New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates

by: Mike Lux

Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 15:50


Today, OpenLeft.com and MoveOn.org are co-sponsoring a new petition to Nancy Pelosi, supporting her position on superdelegates and telling her that we'll back her up when she is threatened.

Matt noted yesterday a letter that 20 major donors and raisers to Hillary and other Democratic Party causes sent to Pelosi, upbraiding her for saying that voters ought to actually determine the election. Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with donors stating their opinion about this issue, and I don't blame them for doing it. I'm sure that the Clinton campaign asked them to send the letter, and they are loyal partisans for Hillary, so they did what they were asked to do.

But I also think that the millions of us who are smaller donors to this party, who give through MoveOn.org and blogs and ActBlue, should have an equal voice on the important issues with the big dog donors, and we believe that the candidate who wins this election ought to be given the nomination.

If the donors and raisers who signed this letter plan to take their money away from the DCCC, that would be a terrible thing, and if that's what they are implying with this letter, shame on them and on the Clinton campaign for encouraging that kind of threat. But, if they do take their money away, I believe those of us signing this petition can more than make up the difference through our collective efforts.  More importantly, it will be up to us to make sure that the actions of a few do not change the course that Speaker Pelosi and our House members have been fighting for.

Please sign the petition here.  

Mike Lux :: New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates | 63 comments
Your moveon dollars at work. (4.00 / 1)
An internet petition, to someone who already agrees with them.

Must be a slow day over at moveon.  

pretty good odds of success then (4.00 / 1)
Sure beats my e-mails to my local Republican congressman.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
24 Million over Ten Years (0.00 / 0)
NPR reported this afternoon that this group has donated a total of 24 million over ten years -- and they think that makes them heavy hitters.

In the Hillary campaign, that might be true -- all the more reason to support Obama.

[ Parent ]
I signed the FEC McCain petition ..it was the right thing to do (4.00 / 2)
I will not sign this one.  It is not the right thing to do.

The Super delegates are not rubber stamps...they were never designed to rubber stamps.  They purpose was to add another perspective...indeed even a break on what one of its designers, Susan Estrich, called excess democracy. If they were meant to just be one they 1. either would not be there or 2. they would have just been put into their state totals to be apportioned.  Like it. lump it these are the rules...Lots about the present rules really suck but they are the rules....If Democrats weren't so foolish we would have a nominee fight now ...just like the Republicans...proportional representation is a design for contentious conventions.....caucuses are not as fair or representive as primaries.  

As Chris himself noted, Obama's entire pledged lead comes from caucus states.   They are less representative than primaries...no ands, ifs and buts....Activist class or not..  

Pelosi was not stating a fact...just her opinion...and not so unbiased one at that.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Democracy. (0.00 / 0)
I kind of see progressivism as, in great part, the fight for more democracy, not to be a "Break on excess democracy". If that's what superdelegates were intended to do, progressives should fight against it- we should embrace and celebrate democracy, not try to put breaks on it.  
[ Parent ]
Got News For You (4.00 / 2)
We live in a representational democracy. Our elected reps vote how they see fit all the time. It's our system from the inception.

Supers are just part of that system leading up to the election of those reps but they are hand and glove the same in respect to that they are either elected by us and as they can vote for bills on their own so can they vote in the primaries on their own. There isn't a nickels worth of difference between the two votes. And if they are not elected then they are appointed by elected officials of by party officials.

It's called representational democracy Mike and they were never intended to be "proxy representatives" - neither the reps themselves or the Supers.

But then I'm sure you know all that and just ignore it.

[ Parent ]
Who cares? (0.00 / 0)
Since when were progressives supposed to be originalists?

Why not interpret the rules in the sense that you perceive to be most progressive? If you perceive a system to be undemocratic, why would you work within its dictates?

Progressivism has a long history, going back to getting direct election of senators, of trying to make democracy more direct. Why not do the same with the internal workings of the Democratic Party?

On a less abstract level, why treat the voters as if they're ignorant children who don't know who to pick?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
You sound like a frigging Republican (0.00 / 0)
They too want to interpret the rules in there own sense. So do Libertarians for that matter. So do Communists. So do religious wingnuts.

The fact is that you and others know what the rules are and in this case they don't favor you so you want to "interpret" them differently. And in doing so you expect people to respect you?

Let's face reality - if it was Obama who needed the Supers to follow the rules in order for him to succeed then you would be on opposite sides of this argument in a heartbeat. As such it can be safely and correctly said that any argument you make is self-centered and self-serving. And frankly if it was someone else making self-centered and self-serving arguments not in line with you then you wouldn't think much about them other than they are self-centered and self-serving.

[ Parent ]
It's not a question of interpreting (0.00 / 0)
Superdelegates can do what they want - including be influenced by this petition, if they feel like it.
[ Parent ]
One problem with that thesis: (0.00 / 0)
I'm not an Obama supporter. Recently I've started to dislike him less than Clinton, but all things considered I'd prefer a Clinton nomination as:
a) You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, the advances of the Obama campaign will not be thrown away and
b) If a Democrat is going to lose, I'd rather that it was Clinton.

Your ad hominem is perhaps less than accurate in terms of the positions of some of those groups, but it's hardly relevant. I simply don't believe in limiting yourself by adhering to an unspoken sense of the rules which does not in fact appear in the rules themselves. That's not to say that I don't believe that the rules should be followed, merely that I think it's profoundly misguided to interpret the rules according to some nebulous idea of fairness.

Both Clinton and Obama should be trying to further their spin on this matter so as to strengthen their position. I happen to believe that the Obama position is long-term a more favourable frame for progressives, but if either of them isn't willing to have this fight then I doubt their commitment to winning.

And if that makes me a Communist Libertarian Republican Christofascist, then may Buenaventura Durutti, Ayn Rand and my non-existent divine overlord throw me down into whichever hell is fashionable these days.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I knew I was being the straight man there (4.00 / 2)
But I don't see then how you can argue with the idea that they were designed to make their own choices.

If they are bound like the pledged delegates then they would have just made them pledged in some fashion when their state(s) voted.

They were designed to be Independent Actors....Threats from MoveOn doesn't obviate that.  

And just what is wrong with the popular vote being part of the consideration of what the will of the people is?  Seem to me voters are the final judge.   Nothing that I can see...because there indeed are superdelegates and the rules allow for whatever political considerations they think are crucial.  

I also agree with the commenter who said this is a Representative democracy....in which the representative is chosen for their judgement as well...and they are not only allowed but expected to show that judgement.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I knew I was being the straight man there (0.00 / 0)
But I don't see then how you can argue with the idea that they were designed to make their own choices.

If they are bound like the pledged delegates then they would have just made them pledged in some fashion when their state(s) voted.

They were designed to be Independent Actors....Threats from MoveOn doesn't obviate that.  

And just what is wrong with the popular vote being part of the consideration of what the will of the people is?  Seem to me voters are the final judge.   Nothing that I can see...because there indeed are superdelegates and the rules allow for whatever political considerations they think are crucial.  

I also agree with the commenter who said this is a Representative democracy....in which the representative is chosen for their judgement as well...and they are not only allowed but expected to show that judgement.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
sorry somehow it posted twice (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I don't get the animosity towards caucuses (4.00 / 1)
I mean, if you run an organization, wouldn't you actually want the input of the most committed and active members of that organization to determine the leadership?

People that go to caucuses are the people that phonebank, that canvass, that go to local Dem committee and precinct meetings, that support candidates and causes year-round.

I think you could argue very legitimately that caucuses gauge the opinion of Democrats, e.g. registered members of the Democratic Party (as opposed to independent and 'non-partisan' liberals), more accurately than primaries do.

Somehow, we're supposed to take at face value from flawed exit polling results that Hillary has won more votes from Democrats in primaries than Barack has. Well, in actual caucuses where actual Democrats actually signed up (and, yes, I realize caucuses are open for registrants on election day) and voted, he's won going away. That means something.

Yes, many of these caucuses were glorified straw polls, and they are difficult for some people to attend, etc., etc., but that's life. The rules were written to ascertain the overall preference of the Democratic party writ large, and were done so democratically. That they're messy just means they comport with how democracy operates in real life. Go to any school board meeting or environmental board meeting or city council meeting, and that messiness and disarray hits you square in the nose.

[ Parent ]
Caucuses (0.00 / 0)
exclude people who would otherwise participate in a primary. Therefore caucuses are not representative of democracy in action.

It's funny that we all rail against the cliques in DC making decisions for us but then some of us hail cliques in caucuses   as long as they or theirs control the clique.

That's called Clique Hypocrisy.

[ Parent ]
One of our party principles is to give voice to the voiceless (0.00 / 0)
Caucuses are convenient and they are cheaper than primaries...and in low turnout, low stakes elections they are fine.  But they do not directly reflect the the will of all the people...and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they do.  They are messy so we shouldn't elelvate them into something they are not....the unimpeachable and only way to judge the will of the people.

In these circumstances I think the popular vote is just as valid ...of course it would have iclude all who voted....

Activists are enormously valuable and they can lead the way...but they are inherently no more important in the weight of their vote than any other person.

And if a way to gauge their success or lack of it is to actually look at the polls and check out Chris's post on the Democratic civil War....they aren't successful and they aren't leading because they haven't converted the other half of the party who is supporting Hillary Clinton.  That should have happened by now.

And then there are the ratios  675 voters per delegate in Wyoming and 11,300 voters per delelgate in California.  Caucus vs. primary.  Obama won the Washington state caucus by 31%, a week later he wins the primary by 5%....An enormous discrepancy which undermines the large number of delelgates he gained in such states.

Superdelegates were designed to make up their own minds and those things I think they will and should bear in mind.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
You are missing the point (4.00 / 1)
Before I tell you why, it's really irritating that the caucus system has come under such criticism now, after HRC has gotten it handed to her, and not 6 months or a year ago.  If these are such bad things, change them well before an election, don't complain about them during the process.  Would you be bashing caucuses if HRC had won half of those contests?  I could make several arguements in favour of caucuses, but that would delay my real point even further.

The point of the article is that 20 large contributors are threatening the most powerful Democrat (at the moment) to change her position on SD's or else.  We all have varied opinions on the SD's and we could argue their merits just as much as we could argue about primaries vs caucus systems.  The troubling thing to me is that these shmucks feel that they have the power to influence the highest rankning elected Democrat into changing her position by essentially bribing her.  Doesn't it bother you that 20 very rich people feel that they can influence elected officials by threatening to pull their donations?  

[ Parent ]
Also (0.00 / 0)
while you are pointing out the vote per delegate imbalance in various states, why don't you complain about the number of Senators per population total in different states.  Many of your arguements have a certain amount of convenience based on the current situation of the primary.    
[ Parent ]
Caucuses (0.00 / 0)
I am in Texas and I went to the Caucus on March 4.  In my Precinct there were 531 attendees.  I would bet my bank account that at least 500 of them had never so much as registered to vote before, and even more had no idea what the word "caucus" meant.  Now in Iowa, this may very well be different.  But in Texas these were as far from the canvassing, phone calling people as you could possibly get.  

These were people who were either called on the phone or dragged there by a neighbor to appear and sign their names.  I guarantee you that if I would have stood up and yelled out.....Do Any of You Know Why You Are Voting For Whoever You Are Voting For?  Do Any of You Know Their Opinion on a Single Issue? ... the few Clinton supporters may have stood up with answers.  The Obama supporters who were there were not the great members of the Democratic Party that you wrote about.  Read into this whatever you like, but it is what it is.  

There was also not a single procedure that was done by the rules -- these people did not know the rules.  I was on the phone with the Obama Hotline explaining to them what was going on and how none of the rules were being followed, they agreed with me, they explained it to the Chair, who just didn't get it, I got the DNC to explain the rules to the Chair, he STILL didn't get it, so in that Precinct you have 531 unverified votes, a Permanent Chair who elected herself, a Permanent Secretary who also elected herself, neither of whom I am sure have a clue as to what the Chair has to do, not only at the caucus, but throughout the year -- whether or not Mr. Obama is nominated and/or elected.  Most of these people will not even vote in November if the nominee isn't Mr. Obama.

I got the feeling that most of the people there thought this was all a joke as they danced around chanting "Barack Obama the President of the United States."  So please, don't tell me about the devout Democrats who go to caucases.

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
When one side is saying "superdelegates should follow the pledged delegates," and the other side is saying "superdelegates should take the popular vote into account as well," it really takes an amazing amount of spin to label the FORMER position as the "voters ought to actually determine the election" stance.
obviously you did not read what they actually wrote (0.00 / 0)
Here is the letter.  It makes no mention of the popular vote.  

The key part is:

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.

This is in no way following the "popular vote," but advocating for other "factors" about "strongest nominee."  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
I'll say it again (0.00 / 0)
The position that the popular vote is not a relevant consideration is not the "voters ought to actually determine the election" position.

Pelosi specifically said that the pledged delegates lead should trump the popular vote lead, period.  That is not the "voters ought to actually determine the election" position.

The very thing being criticized is Pelosi's statement that the popular vote should be ignored.  Trying to portray her stance as the democratic position is pretty twisted.

[ Parent ]
The donors are a sideshow (0.00 / 0)
Obama's real problem is his condescension to Clinton supporters.  He's always said he had them at hello, but I'm not so sure.  I know I don't like him much these days (mainly because I see him as general election roadkill.) And his hardball politics on Florida and Michigan aren't winning him many friends outside his own universe.
Rules are rules, (0.00 / 0)
but progress often means breaking and rewriting the rules.  I do not take kindly to the notion that voters are ignorant and that the party must have the means to overturn and nullify the wishes of its general membership.  The very idea that party bosses know what is best for the 'rank and file' and also have the means to force their desires upon the 'rank and file' suggests to me that 'we the people' are merely pawns in their power games.  That kind of thinking has no place in a society whose governing structures are built upon the principles of 'self-governance'.
Smokescreens while the clock ticks. Let the race continue as it may. (4.00 / 1)
The (un)Democratic party -- the party I have supported for 45 years!  

I am so disgusted with Dean, Pelosi (not impeach), Reid (FISA coward) -- I want these a**holes gone as much as I want Bush, et al., gone.

One person, one secret ballot (if eligible, registered, and in state of residency).  A complete and accurate count.  

How can we deny or not count a vote by a citizen, and then allow a supposed higher authority approve or enforce the evil?  Then, are we to let the clock run out, so any challenge becomes moot?  Oh!  I remember now.  But, this time it is 'we against us.'

All of this other blather about one candidate dropping out for the sake of the party or how super delegates should vote is just a smokescreen -- while the clock ticks down.

We still have plenty of time, resources, and options to have a primary revote in both Florida and Michigan -- not caucuses, but real primary elections.

I am so disgusted with my party.  I have seen the erosion of our rights and stifling of our voices effected by neocons, and more than abetted by some of the feeble progressives we have elected to serve and protect us.

How are we to repair the damage caused by this war, the gluttony at the top, our ignorance of the disadvantaged, the putrid behavior of the fourth estate, etc., if we do not have our vote and voice?

It seems that supporting our party, voting, marching, waving signs, and typing words into emacs buffers will have little, if any, impact.

Throughout this campaign, I have said that I would support any candidate nominated by our party.

I am beginning to believe that my only option is to write in a vote for whichever Democratic candidate is NOT nominated.

No citizen should be denied the opportunity to participate in a primary or disenfranchised in an election.  Fix the Florida-Michigan debacle.  Let the primaries continue as they may.  Then the Presidential Election, Electoral College, and Swearing in.  Then we clean up our party by getting rid of our own bags-o-sh*t, beginning with Dean, Pelosi, and Reid.  Then we gut the DNC and get our primary rules right.

Clinton's Tony Soprano Moment (2.00 / 2)
Not only have these self-important 20 billionaires blatantly tried to use their money to buy an election, but Clinton has supported their efforts publicly.

Supporting moves like this - where the will of the few elite are more important than the good of the majority of U.S. citizens - are exactly what got us into a terrible war, a climate crisis and a recession.

Support Obama's campaign here to try and raise $315,001 (one more dollar than the "bigwigs" gave to Clinton) to show that we are here and we matter too.

http://my.barackobama.com/page...  

When people "buy" elections (0.00 / 0)
they don't write protest letters.  They just buy the election, and they do it with phone calls, not letters.

Why doesn't Obama put some money into promoting democracy, by supporting a revote in Florida and Michigan, rather than basing a fundraiser on pissing matches with a couple whiney Clinton donors?  "The Will of the People" - what a scantimonious fraud.

[ Parent ]
Why is this troll-rated? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Because it isn't a post (4.00 / 1)
so much as a solicitation.

I got troll-rated to death a couple days ago when I mentioned I donated to Hillary.  On reflection, I understand that reaction, and my post probably deserved the rating.

I don't think it's helpful to debate to link to either candidate's contribution pages.  I could post "that's why we need to win Penn - contribute now" with a link every time Hillary got bashed here (I wouldn't get anything else done all day, of course), but I think that the result would just be to piss Obama supporters off, and not contribute to the tone of the discussion.  I can understand this, because clicking on the link, seeing Obama's pompous face trying to muster a grave look, under the words "The Will of the People," was a highly distasteful experience.

You can disagree, of course, and rate it otherwise.  

[ Parent ]
I do disagree (0.00 / 0)
The point of this whole story at OpenLeft is the blackmail by these high-rollers. What Chris Bowers, shawnav, and others have said is that the netroots (MoveOn, Daily Kos, OpenLeft, et al) are more powerful than the high-rollers. This is exemplified by Obama's record-setting fundraising through small donors.

If a link to Clinton's fundraising page backed up your point, then it would be perfectly welcome.

Also, keep in mind that this site has endorsed Obama as the Democratic nominee.  

[ Parent ]
Troll points for hyperbole? (0.00 / 0)
"Blackmail?"

"Tony Soprano?"

This passes for rational discourse, apparently, once the site endorses Obama.

[ Parent ]
Explain this to me, btw: (0.00 / 0)
The letter states:

"Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election."

This is a perfectly reasonable position.  Not even a particularly controversial one - if the superdelegates choose to go with the pledged delegate counts, it will be because they have made an independent judgment that the pledged delegate count is the most important factor.

For months, Obama cheerleaders have been shouting that if the superdelegates exercise independent judgment, there will be 1968 style riots.  This borders on thuggery - legitimzing protests and violence in response to a result they don't approve of.

After months of legitimizing protest and violence, the Obama supporters go into full indignation mode because a handful of donors write a letter requesting that Pelosi respect the independent judgment of other superdelegates.

I'd be more disgusted if it weren't so pathetic.  The Obama campaign is lower than dirt.

[ Parent ]
Just a suggestion (0.00 / 0)
You wrote a whole bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with the Obama campaign and then ended with:

The Obama campaign is lower than dirt.

Try not to conflate a candidate's supporters with the candidate's campaign. It makes you look irrational and there's no point in reading what you've written because your conclusions are meaningless.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Hardly (0.00 / 0)
I referred to the 1968 Convention line.

That particular line started in the media when Doug Wilder, an Obama surrogate, made the comparison on Face the Nation.  

"It does nothing to help the Democrats-and if you think 1968 was bad, you watch 2008," Wilder said. If that happens, "it will be worse."

If you understand 1968, you understand what a serious statement this is.  Wilder is widely referred to as an Obama surrogate - he spends much of his time giving speeches and making appearances on behalf of Barack Obama.

You may not be aware of this, but when a top supporter of a campaign goes on national television to promote the campaign, that person is effectively speaking for the campaign.

[ Parent ]
opps another SuperDelegates has just gone for.....O-B-A-M-B-A (0.00 / 0)
PA Bob Casey...

"...You may not be aware of this, but when a top supporter of a campaign goes on national television to promote the campaign, that person is effectively speaking for the campaign...:
 

...So will Clintons's top supporter/surrogate Carville throwing Monkey-poo again on CNN this evening...  Has your side no shame...

Thank goodness the Superdelegates are beginning to see the writing on the wall...  The Clinton[s] obviously need some teamwork to tell them == they've lost.

And you Kanzeon supporting a tag team where one of them says this about

McCain: ...Mr. Clinton said is a "moderate", "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it."...."

Time has come to turf these republican suckers out of the race...

[ Parent ]
Another liberal blog throws away its credibility. (4.00 / 1)
Nancy Pelosi didn't say "voters ought to actually determine the election."  She said whoever had the lead in pledged delegates should be determinant.  As she said, "But it's a delegate race.  The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."  The whole point of her comments was that if Clinton won the popular vote, it still shouldn't matter.
Petition? (0.00 / 0)
And who says Clinton will do anything to win??????????????
i read somewhere (0.00 / 0)
and i tend to agree, that the Clintons should have had 20 super delegates write this letter to Pelosi--it would have had a whole lot more impact than one from 20 rich spoiled brats.
No matter how far ahead Obama gets, and no matter how many (0.00 / 0)
states he wins, and no matter what the polls say, at the end of the day shortfuse, debcoop, kanzeon and a few others will try to convince us that Hillary Clinton is the only person who can save the party from disaster.  This is their mission and they will carry  on day after day after day after day after day.  Good for them!  Support that devious Obama lover Pelosi?  Not shortfuse, debcoop and kanzeon.  No way. I never thought I'd miss downbutnotout, but these commenters are more tedious than the downer.  Hopefully, the nomination will soon be over.  
Not true (0.00 / 0)
If either candidate gets enough pledged delegates to win without the superdelegates, they get the nomination.

If the leader is within the superdelegate margin, then it's a split decision, and the superdelegates weigh in.

If Obama won without need of the superdelegates, obviously no one would say it "wasn't enough."

[ Parent ]
But kanzeon, (0.00 / 0)
your candidate is not going to get the nod of the supers.  In fact, they are already starting to peel away (see what Washington State supers are saying).  So good luck with your arguments, but I think most analysts who have taken a good look at the situation realize that the game is over.  But if you want to go out on the field in front of empty stands, with the lights off, and pretend that it is only the seventh inning, you go right ahead.  Most of us believe we have a nominee.  All the best.
[ Parent ]
"Most of us?" (0.00 / 0)
Per Rasmussen, Clinton's poll numbers are at 46% today.  Obama's are at 44%.  

The arrogance of your point of view is astonishing, and will be fatal in November.  As more and more supers "peel off" from Clinton, more and more Democrats will "peel off" from Obama.

[ Parent ]
You really don't get it. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, some polls have Clinton ahead by a few points, some Obama.  You pick your poll and someone else will pick their poll.  That is not the point.  The point is that most of us think we have a nominee.  A nominee is not someone who is temporally ahead in the polls.  A nominee is someone who has an insurmountable delegate lead and you have not in any way convinced anyone that Obama will not have most of the pledged delegates at the end of the primary season or that the supers will break for Clinton and change the primary landscape.  I see no arrogance in saying that we have a nominee.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can continue to think you're in the seventh inning if you want to, but the game is over and the fans have left the ballpark, and you are selling baloney at the concession stand, but nobody is buying it.  All the best!
[ Parent ]
You missed it... (0.00 / 0)
"The point is that most of us think we have a nominee."

On this site, yes.

In the real world, no.

Hence the polls.

[ Parent ]
Er... Polls aren't the real world (0.00 / 0)
Once people are shown why the Clinton's have lost then they will realize why now have our nominee.

If they still don't get it like you...  then that's just too bad... the election still is in November and then you will have to make the decision to vote for Obama, your current choice's suggestion REPUBLICAN McCain, or sit out all together... frankly I don't give a damn...

[ Parent ]
Not much point (0.00 / 0)
The real world is as follows:

1.  Roughly 1/2 of Democrats support each candidate.  When people say that Clinton supporters are "selling baloney to empty stands" they are not facing the fact that 1/2 the party is buying, and the stand will stay open for business.

2.  Neither candidate is likely to win through pledged delegatges.  Hence, the superdelegates will make decisions.

3.  How the superdelegates break depends on a broader public relations campaign being waged by each side.  Currently, Obama has the upper hand in getting the media to support a stampede of the superdelegates to his side. But it hasn't happened, and no one can predict what will happen.

Those are the facts.  The rest is spin.  But, please do continue on your elitist anti-democratic line about how half of the democratic party are stupid or crazy.

[ Parent ]
Bottom line: Unfortunately... the Clinton HALF has lost.. (0.00 / 0)
Sad I know... but those are the facts on the ground.

Not talking about polls, but facts...

Your second point... although both candidates do not have enough pledged votes -- to knock the other out...  Obama nearing the end of this fight has significantly more pledged votes.  Most 'low-info' Clinton voters don't understand the significance of that fact.

Also, you're right the Superdelegates have a v. difficult decision to make... as they will be the ones to seal the deal, seal the nomination -- not the voters.  Even those voters that will be voting in PA, Illinois, North Carolina etc.. Again another fact the Clinton voters will have to understand.

It is the job of the Superdelegates to carry out the unpleasant job and come out in force to educate those Clinton voters that she has indeed lost...

For the Superdelegates, at this stage to even intimate that they will overturn Obama's pledged delegate count -- will as many have repeated here -- will cause a civil war within the Party.  Again, a fact that the Clintons will have to understand.

Elitism has nothing to do with it...  It is called following a rational process.  Superdelegates unturning the pledged delegate count is not rational.

[ Parent ]
overturning overturning grrrr.. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
A civil war within the party... (0.00 / 0)
means Obama loses.  Despite Obama supporters justifying outright violence and defection, the reality is that an Obama nomination will lose more Democratic voters than a Clinton nomination.  Look at the polls.  More Clinton supporters will defect to McCain than Obama supporters.  Clinton supporters are more vulnerable demographics.  And it will happen largely in states like Ohio.  Obama is going to continue to weaken among blue collar heartland voters as time goes on.  John McCain, war hero, media trumpeted moderate, will rise.  He has a new ad out, showing him as a soldier in a hospital bed when he was about 20.  That stuff works, and it will kill Obama.  The only reason that Obama is doing well is because Clinton is in the race, and the Democratic party has tolerated a witch-hunt against both Clintons for decades and conducted one within its ranks.  Clinton is holding her own, despite being outspent and savaged by the media everyday - still people favor her.  For myself, I don't have to be "educated" on anything (amazing you use these terms, and then talk about how you aren't elitist).  Obama will lose the general.  Nothing you or I can do about it.  I'm not going to cheer the trainwreck.

[ Parent ]
About the the civil war... (0.00 / 0)
...The uprising, revolt (without the hyperbole) will first appear with the caucus party activists... Many of whom are hardcore, dedicated State activists who have worked damn hard for the party over the years --

If the superdelegates overturn what has effectively been party policy, party infrastructure for decades now, crushing the commitment and loyality of these rank and file members, then violence is not what I'd be worried about -- it would be the literal implosion of the party.

At this point, I'm not worried about Clinton supporters going to McCain.  I'm more concerned about these supporters not knowing the truth.  Hopefully once they understand the truth... i.e. that Obama is the Party's nominee then it will give them more time to calm down, and to rationally think what they would be voting for if they are truly serious about voting for McCain -- ie. voting for a third term of Bush policies.

Out of all the possible voters that McCain could take away from the Democratic Party, taking into consideration his war hero status, he is NOT going to help those blue collar heartland voters...  The problem is --- the longer Clinton keeps flinging the mud at Obama, [and don't think it's only the Democratic voters that are seeing this side of her], leaves less time for those blue coller workers to get the message about who will best serve their interests. [BTW -- remember Hillary has now got her NAFTA baggage that she didn't have before Ohio...]

Also, I'm fully aware that we need those on the fence Independents that will more likely support an Obama nomination, but are not guaranteed to support a Clinton nomination.

Clinton is not holding own... in fact it is embarrassingly obvious she can't carry the load of this campaign on her own ... hence Bill Clinton getting out there more and more -- having to basically run for the nomination - run for the Presidency!

Kanzeon: "...people still favor her.." -- Kanzeon you do need to educate yourself --- she is one of the most disliked characters in politics today.  Her favorables are tanking...

You might want Obama to lose the general, but really Hillary is trainwreck....

[ Parent ]
Not sure what you're saying... (0.00 / 0)
1.  Are you justifying a revolution among party activists, and a defection from the party?  If they are entitled to do this over the superdelegates going against the pledged delegate count, why shouldn't Hillary supporters stage a revolt over the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida - at least a significant issue?

2.  When you say we have a nominee, you are making what is called a false statement.  It may be that Obama is favored to win.  He may be, in your view, heavily favored to win.  I can respect that view.  However, that does not make him the nominee, or even the presumptive nominee.

In my opinion, those blue collar workers will go for McCain.  The attempt to paint McCain as "McSame" is noble but will fail.  McCain has built a brand over decades.  Everyone knows the brand.  In politics, you define yourself, or the other side defines you.  McCain will run as different than Bush, and people will accept that, because he has invested in his brand.  Clinton also has a brand.  It carries some baggage, but no one is going to paint her as soft on national defense, or a stealth candidate from the far left.  Even though she can't make a strong experience argument on her own merits, she will benefit from the Clinton mantle (just as she will suffer from it).  

Obama, on the other hand, is still undefined.  He only exists in the public mind based on what he isn't, what he is running against.  He isn't "the same old politics."  He is the anti-Clinton.  He can be the anti-Bush.  But his resume is blank, and his brand is blank.  So, people will look at him first, for what he isn't, and probably like that, but then look closer and ask what he is.  All the tools are out there to define Obama as weak, inexperienced, unpatriotic.  Obama will wear the labels McCain gives him.  Those character labels are important to the moderate Democrat and independent, more than policy.  In my opinion, that is why he will lose.  

Just one opinion.  But I have a feeling that a couple superdelegates have the same concerns I do.

[ Parent ]
Answers (0.00 / 0)
1.  Nope.  If you think that there will no be consequences overturning those party activists then I don't think you understand the intent of party policy and party dynamics -- With regard to the situation and logistic realities regarding the MI and FL not being able to re-vote -- it won't change regardless of a revolt by Hillary activists -- again you need to start spouting off the HRC talking points and hear what the State representatives are saying.

2. Obama has won -- any other candidate would have the  wisdom to understand that fact, the problem is Hillary not wanting to accept the reality she has lost.  This is another serious character flaw of Hillary which has been/will be exploited by the republicans -- which is creepy as it is a character flaw which is remarkably similar to Bush's.

If those blue-collar workers go for McCain, after they are shown McCain's positions are totally against their best interests...  then so be it...  it would be really really strange... but if they truly want to suffer even more economically then that's their choice.

I also have tools to show Obama as a strong, experienced and incredibility patriotic candidate .. get the picture... On the other hand.... we have readily available undoctored video showing Hillary as a habitual liar... big problem...  she being far from blank.

The Obama General Election won't be easy... but once Hillary gets out of the race... then we as a party can unite (or enough of us to unite) to "create character labels" for McCain. Unless you were thinking for working for him?

I know many State elected SD's are also concerned about Hillary negatively affecting their down tickets.  No doubt, many SD's both elected and unelected have favors they feel they need to repay the Clintons, and are concerned about the consequences if they don't return those favors, but at the end of the day they should be thinking of the Democratic Party first and not the Clinton Dynasty...  and possible vendettas than may ensue...  Just sayin...  I'm sure Obama is the least of some of their concerns.

[ Parent ]
sniff sniff... I smell desperation,,, (0.00 / 0)
Check in with reality now and again Kanzeon...  
[ Parent ]
Money talks... (0.00 / 0)
I'm so sick of "money" making the political decisions for this country.  Whatever happened to honesty and values and doing the right thing for it's own sake?!?

No, it's always who has the deepest pockets, and how can we convince them to pay for elections.  We should be donating to a group who tries to turn the country into a REAL democracy!
Wow!  Now, there's a novel idea!

Signed the petition (0.00 / 0)
I've been trying to stay out of the pie fight.  I support Obama, but I will have no qualms about voting for Clinton in the GE, b/c she is not a Republican.  

However, that letter threatening the DCCC made me angry.  If these big donors want to take their money away from the DCCC, then the little donors will have to pick up the slack.  So, I signed the petition and gave some $ to the DCCC.  And I gave some $ to all the blue majority candidates over at ActBlue (though I was going to do that, anyway).  

I am NOT a superdelegate but... (4.00 / 1)
I think it is rather funny that moveon and others think that ALL regular voters agree with them. News to you! We don't! I have supported moveon in the past but as a regular voter I see the candidates in a different light...I hear from Obama, "smooth talk" and no substance of what he will do for our country.I don't hear him talking about real solutions about our economy (like Michigan, remember, Michigan Obama?...oh that's right, you don't care or have the time to listen to OUR MICHIGAN voices...) Smooth talk. that's all Obama has to offer. The main reason, I will change my party to Republican if he is nominated. After all, I am just a regular American (Democrat) voter with a voice that needs to be heard!
Are you in the right place? (4.00 / 1)
You do realize this is a place for political progressives to discuss stuff?

Maybe you were being hyperbolic and it went whizzing by my head. But I can't conceive of why a progressive would register Republican in the U.S.A. of 2008. There is simply nothing about the Republican party that could be remotely construed as supportably progressive.

Maybe there's a warmongering, constitution-ripping, economically devastating faction of progressives of which I'm ignorant. My bad.

Otherwise, I don't get it.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
With all due respect (0.00 / 0)
if this were a place for "progressives" to post there wouldn't be such enthusiasm for Obama.  Obama is about as progressive as Richard Nixon.  Committed "progressives" would be screaming against Obama's betrayal of their principles every day, just as they do against Clinton.

There are reasons why moderate Democrats might vote for Republicans.  It depends on their own slate of issues. Registering Republican is another matter.  

[ Parent ]
Get a grip...'committed progressives' are pragmatic ... (0.00 / 0)
...we can work and be an activist in a Obama Presidency... With a Clinton dogmatic "scrap the 50 State Strategy" the progressive movement is doomed....

I didn't the Clintons have talking point [you should know] not long ago saying how Liberal Obama was... Ha you can't have it both ways.

Plus, I can understand saying out of this race -- but for voting Republican? Period... it means that those people have learned absolutely NOTHING from the last 7 years.

[ Parent ]
Fantasy or deceiving the country? (0.00 / 0)
Obama is running as a moderate.  Hillary is a moderate.

I read on these boards about how Obama will usher in a progressive era or a progressive agenda.  But, in order to do so, he needs to move significantly to the left of his policy positions that he is selling every day to the American people.

It seems that either progressives are engaging in wishful thinking in believing that Obama will be pushed to depart from his campaign positions, or that Obama is engaging in deception - ala Bush's compassionate conservativism - in telling the voters he is a moderate and having no intention of acting as a moderate.

Dean has a 48 state strategy.  Obama has a small state strategy.  Clinton has a big state strategy.  The number and kind of states doesn't have much to do with whether they are progressive or moderate.

[ Parent ]
Obama is running as a moderate. Hillary is a moderate... (0.00 / 0)
I agree...

True progressive candidates would never survive under our corporate/military industrial complex media.

Re yr 2nd para -- You obviously haven't been hanging out on this board very long... no way are people saying that 'Obama' will usher in a progressive era...  But what you will see will see -- is the discussion on how we can usher in a progressive era...

Again, progressives on this board -- are pragmatic souls not Hillbot idiots...

Plus, what are talking about Obama has a small State Strategy...?  He's had an amazing show of boots on the ground in ALL States... When you factor in Clinton's name recognition advantage [early in the campaign] he's done amazingly well.  

Finally I think you are seeing the fruits of his ALL state strategy when you start seeing Big States like CA beginning to turn away from Hillary... seeing that Obama as the better choice.

[ Parent ]
Beyond absurd (0.00 / 0)
Obama hasn't given specifics. Fair enough.

But you'd register Republican if he was nominated? Don't be absurd. Why would you do this? Do you really have that great a desire to vote for John "the jobs aren't coming back" McCain?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Obama Plans for America, for Michigan.... (0.00 / 0)
Well, try reading Obama's website... that might be a start...

...but somehow I don't think you really want to...  However, I will give you some solemn advice, before you switch to Republican it might be an idea to also check Republican McCain's website and try and find plans to help Michigan...  before you become one in a long line of American voters that continually vote against their own best interests.

Unbelievable.

[ Parent ]
New Petition Backs Up Pelosi On Superdelegates | 63 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox