Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
Remember, they seriously think its their party — to the point where they think they can tell the Speaker of the House what she can and cannot say. The nerve. The entitlement.
Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an “independent” choice.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
On the one hand the Clinton campaign argues that the “super delegates” should not decide this now since all of the primaries have not yet been held, since some of the people have not yet had a chance to cast their votes. To have the “super delegates” decide this now would be unfair to those people.
On the hand, once all those votes have been case and all the committed delegates have been assigned it would be fine for the “super delegates” to then cast their votes in opposition to the demonstrated will of the electorate.
So… it’s OK to override the electorate later, but not now?
The truth is, of course, that a decision made by “super delegates” now would be in line with the popular vote and in Obama’s favor. While one made “later” she’s hoping would be in her favor, so then it would be OK.
“On the hand, once all those votes have been case”
sigh
“On the other hand, once all those votes have been cast“
Your post indicates a mode of thinking that is “stuck on stupid”. In this campaign we find many people who have just awaken from their slumber to join us in this fight against Republicans. You are invited to look at what has happened to our party for the last 35 years. Superdelegates were created after the outcome of the 1972 election in which the most popular candidate (the one who won all the primaries/caucuses) went on to loose all but two states in the general election. It happened again in 1984. Then again, 2000 and 2004. Carter (1 term) and Clinton (2 terms) were the only Democrats to win. Yes, in the last 35 years. While we have record turn out at the contests that have been held, the number doesn’t even come close to the number that participates in the general election. http://www.270towin.com is a great resource for you. This is all about the general election.
I want to know more about these people. The whole “big donors” thing makes it seem that these few people feel like they have more influence than ordinary voters. They probably do, but I would still like to see who they are, their backgrounds, and what they do.
Kathryn- aome eye-opening info here: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4803
I cant believe this. Twenty one rich people have the right to tell the Speaker of the House how to behave and the superdelegates what to do??? What is this communism????? Me personally, its pretty scarey how much power these Clintons have in this country. I for one will never vote for Hillary. If Obama is cheated out of it…I will stay home.
Well, that’s what the superdelegates were created for – to make an independent choice. The rules are the rules, which means that staying within them, the superdelegates can exercise their own judgment in the process, they’re free to do so and always have been no matter what Speaker Pelosi says on behalf of Obama. Caucuses are undemocratic and don’t express the will of the people anyway.
Gee, where did all these fleas come from?
Sixteen years of lying down with the Clintons, and I just noticed…
Fucking hell. Someone needs to tell her if she doesn’t shut up, she will permanently hurting her standing within the party, and she will lose any power she has in the party and will destroy her chances of raising in the ranks later on.
I think you should do that C.S.Strowbridge. I bet no one has mentioned that as a possibility to her yet.
Of course, the race seems to be a statistical tie in many ways, and just as many voters want her to drop out as Obama, but what the hell, I say you go for it.
Jeff, I’d say you’re the stupuid one.
Super Delegates were created to force party regulars to attend the convention. they were not created in 1976, as some here seem to think, because the party establishment wanted to rig the elections against future McGoverns (in a Democracy you actually let the winner win no matter how much it sucks). They were created by the Hunt commision created them in 1982 (a full 10 years after McGovern’s loss) to combat the tendency of party big-whigs to completely ignore the convention. They were formalized in 1984, and have been with us since then. In the entire history of their existence, they have formed the marigin of victory only once, in 1984, when they selected the winner of the most pledged delegates (Mondale).
Thanks for trying to teach people fake history, but this is the internet, the single greatest research tool created by the human species. I would suggest you avail y
The bigger point here, I think, is that the people who wrote this letter–big-time Democratic fundraisers–are losing their stranglehold on the Party apparatus.
In the Terry Mac
errorera, these were the people that the Party relied on for funding. Now, building on what Dean did in 2004, Barack Obama has raised more money than any other candidate in history without relying on this group. What if he brings that same grassroots approach to Democratic politics in 2008 and beyond? Who cares who these people are when Barack Obama’s the leader of our Party and has a donor base of over 1 million people?They’re not just fighting to preserve the Clintons’ control over the Democratic Party; they’re fighting to preserve their control over the Democratic Party.
There’s a better way, Madame Speaker…you need not cowtow to these relics.
Jerry: “Of course, the race seems to be a statistical tie in many ways, and just as many voters want her to drop out as Obama, but what the hell, I say you go for it.”
Fucking liar. On both counts.
Sean D. Martin:
Did you forget a few months ago when Hillary was saying she’d have things all wrapped up at the end of Super Tuesday and there wouldn’t be a need more any more primaries/caucuses after that? Another case of her trying to have it both ways. Also, Chris over at Open left pointed out yesterday that in an election(take Connecticut for example), if Obama was ahead by 6% with 83% of the precincts reporting, the TV networks would call it for him.
C.S.Strowbridge:
Was your statement pointed towards Nancy Pelosi? Why should she shut up? As someone else mentioned here in comments, guys like Haim Saban are pissed because Obama winning means they lose control over the Democratic party. Do you really want the guy that funds Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon in control of your party?
“Was your statement pointed towards Nancy Pelosi?”
Nope.
Calm down, people. Somebody wrote a letter!
Oooooooooo!
Having watched ‘The Clintons’ for low these many months, We’ve watched her/him do anything to win. And by anything, that means, lie, cheat, threaten lawsuits (4 times? 5?). Twist, demean, lie about your accomplishments… It’s been repulsive.
Ala Carl Rove.
We am educated in a way we would never want to be. These Democrates(?)don’t care about anything but themselves. They refuse to see the behavior of the Clintons. Which is, we had thought, impossible not to see.
It is our fondest hope that Mz Nancy tells them to oh, ‘take a flying……..’
These letter-signers are holdovers from the Clinton years in the White House & Terry McCauliff’s piggy-bank donors. If they have their way, they will destroy the Democratic Party, lose the 2008 election, and they really don’t care, as their goal is to maintain power.
They are representative of the cadre of the so-called Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC is, under close scrutiny, properly seen to be made up of closet Repugnants who infiltrated the Democratic Party in order to subvert its traditional policy positions vis-a-vis “The Party of the People” in favor of the Wall Street corporatist agenda propounded by Robert Rubin, et al…in short, they represent a group of fat-cat proto (if not actual)fascists.
MoveOn’s response is right on, although I’m not at all happy with the Congressional Democratic “leadership” wimp-out on impeachment, including that of Madame Speaker.
Even if O’ HIll gets her way and drags this out “all the way to the convention”, and the superdelagats were to have to decide (the way O’Hill wants) “the most electable”. NOT ONE POLL HAS NEVER CHANGED FROM THIS ONE FACT, SHE CAN NOT BEAT McCain.
So the only thing she and her cronies could possibly be holding out for is the next kitchen sinc, that the Clintons pull out of their hat. That I sure will come after the PA primary (because she’s sure she has it in the bag) and before the next primary to minipulate the election again!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY NANCY PELOSI
I’m so glad now I didn’t contribute to the DCCC when they asked. I said I would on the phone and they sent me a thingy to send back with my pledge. But by the time I got it I had second thoughts. I sent the pledge slip back with a hand-written message that essentially said I think any money i give to the DCCC will find it’s way to fund Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Therefore, I have decided to contribute to Obama’s campaign instead.