Everyone needs to shut up and let THE PEOPLE decide. Stop putting these idiots on the air.

Dear GAWD!!! I'm SO friggin tired of all this BS!
The dems BETTER NOT screw this up. Get your shit together DEMS. If you hand over the WH to another fuckin neo-con...then you all are truly spineless and worthless.

I am so sick of the Clinton's complaining about.
A) Her winning the "important" states
and
B) Caucuses are "undemocratic"

She won New York, California, New Jersey & Ohio... Any generic Democrat would win these states right now.
Caucuses are VERY democratic! You get in a room and debate the candidates then count! They are far less hackable then primaries! The Clinton's also said that only upper class people attend caucuses.... I live in Alaska and I wold say 50% of the attendees were in their 20's and weren't professionals...
Please stop insulting everyone but the people in the state you won.

Some democracy we have here. I actually didn't have any strong feeling towards Hillary Clinton either way until recently, but she's really starting to piss me off. If you can't win the hearts and minds of the people, Senator, move out of the way for someone who can.

The DNC heads in Fl and MI could have protested what the reThugs were doing but didn't. They broke the rules and are paying for it period, changing the rules now isn't helping anyone.

Also, changing precedence in regards to pledge delegates indicating where the super delegates place their support isn't helping anyone either.

The democratic party is short on leadership and they are showing it now with being wishy washy with the rules because of a main party figure doesn't want to play

Oh, and Hillary should forget about a joint ticket, especially the Clinton/Obama flavor. That's the "dream team" alright, for the Republicans. ;)

Which are the unimportant states?

The comments on senior citizens and caucuses reminds me of my experience while driving to the Democratic caucus (February) in Sarpy County, Nebraska, where I noticed several senior citizen couples on the road, and in fact a very large cross section of people, --7 miles before I got to the voting site--. I realized that they were NOT part of the normal Saturday Going To The Mall traffic...they were obviously all on the way to caucus. This Democratic contest, and the closeness of it, isn't a party issue. VOTERS are disenfranchised with the COUNTRY. This should be A Good Thing for 1) Voters 2) The entire Democratic party.

Now that differences in policy and viability have been settled (largely in BO's favor but differences are minor), spin is all the HRC campaign has left. Enjoy 2 - 3 more months of this crap.

Here in my small precinct in SE TX, there was an equal mix of ages among the 87 people who attended the caucus. (Granted, the "Texas two-step" is bizarre, but it showed that old people certainly DO attend caucuses.)

Hillary is just selfish; she's getting beat fair and square, and now she wants to re-write the rules. What a pathetic person.

Oh, and since Obama actually is getting more delegates than her in Texas, I guess my state just went from one of the "big" states to an "unimportant" one.

Ridiculous.

Our entire system of voting is completely undemocratic. Primaries, caucuses and the general election are nothing resembling "one person, one vote" and never have.

It's sad that Logan overlooks this very easy to understand fact, only to disagree with Rendell. This problem is much bigger than just one candidate, or one election.

The latest I've read at Huffingtonpost is, Clinton even thinks the pledged delegates are up for grabs. Why don't they kick her out of the race, she is doing the worst damage here. Where are the Democratic leaders with cojones who tell her to get lost? As a European I had my say on that over at TheZoo.

JW @ 20:

"Russert also touches on the issue of caucuses and Rendell reiterates the Clinton campaign’s charge that caucuses are “undemocratic,” and disenfranchise voters. Right, a process that has worked since early in America’s history, and now, they’re going to claim it’s a problem."

Well, it does seem there is SOME sort of difference. When people have all day to go and spend only the time necessary to vote...Clinton seems to win or lose close. When people have to spend hours in a caucus, and only the set hours that caucus is scheduled for, Obama wins HUGE. Anyone have ANY idea why this might be?

" The problem isn’t that caucuses are undemocratic so much as they’ve been more successful for Obama so far."

I was disenfranchised in Colorado by the caucus system. I didnt have the time available. Had I been able to walk the few blocks to my neighborhood voting station and spent 15-45 min voting, I would have.  Plenty of college kids have the time though.

If it's important enough to you, then make the time. Have you at least worked to make the time more convennient for everyone?

How much more of the constant insulting of the general public's intelligence will it take for the Hillbots to figure this out. Seriously if this is not an indication of things to come I don't know what else is. In all seriousness, how much more different is this than the constant controversies we see out of the Bush administration. Facotr in their ultra secretiveness and you see that they're similar to Bush in the fact that they manufacture and control the weeks news cycles with BS. Be it "they're picking on me" to the Powers garbage, the Canadian non-story. Meanwhile it all gives the appearance of offense when they're distracting real news people, and more importantly, Senior Producers at networks from real news like the Hillary's Rezko problems, or her taxes, or the fact that, in there eyes, even though he maintains delegate popular and states won lead they still think that they can back room arm-twist to get Hillary the nomination. Sane people see through all of this. And in the end she will end up rallying the party against her so much that she may not be able to come out of this embarassment. And lastly, Dean needs to grow a pair and fire a shot across the bow of the DLCer's. They've played him once with the Leiberman vs Lamont debacle. That should have told him that scorched earth is fully in their playbook. They never cared about grassroots, they never cared about 50-states (as clearly evident by Hillary's performance), and they definitely don't care about the party or the average voter. The next few weeks are crucial, you'll see the wolves take off their sheeps clothing like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Most are playing their hand for both hoping that Obama lives up to his cheek turning, aisle crossing persona. But it is extremely important to see who we can truely trust. This is fortunate because we can take this into our battles governing when he is president. Because it's always the one's in your family that will cross when given the opportunity.

If Rendell can't deliver Pennsylvania to Obama in the general election, then he is not doing his job as a Democrat party leader in his state.

Caucuses can't be hacked. Why did Clinton win the three most corrupt voting states, Florida, Ohio and Texas? Anyone ever check the voting that got Bush elected as Governor of Texas? I will bet there were a lot of shananigans going on. That was probably where a lot of the tactics used now to fix the vote were tested.

I was kind of disgusted with both here...but seriously, Rendell just seems like a bully.

If Daschle were as animated against his Repug opponent in 2004, he may have kept his seat.

Bottom line for me is this, Obama does seem to be trying to keep above the fray and to fight back at the same time. Clinton seems to be grasping as straws to get her way. They both need to take a break, re Mo Rocca's suggestion. WE the people, definitely need a break from all this mess. I'd imagine that after a year of campaigning, they really do as well.

Clinton seems to be proving all of the nasty things that the Repugs have said about her being Lady Macbeth, etc. This is not what we need right now. A reason to revitalize Limbaugh and their cronies, not good for anyone at this moment in history. We do need change, and Hill is not it.

I'm not completely thrilled with Obama, either, but I do see something different in him than we have seen for the last ..oh...28 years. Come on.....we can't do another 12 years of the Reagan Agenda, people. I hope the leaders in the party can take Hill and her followers aside and explain to them what real change is, and why we so desperately need it. Not holding my breath.

Ya know...when I see "all natural' on something in the grocery store I move right on by as it is sure to be a scam. In political discussions the same applies for the word 'surrogate'. Folks the word has a definition and it is in no way being used properly here. A surrogate is a replacement or stand in for someone else. Political staffers are just that..they are not alternatives to their bosses. But then again, the story would lose its hook if written " staffer says this"..now wouldn't it?

The whole argument is moot. At this point, it looks like neither Hillary OR Obama will be able to reach the threshold for securing the nomination. We'd better figure out real soon how to work together. Neither candidate is going to back out, and frankly, neither one SHOULD back out.

All of this infighting will only help the GOP.

Spitzer is done. It was a long-time coming. But we finally have a Democrat caught in a sex scandal. The Republicans had quote a streak going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html

i'm confused. those "big states" that rendell claims, aren't they democrat-automatic states in the general anyway? if obama's the nominee, does that mean that california, new york, massachusetts, and michigan are suddenly in play for the republicans? flawed logic like that kills me. obama probably opens up some republican strongholds and possibly puts them in play at least.

once again hillary and her minions throw the people and the country under the bus for her own powerlust.

oh yeah, by the way before i get accused of being an obamabot or anything else, he was not my first or even second choice. i'm going with him becasue he's not her.

Per MSNBC, Obama has more pledged delegates from primaries than Clinton. Pretty remarkable when you consider the local democratic machines behind Clinton in big states like California and New Jersey.

Dhalgren @ 39:

Spitzer is done. It was a long-time coming. But we finally have a Democrat caught in a sex scandal. The Republicans had quote a streak going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html

Yes, but as far as we know, Spitzer was involved with adult women in heterosexual acts, not in a public men's room, and no kids were involved in the sex... so, really... Spitzer has some work to do if he wants to be compared with the Republicans.

Dhalgren @ 39:

Spitzer is done. It was a long-time coming. But we finally have a Democrat caught in a sex scandal. The Republicans had quote a streak going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion/10cnd-spitzer.html

Yeah but CNN framed it as he was somehow running it. He was just a client. AND unlike repugs he admitted it and hopefully will step down. I feel bad for his wife and kids.

Matt Hussein in Texas @ 25:

JW @ 20:

"Russert also touches on the issue of caucuses and Rendell reiterates the Clinton campaign’s charge that caucuses are “undemocratic,” and disenfranchise voters. Right, a process that has worked since early in America’s history, and now, they’re going to claim it’s a problem."

Well, it does seem there is SOME sort of difference. When people have all day to go and spend only the time necessary to vote...Clinton seems to win or lose close. When people have to spend hours in a caucus, and only the set hours that caucus is scheduled for, Obama wins HUGE. Anyone have ANY idea why this might be?

" The problem isn’t that caucuses are undemocratic so much as they’ve been more successful for Obama so far."

I was disenfranchised in Colorado by the caucus system. I didnt have the time available. Had I been able to walk the few blocks to my neighborhood voting station and spent 15-45 min voting, I would have.  Plenty of college kids have the time though.

If it's important enough to you, then make the time. Have you at least worked to make the time more convennient for everyone?

I dont have the time to caucus, period. Ive a life. Does that mean I should be disenfranchised? No, its my RIGHT to vote, and there is an ALTERNATIVE that allows me to do so.

The point was that there is a legitimate argument to be made against the caucus system. Its simply out dated. This is no longer an agrarian society where peole can afford to take several hours once or twice a year to come together and argue about who they should support as a group. Simple voting takes less time, and since it is not limited to any set time, gives people all day to cast their vote. I dont think you need to do scientific testing to see which allows for a more democratic process by making sure everyone has an equal say, with equal opportunity to have that say.

"I’m not completely thrilled with Obama, either, but I do see something different in him than we have seen for the last ..oh…28 years. Come on…..we can’t do another 12 years of the Reagan Agenda, people. I hope the leaders in the party can take Hill and her followers aside and explain to them what real change is, and why we so desperately need it. Not holding my breath."

LOL. Yes, "Real Change" means a black man implementing a set of policies rather than a woman. Seriously, have you bothered to go to their sites and READ what their policies are? They have been having a problem distinguishing how they are different for a reason, THEY BASICALLY ARENT! Their policies are almost identical, just like McCains are basically the same as GW's.

I'll be satisfied with either Hillary or Obama for that very reason; either one puts in place policies similar to the Clinton admin in the 90's, and those were fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and damn good for the country.

4 years of McBush and we are going to be hurting.

C&L needs to get its act together. Do you want us to take a break of not? On the prior post to this one you suggest we all need to take a break from Politics. Next you get us riled up by posting an Obama and Clinton Political surrogates going at it.
Hey C&L I think YOU need to take a break or at the very least check what the right hand is doing before using the left one. :>)

bobswire @ 53:

C&L needs to get its act together. Do you want us to take a break of not? On the prior post to this one you suggest we all need to take a break from Politics. Next you get us riled up by posting an Obama and Clinton Political surrogates going at it.
Hey C&L I think YOU need to take a break or at the very least check what the right hand is doing before using the left one. :>)

:)

teknikAL @ 54:

So much for the Democrat's 50 state strategy. I was under the impression that Dean was the head of the party and was doing things differently. I understand allowing all 50 states to speak on their choices through caucuses and primaries before Dean intervening (if he really can). Dean's 50 state initiative has brought more voters to the Democratic party than any other.

I find it pretty amazing to set forth a new plan to set up party offices all 50 states only to say that only the few large states count. I find it even more disingenuous to agree to not campaign and/or count the Fla and MI early primaries only to campaign and push for them to count afterwards. It even boggles the mind to know that the Democratic party has offered to pay for an other primary or caucus in both states, but to have that refused by the states. This is a perfect solution, yet no one talks of it but Dean.

Clinton is the caricature of the old Democratic campaign; hire the DC insiders for big bucks and concentrate on the big states and those with Democratic majorities and ignore the small and the 'red' states.

Obama epitomizes the new Democratic party; a 50 state strategy with grassroots organization a priority.

Clinton: exclusive; Obama: inclusive; Clinton: fear; Obama: hope; Clinton: status quo; Obama: a new beginning..................

Clinton: The Galactic Empire; Obama: The Rebel Alliance.

Barack, I'm your Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yea, caucuses are "undemocratic" because they involve people coming together to make decisions.

What a tool.

What makes Daschle an expert...If I remember correctly he LOST his re-election bid.

Both the candidates Clinton and Obama are playing lawyerly games while hard-core partisans on both sides are trying to play a scorched earth strategy.

teknikAL @ 54

That's classic positioning, little else.

Even Fred Thompson and John McCain try to present themselves as outside reformers when they've been on the inside as well for years.

Hillary's real problem with caucus voting is that there is no way for Diebold Corporation and electronic vote "counting" to be involved. No way for Hillary or Republican operatives to "fix" the election. The New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election was "fixed" for Hillary. Her alleged "victory" was rigged electronically, with the Diebold optical scanners "counting" some 80% of all the votes. These Diebold optical scanners were designed to be easily and unnoticeably hacked by Republican operatives. Beware of the coming Pennsylvania primary election in April, because almost all of the votes are recorded on direct electronic voting machines or the ballots are scanned electronically. Plenty of room for another "surprise" Hillary "victory."

Why are so many people trying to make it sound so personal between Obama and Clinton?

Polls show Democrats are happy with both candidates. That's why they're having a hard time hitting the magic number that will cinch their nomination.

Fuck off you stupid talking heads. Obama is winning and Hillary is friggin whining. Hillary camp is trying to spin this hard. I wonder what the argument would be if Hillary was winning? She would be following the fucking rules for one.

This is so disgusting. So the Hillary campaign wants to pay for a revote. "Caucuses are undemocratic"? WTF? They aren't undemocratic in the big states that Hillary won, now are they? Why wasn't Hillary bitching about caucuses before she started losing?

Stupid stupid stupid.

peaceful easy feeling Says: Oh, and Hillary should forget about a joint ticket, especially the Clinton/Obama flavor. That’s the “dream team” alright, for the Republicans. ;)

Obama cannot beat McCain no matter what the 'polls' say... there are many McCain GOPers that are voting for Obama simply because like YOU they HATE the Clintons (like most rethugs do and now Obamacons) also there are MANY redneck good ol' white boys that WILL NOT vote EVER for a black man let alone a muslim that won't wear a flag pin or swear on the bible you Obamacons are DREAMING

I am moving to Canada if the GOP wins this 'election'

John Moody Says: I live in California. We have more than ten times the population of Wyoming. So if you are trying to tell me that Wyoming is as important to the Democratic party as California then you are either being dishonest or you just aren’t that bright. I’ll let you decide. The idea that a caucus that includes several thousand voters is as democratic as an election that includes millions is equally as ridiculous. This primary isn’t over. Why don’t we let the candidates campaign and the voters decide rather than spewing insults back and forth about each candidate and their supporters.

THANK YOU!!! gawd finally someone that gets it right.
I only spew Obamacons crap because the Clintons took enough shit from Ken Starr and the right wing machine and for fellow 'dems' to trash them like they do is totall BULLSHIT. keep trashing Hillary I will keep pointing out Obama is a muslim

There is no doubt that a primary is more democratic than a caucus. It is true that many older people would rather vote via absentee than try to elbow their way into a caucus. Just because Obama leads in caucus delegates doesn't change that fact.
You are allowed your Obama whine, but you aren't allowed your own facts.

77 blaze

The problem is caucuses aren't meant to be more democratic than primaries, especially those primaries that are open.

Uncle Monkey @ 1:

Everyone needs to shut up and let THE PEOPLE decide. Stop putting these idiots on the air.

Agreed! Daschle sold us out to the repugs to begin with but now he and Gary Hart are mensches in the msm?

ysbaddaden @ 82:

So what's the effect of kryptonite on super delegates?

the effect of kryptonite?

absolutely zero.

no, their weakness is cash, by the wheelbarrow.

RancidVenison @ 80:

"I don't want anybody here thinking that somehow, 'Well, you know, maybe I can get both.' Don't think that way. You have to make a choice in this election."

There's your "unifying candidate" Obama for you...

In Obamaniac terms, he's "continuing to do everything he can to divide the party... he's only in it for himself... he'll do anything to win," and so on...

So by diffusing the Clinton strategy of "A vote for Hillary is actually a vote for Hillary and Obama" is somehow dividing the party. Got it. PS. You've got to admire the big old brass balls on Hillary for offering the VP sport to her opponent who is beating her.

JW @ 20:

"Russert also touches on the issue of caucuses and Rendell reiterates the Clinton campaign’s charge that caucuses are “undemocratic,” and disenfranchise voters. Right, a process that has worked since early in America’s history, and now, they’re going to claim it’s a problem."

Well, it does seem there is SOME sort of difference. When people have all day to go and spend only the time necessary to vote...Clinton seems to win or lose close. When people have to spend hours in a caucus, and only the set hours that caucus is scheduled for, Obama wins HUGE. Anyone have ANY idea why this might be?

" The problem isn’t that caucuses are undemocratic so much as they’ve been more successful for Obama so far."

I was disenfranchised in Colorado by the caucus system. I didnt have the time available. Had I been able to walk the few blocks to my neighborhood voting station and spent 15-45 min voting, I would have.  Plenty of college kids have the time though.

Caucuses generally support the more organized and candidate with stronger support amount their supporters. There's absolutely NOTHING undemocratic about it... it just has some problems that could/should be worked out in the details... just as the primaries have problems that need to be worked out in the details. I've participated in both primaries and caucuses and can tell you they both have their positives, caucuses generally get people talking, debating, and being very politically active, but they take a long time and can disenfranchise those with less extra time to vote. (maybe a solution would be to allow workers free time so they can vote, and mail in ballots for those who can't physically make it to the caucuses.

Primaries on the other hand are quick and easy (for the most part) for voters, however they do tend to support the candidate with the most name recognition and can breed issues with uninformed voters. Our entire election system has problems. This doesn't mean that we need knee jerk react and scrap the system. it just simply means we need to go through and fix it... get some security professors around the nation to work on voting security, and then get other committees to fix the other loophole and issues, and most importantly allow the people to be involved in the fixing process!

Cacuses are undemocratic now? What a load of f-ing hypocrisy..

Given the record turnouts, one thing is for certain: If they're undemocratic, they've never been less undemocratic than now!

So if you weren't complaining about caucuses before the elections, then you should shut up. And if you really do care about the issue, feel free to bring it up after the race is OVER.

SvenDem @ 89:

Cacuses are undemocratic now? What a load of f-ing hypocrisy..

Not just now, they've always been.

fin

Why does Hillary's campaign think that her winning the "big" states makes her more electable? In each of those states, both she and Obama received more votes than McCain. Even with none of her votes, Obama could beat McCain in the general. And everyone knows that most of her voters will vote for him. Yet I don't hear Obama claiming, or implying, that she will lose all those small states in the general just because he won them in the primary. She continues to sling mud, and it continues to dirty her and her alone.

Volum @ 91:

SvenDem @ 89:

Cacuses are undemocratic now? What a load of f-ing hypocrisy..

Not just now, they've always been.

fin

Then you have to concede that any primary where a person isn't allowed to register the same day and vote across party lines is un-Democratic too.

And any election where felons can't vote who has served their time and is off of parole is un-Democratic too.

You also have to concede that the electoral college is un-Democratic so who ever wins the general should not be respected either.

Rules are rules. If Hillary doesn't want to play by them, she shouldn't have entered the game.

Volum @ 96:

Mister Anderson @ 95:

Volum @ 91:

SvenDem @ 89:

Not just now, they've always been.

fin

Then you have to concede that...

I'll do more than concede that. I will go back in time and post here about our entire election system being undemocratic. Caucuses, primaries and the GE as well. None of them are remotely close to "one person, one vote".

"Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy."
--wiki (nothing fancy) ...

So is that really such a bad thing? or are you saying we dont have a representative democracy either? (even if we say we do?) i'm just trying to figure it out :)

Volum @ 98:

Voter @ 92:
Care to explain how? in detail...

I'll let Mumia Abu-Jamal explain it for you:

"In truth, your votes are all but superfluous - for you don't really vote
for candidates (even if you did choose them -which you didn't!); you vote
for electors - or delegates, whose votes determine not just candidates but
elections. And delegates are almost always big people - the wealthy, well-to-do
or well-connected.

How's that sound, for a democracy?"

sounds kinda like a representative democracy.... but i dont know... also isn't that quote in an immortal technique song?

ONLY STATES STARTING WITH "M", THOSE WHO ARE TALLER THAN THEY ARE WIDE, AND THOSE BORDERED ON AT LEAST 2 SIDES BY RIVERS SHOULD COUNT.

THOSE STARTING WITH "N" SHOULD COUNT HALF.

HAWAII SHOULDN'T COUNT AT ALL, ALASKA SHOULD COUNT DOUBLE...

.............SEE i told you i could straighten it out

Voter @ 97:

So is that really such a bad thing? or are you saying we dont have a representative democracy either? (even if we say we do?) i'm just trying to figure it out :)

The question was, is the process undemocratic or not?

It depends on which definition of "democracy" you favor.

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

We obviously do not have a democratic system with majority rules. We do not elect our officials directly. We do not choose who those people are, that we don't get to vote for. Our "representatives" are generally not people who any of us would like to vote for, if we were given other choices. But local party officials dictate who they are, not us.

That's why we get people like Dianne Feinstein in San Fransisco. A woman who's politics bare little resemblance to those she supposedly "represents".

Mister Anderson: I agree with everything you said.

But I would've left out the comment about Hillary, as this issue is much larger than just one candidate, or their crappy surrogates.

Rules rules rules.............

Breaking rules. Changing rules. Rules to ONEs advantages...................

This IS another example that "CHANGE" for the better is not going to happen unless the "RULE BREAKERS", the LAW BREAKERS, and the flip-floppers remain in the GAME.

Anyone who is promoting to CHANGE an already established RULES in order to change an outcome to FAVOR the RULE BREAKER.........should be defeated. That candidate clearly does NOT promote the kind of "CHANGE" consistent with the PEOPLE who are calling for a REAL CHANGE.

At this point Clintonians are NO different from the POLITICS of the last 2 decades.

THIS IS WHY, VOTERS may change to a THIRD PARTY viables candidates IF Billary wins the nomination.

unfrozencaveman @ 48:

Remember it is possible to elect a President who lost the national popular vote. A vote in Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska is worth a bit more than a vote from California. Don't like it? Take it up with the founding fathers.

Even if you take away caucuses, the primaries are hardly homogenous. Some allow crossovers, some are completely open, etc. States have the right to run their primary as they see fit. What is dishonest is complaining about the rules when they don't go your way.

Ah, Mr. Caveman, the question wasn't about individual votes but about states. So, please, apples to apples. Like it or not there is no way that Wyoming is as important in terms of a Presidential election as California. Are you disagreeing with that?

As for primaries versus caucuses the question wasn't one of homogenity but which are more democratic. You failed to address that question.

As for "complaining about the rules when they don't go my way." I don't have a "way." As I stated, my wish is to let the candidates campaign and the voters decide. Of course, since you don't want any "complaining about the rules when they don't go your way," you must be more than happy to let the super delegates all vote for one candidate over the other regardless of whatever takes place in the primaries and caucuses.

Saving my anger toward the idea of a "super delegate", the entire concept of "delegates" stinks of collusion and corruption.

Even broken down into the smallest parts, our election system should be dismantled, taken behind a shed, and beaten to death.

Rendell is simply a political hack of the worst sort. I'm embarrassed to have him as governor of my state. In the wake of the Spitzer sex scandal, I think it's time to ask whether we really want a couple in the White House with sleazy sex issues. Why should anyone pull any punches with the Clintons? They don't pull any punches with anyone else! And what about their tax and related financial dealings which they are hiding?

Rico chimes in with more of that same-ol tired nonsense!

woooooo!!!

YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS AND WILL DESTROY PLANET EARTH!!!!

"Right, a process that has worked since early in America’s history, and now, they’re going to claim it’s a problem..."

Yeah, like slavery, women not having the right to vote, women not being able to own property, all things which existed early in our nation's history but proven not to be such a good idea. If you are honestly going to contend that the caucus system is fair then you are so steeped in fervor for your candidate that you may never be able to see the light of day. Even back in '04 when I attended a caucus and served as a delegate at the district level and my candidate won, it was obvious to me that it is a ridiculous method to select a candidate. How is it fair? Housebound people cannot participate. Soldiers serving overseas cannot participate. Anyone who happens to have to work that day and cannot get time off cannot participate. People who are hospitalized cannot participate. The list can go on and on. No matter who one supports in this election, trying to insist that caucuses are fair smacks of narrow-minded desperation.

Also, Rendell is making the implicit assumption that because Hillary won, for example, CA in the DEM primary that Barack will lose CA to McCain. What? We all know that any large state that is traditionally democrat will EASILY be won by Barack. And we all know that big states on the edge (Ohio, PA) could go either way.

Split the dame votes and move the hell on

I assume all the sticklers for the rules who think Florida and Michigan should NOT be counted would also be happy if 300 superdelegates, TOTALLY in keeping with the rules, decided to give their votes to Hillary Clinton tomorrow on the basis that her pledged delegate wins so far are exactly the State mix the Dems need to win First Place in November, right?

Since the Democratic Party primaries/caucuses are NOT "winner take all" in each State as they are with the Republican Party and as it is in the general election, the Democratic Party knows very well it is entirely possible for a candidate to get a majority of delegates sprinklled among States in such a way that it has Distant Second Place Trophy in November written all over it.

That's where Obama is right now.

And that's what the superdelegate system was invented to accommodate. It was not invented to rubber stamp the majority will of the pledged delegates under all circumstances.

I just love it when Gov Ed Rendell makes his statement that, "I don't care which candidate wins as long as the democrats wins the Presidency".

Yet the Gov. sat there proclaiming his endorsement of Hillary Clinton and argues for over turning the dem candidate with the most delegate and overall popular vote.

Rendell must be a DLC democrat ?

"oh no, Causcus' aren't democratic. Primaries are. I guess I'd be saying that to if I was in Hillary's camp.!

He doesn't say that if Obama is the sole Democrat on the ticket against McCain. Obama wins those big states like Calif. and also steals the smaller ones from McCain at that.........

Will someone staple Rendell's mouth shut. What a disgrace he is.

The Democrats delegate allocation formula already favors the big, "important" states. They get more delegates per capita than small states, in recognition of their electoral role for the Dems.
Clinton has already received the "big state bonus" Rendell spoke of. Does she get it twice?

Listening to the Penn. Governor, I just wanted to ask, at what point will Hillary have lost bad enough that you would give up on her? Most people aren't going to say "I'll vote for McCain rather than Obama, if only Hillary had won", so my only real fear is that even though Obama is leading, (sweeps Mississippi today) Hillary keeps tossing McCain support. Why not just pick Leiberman as her running mate? Her lack of stratigic thinking is scaring me if she were to lead the country.