Why is it fine for Obama to draw superdelegates from inside HRC territory --

like Ted Kennedy -- but it is unfair and conniving for HRC to accept the votes of superdelegates whose constituents supported Obama?

It seems to me that Obama's fervent supporters are trying to have this both ways. They celebrate every superdelegate vote promised to Obama -- whether or not it accords with the wishes of the superdelegate's constituents -- but threaten to desert the party if HRC wins via the votes of other superdelegates.

I am sick of Democrats on both sides threatening to jump if their favored candidate doesn't win. Enough is enough. Anyone who can't see the profound differences between either of our candidates and a hard right-winger like McCain needs to get his eyes examined.

As long as the rules are followed, I see no reason to complain.

...of the country, not necessarily of their state. Actually, Kennedy and Casey chose before their states voted.

I don't see a problem with voters unless, in the end, the remaining Supers go with the one who has less pledged delegates. That will look like overturning the people's decision. I hope all the Supers jump in soon.

DS's ARE "voting with the people of the country, not necessarily their state". I'm so dizzy from that spin. ROTFLMAO

Kennedy, Kerry, Casey and others voted BEFORE their states voted ~ obviously they made decisions based on the mood of the country and their own views rather than local results.

You're dizzy alright ~ but that's a whole other problem!

depending on when you announce your decision?

Kennedy announced before his state voted. Why does that matter? He's still voting against the wishes of his constituents at convention time.

Who are the "remaining supers"? The ones who haven't already announced support for Obama?

If Kennedy has the right to exercise his freedom of choice in voting, then so should all the other superdelegates, regardless of whom they support or when they announce their decision.

Of course they can do what they want WHEN they want to do it ~ but if they'd like to avoid an appearance of overturning the votes of pledged delegates, it makes sense to do it early. That's not hard to figure.

Their constituents are also free to express their opinions of these choices. As an Obama supporter, I'm happy to see more SD's going for Obama in the last couple of months. I'm also happy my Senators are supporting Obama, even though my state did not give him the majority of their votes in the primary.

I wish I saw that attitude among more Obama supporters.

to that question.

So if you figure it out... let us know!

Hillary by now?

Weird eh, but true, he won double the states.

then HRC would have sailed away with the nomination months ago.

In the general election, winning "double the states" isn't nearly as important as WHICH states do you win.

Obama would have conducted his campaign differently. He chose the right strategy for the race. A leader quality.

and I hope, in the increasingly likely event he's the nominee, that he will continue to do so.

It's some of his supporters, rather than Obama himself, who have begun to grate on me -- particularly the ones who threaten to desert if by some chance HRC manages to pull out ahead.

Once the primaries are over, then all of a sudden it's McCain Vs Hillary for instance, even the most stanch Obama supporter will realize the blatant truth. Hillary is an angel compared to McCain. If she wins fair and square, they will get over it, and support her.

i personally think Bush won based on grabbing the small rural vote.

When it's been pointed out that some members of congress whose districts have gone overwhelmingly for Obama, but who have endorsed Mrs. Clinton anyway, will need to be elected by the voters they chose to ignore.

Or is the constitution dead to you now?!!

I missed that.

:eyes:

It's the Obama people who are convinced that there is some way that superdelegates are "supposed" to vote -- other than by exercising their freedom of choice.

Historically, that's never been the case. In fact, there wouldn't be any purpose to superdelegates if all they were supposed to do was add a proportionate vote to the overall totals. Why would superdelegates even exist if all they were supposed to do was echo the votes of the pledged delegates?

What they've actually said is there's no way the SD's could justify taking the nomination away from the candidate who has the most votes, most elected delgates and most states won. If you say you haven't heard the very argument used in the OP you are either ill-informed or a liar.

If you're talking about HRC, show me where she has said the SD's shouldn't be free to vote however they wish.

and savaged numerous good dems for backing Obama. But you have nooo problem with that now, do you. I have congratulated Hillary on EVERY prominent endorsement she's gotten. I wrote a thread in defense of Sheila Jackson-Lee just yesterday. Have YOU ever bothered to critcize your cohorts for savaging Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy and dozens more?

And I've said repeatedly I'll vote for the dem nominee. I agree with your 2nd paragragh

and I call them as I see them. It does get me upset when supporters of either candidate threaten to leave the party.

In this particular case, I see many more Obama supporters who seem to think that superdelegates are supposed to vote "with the people," whatever that means -- except that the rules don't seem to apply when it comes to superdelegates who choose to support Obama (like Ted Kennedy).

the other way around by far.

is that the morals of any SD be questioned (namely Richardson). To me this is a blatant attempt at intimidation regarding the remaining SDs (bringing the WRATH of ....you-fill-in-the-blank.... down upon them). That is unacceptable and should have been denounced and rejected by HRC. It is that kind of behavior which is condemned more than the actual shifting of position, and I would say the same if Obama or a surrogate were demonizing an SD who decided to side with Clinton.

That's wrong, if it's occurred.

I think he has the perfect right to make the best decision he can, as do all the superdelegates.

I think calling that "questioning his morals" is a bit of an understatement.

so yes, I missed that.

but he is also a close friend of the Clintons and some have viewed it has his attempt to be an "enforcer" type.

I hope the link comes through - I typed Carville Judas on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carville+judas&search_type=

I thought the United states belonged to the people.

Secondly, I thought Hillary herself, said that SD's had the right to choose independently. I am not sure why this subject is brought up by either side.

supported HRC in the primary.

I'm not on either side. I'm reacting to an inconsistency I see among Obama supporters more than HRC supporters -- coupled with a threat to leave the party if they're not satisfied with the outcome.

HRC didn't question the right of Kennedy to endorse Obama and to vote for him at convention time. But Obama supporters often DO claim that superdelegates should be bound to vote in accord with their constituents, just as the pledged delegates do. On the other hand, they celebrate superdelegates like Kennedy who decide to exercise their freedom of conscience -- as long as that conscience directs them to vote for Obama.

even the campaign itself on Hillarys' side, trashing Gov Richardson for his support of Obama.

Have we seen that from the Obama campaign? Not to my knowledge.

At any rate, we really should all stop doing that.

I just remembered who this OP is and her feelings about Mexicans.

I am no particular fan of superdelegates. I'd prefer that we chose our candidates through direct elections. However the rules are what they are for this contest and should be followed. The superdelegates can vote however they want. That said, if Obama ends up with more committed delegates than Clinton, almost a certainty at this point, overturning that result through the superdelegates would be unfortunate to say the least. Likewise for Clinton. If by some chance she manages to win big enough in the remaining states to actually lead in committed delegates it would also be most unfortunate for the superdelegate vote to overturn that result.

there is some major revelation about either candidate in June or July that causes all the superdelegates -- and the party as a whole -- to think twice.

I sincerely doubt this will happen, but I suspect that is part of the reason for the existence of the superdelegates.

The one good thing about Clinton's sink-throwing is that we can be pretty sure that there isn't much left to throw. But indeed if the leader implodes before August the SD should probably do the right thing. (And better yet the implodee ought to withdraw.)

are so obsessed with her impending failure that they whine endlessly.

And risk the failure of their candidate due to THEIR behavior.



If you cannot offer another of value - SHUT UP.

And unlike some of the partisans (like you) around here, I don't try to tell other people to shut up.

Even when I think their threats to sit out the election could hand the Supreme Court -- and the whole country -- to the Rethugs for another few decades.

I can only speak for myself but as an Obama supporter I think superdeligates are free to vote for whomever they wish. And I do not think that they will over turn the will of the people, they are not idiots.

The problem with Hillary is that she is now saying that trying to convert pledged deligates is fair game. That's cheating and it is down right shameful.