the race, but would provide them with a percentage of the national delegates. Then, after an interim we hold a national primary which would divvy up the rest of the delegates. Any other ideas?
Seeing what a disaster Howard Dean has created, it's probably a good thing he didn't win the nomination in 2004. Not that it would have mattered, since either way the Repubs would have stolen it.
But Hillary is showing her style now with this matter, hope I don't have to vote for her in Nov. Democratic party can fuck up anything. Maybe that's the point, they are all in it together.
So uh why is this suddenly an issue? How many elections have we been through where an intense focus on voting has taken place?
And nothing's been said about the superdelegate situation?
tpartier @ 6:
Oh please...Obama's national ads were the only candidates' ads to run in Florida a few weeks, or EVER before the Florida primary.
Hundreds of thousands of people showed up in Florida, and every Dem's name was on the ballot...it was a valid race, only the DNC decided to disenfranchise voters...If that happened to me, I'd be pissed as hell.
Let's recap:
None of the candidates campaigned Florida, with the exception of national ads that ran a few weeks before the Florida election...All of the Dem candidate's names were listed on the ballot...Hillary got 800,000 votes, and flew in to celebrate her victory.
Ali @ 114:
There are no paperless voting machines in most of the largest states. It would be interesting to figure out who has what at this point, but major strides have been made removing the votefraud the R Party installed.
The main problem at this point is not so much paperless machines, but votefraud company management of voter rolls, mandated by HAVA, handed off to Diebold (in Los Angeles County, btw), and ES&S. They are disenfrachizing people on a grand scale.
In Los Angeles, you aren't on the rolls (maintained for the county by Diebold), you get a provisional ballot -- apparently COUNTED by Diebold. We're just uncovering this latest hateful bit here, but it's amazing.
As for 'they' not doing anything about it, YOU need to be doing something about it if you care. A lot has been done, and more needs doing. Russ Holt, for instance, has a bill to make all paperless voting illegal in the entire U.S. by 2012. We should work to make that law.
groucho @ 119:
Dean has done nothing but excellent good for the party, sir.
But nice try.
Destardi @ 121:
It WAS NOT A VALID race - nor a sanctioned race. You try and qualify an out and out dishonest maneuver after the fact, hmm you related to Bush or Scooter? You try to equate a few national ads to full fledged campaigning? you think that evened up the opinion argument versus someone who had years opf exposure in Florida?
Geezy - the rules were the rules - don't change 'em midstream.
Login or Register to post comments.