I don't give a rat's you-know-what if Obama can't beat McCain.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Not that I agree with the statement, 'cause I emphatically don't. But I would rather see Obama lose to McCain than see the will of the voters thwarted and the rules changed in the middle of the game. I would rather see him battle McCain and be completely smeared and destroyed by the Right Wing, exposing them for the neanderthals that they are. Better that than the alternative of having the rules bent and contorted to ensure that the candidate favored by the Party Elite gets the nomination. It would be disastrous for our party, and Hillary supporters just can't seem to see this. They are blinded by their devotion to her.

Let's find out if the voters chose wisely or poorly. Let the Republicans find out if the voters chose wisely or poorly on their side too. That's the way things are supposed to work in this country.

[kentuck]

1. I tend to agree with your sentiments, however...

Just because Obama does not beat Hillary Clinton in NY, PA, or CA does not mean he could not beat McCain in those same states. That is equating Hillary with McCain. Surely no Democrat would think Hillary is as weak as McCain, would they?? Also, if they can smear and destroy Obama, that does not mean they cannot do the same to Hillary. She has not been vetted in almost 8 years...

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. I agree with you completely

Just saying I disagree that it's ok for a few Superdelegates to hand the nomination to someone else other than the pledged delegate winner without a rationale so obvious that even the majority of those who originally voted for them would agree it should be done.

[Seabiscuit]

2. Oh, brother.

[On the Road]

4. McGovern Couldn't Win Either

or maybe he could have if not for Eagleton.

In either case, Clinton is sounding more like Humphrey every day.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Ed Muskie couldn't have won either

That election was pretty much un-winnable. Muskie would've made it a 10 point race instead of a 20 point race and nothing would've changed.

[gsaguyCLW54]

5. I'd rather win the election....but thats just me.

[msallied]

6. Few people realize that there is more to this country

than this one election, and breaking the machine to facilitate the election of one candidate is short-sighted.

[gsaguyCLW54]

8. well I hope you have that same opinion when John mcCain fills the next SC seat.

[msallied]

14. Yes, so let's break the executive branch

to protect the judicial.

Great. Either way, America is fucked.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. That is exactly what i was trying to say, thanks.

[redstate_democrat]

40. Exactly

A few people are willing to destroy the party for one person. That sounds like Republican Ops to me. They don't want this party is existence because they know their own party is basically worthless. They don't want the people to have a real choice. Unfortunately, some in our own party are working, consciously or unconsciously, to help them. If they change all of the rules based simply on what Hillary Clinton says, wants, and believes, then this party is DONE.

[bigwillq]

7. The voters should matter above all else.

I would not want to see if overturned either way...even if somehow FL and MI count and Clinton does take a popular vote lead.

[gsaguyCLW54]

9. lets not confuse a party's process of selecting a candidate with...

...a national election. They arent even close to the same thing. What about the will of the people of MI & FLA, no problem with their will being ignored.

[bigwillq]

11. They broke the rules.

And the situation was not handled well by the DNC. I feel very badly for the people of FL/MI, and I do believe something needs to be done about that, and possibly seating some of the delegates. It needs to be done very carefully and fairly.

[Bake]

16. Then don't crab about the RULES if the superdelegates do what the rules permit them to do.

Namely, vote for the candidate of their choice, even if it's not the candidate of YOUR choice.

But rules are RULES, dammit!

Yes they are. And the rules state the superdelegates can vote their conscience. Period.

Bake

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. There are written rules and there are unwritten rules.

The Superdelegates are there as a SAFETY MEASURE in case something happens after the majority (or all) of the people have voted, to prevent something from blindsiding us and forcing us into a situation where we're stuck with a candidate that the majority of the people WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN had they known it before they voted.

That means, in my opinion, that in order for the Supers to overturn the delegate winner, the overwhelming majority of the people who had voted already would need to agree that this should be done.

Period.

It would have to be something extremely obvious, not something that's currently a constant source of debate here and on the news -- who's more electable? It would have to be OBVIOUS to MOST people that the candidate who got the most votes was less electable due to some revelation or other event that had happened after the voting. Since Obama improved his position in virtually every demographic from Ohio to Pennsylvania, it's clear that nothing that we've seen so far has done that. Wright, Bitter, Whatever.

Now come on, be reasonable. If the shoe were on the other foot, Clinton was in the lead, and the only way for Obama to win was for the Superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate count -

Wouldn't you demand an equally high bar for the Supers to overturn things? Wouldn't it need to be obvious to the overwhelming majority of Hillary voters that she had been damaged beyond the ability to win in November and that Obama was clearly the better candidate?

Honestly.

That's the unwritten rule which I think is still a rule in the minds of most voters in this country.

[Arkansas Granny]

28. And an unwritten rule is just as good as the paper it's written on.

I really don't know what to think of someone who would rather see McCain win the election as long as your candidate of choice is upheld as the nominee. I want the superdelegates to, in all good conscience, give their vote to the Democrat who they believe is the strongest competitor with the best chance of winning the Presidency. I am willing to trust them to make that decision even if they don't choose the candidate I support. I might be disappointed, but I'll get over that. I've been disappointed before.

However, if McCain wins this election I am very much afraid that I will be devastated, and that I won't get over so easily. I cannot imagine what our country will be with another 4-8 years of Republican domination. I'm not sure it will be a place in which we want to live. I think you are letting your ego overcome your better judgment.

[FlyingSquirrel]

32. You're mischaracterizing my position.

I didn't say I'd rather see McCain win "as long as my candidate of choice is upheld" - I said I'd rather see him win than see the entire democratic process by which we (supposedly) choose our nominee be made a mockery of. If Hillary were the one winning right now I would ALSO not want to see Superdelegates overturn the popular vote without good reason (not subjective good reason, but good reason that could be generally agreed upon by most voters).

It's not OBAMA I care about, it's the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

And for the record I've always maintained that I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

[Bake]

36. You'll have to show me that unwritten rule

Oh wait, you can't. It's not written. LOL!

The only RULES we have are the rules set down by the Party, presumably for the good of the Party. You just want to make them say what YOU want, and you can't do that.

Do I disagree with some of the rules? Hell yes. I wonder, e.g., what is so damn special about Iowa that it gets to go first with its caucus (and that's another thing, caucuses!). Or New Hampshire? Why shouldn't New York, or California, or Kentucky get to go first? I'm not crazy about the proportional allotment of delegates either. And I definitely think this primary season shows us the utter folly of "super"delegates. But it's too late to change any of those rules for this cycle.

Once this is over, I think Dems need to to take a long hard look at all of these issues.

Bake

[anigbrowl]

35. Call their legislatures and ask them why they chose to invalidate their own primaries

They were warned against dicking with the primary schedule, and not only did it happen anyway, but the FL Dems in particular jumped right into bed with the GOP and voted with them. If they had vated against the GOP in the state legislature and lost, that would be one thing, but only one floridian legislator voted to respect the rules of the national committee.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Please explain to me which rules are being bent and contorted.

The role of the superdelegates is to pledge their vote to the candidate that they feel will be best for the Democratic party. There is no stipulation that they follow the popular vote or the pledged delegate vote.

Regardless which candidate receives the nomination, I intend to support and vote for him/her to win this election.

[FlyingSquirrel]

20. See post 19 please

In answer to your question, Hillary's trying to circumvent the DNC's rules which prevented the Florida and Michigan delegates from being counted - and in particular she's trying to get a flawed election in Michigan in which who knows how many voters stayed home because their candidate was not on the ballot (except HER, of course) counted. She's trying to get delegates to vote for her who were pledged to Obama. She's also breaking some unwritten rules regarding certain lines that you do not cross when attacking a fellow Democrat in the primary election for President.

[Seabiscuit]

24. Cite the rule that says Hillary is not allowed to try

..."to get delegates to vote for her who were pledged to Obama."

You don't think Obama's trying equally hard to get Clinton delegates to cross-over? That's the way the game is played. And it is a game played by *both* sides.

Last time I looked ALL delegates have the right to decide (including changing their mind on who to support) right up to the final vote at the convention, regardless of any "pledges".

Correct me with a link if I'm wrong.

Hillary is not "trying to circumvent" any of the "DNC's rules" regarding Florida and Michigan. She's trying to convince the DNC that these states should not be disenfranchised over a decision based solely on the timing of their primary. That's neither breaking rules nor circumventing them. It's an appeal to fairness. You may not like it because it obviously would favor a candidate you don't support, but please don't distort the facts like that.

[BootinUp]

12. Fly fly away agent Starling.... fly fly away.

[Political Heretic]

13. Agreed.

[Austinitis]

15. What "rule change" are you talking about?

I think the fight now is over super-delegates.

[FlyingSquirrel]

21. Don't think for a minute she has given up on Michigan and Florida.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Seabiscuit]

25. If you were in her shoes you wouldn't give up on them either.

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. This discussion is futile.

[Seabiscuit]

34. It was sad

to see Flying Squirrel fly away. Hopefully, when this stage of the battle is over in August, and well before November, Flying Squirrel will come back down to earth and have his feet firmly planted once again on terra firma, and doing what he can to defeat McSame if for no other reason but to prevent any more Alito's from being appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively destroying that body for the rest of our lifetimes.

[FlyingSquirrel]

38. Well like I said, I'll vote for the nominee (like most others here really will do).

[cliffordu]

17. DING DING DING We have a winner!!! Kicked!!

:kick:

[josephinemolix]

22. Nobody is proposing to change the rules

Who's proposing that?

[BlooInBloo]

23. Clinton supporters. Every hour.

[ScarletSniper]

27. Count me in ....

[cliffordu]

29. Kicked again.

[kentuck]

31. In a similar vein...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3203685

[barack the house]

33. Yep, that's the problem. I wonder if they are devoted to even higher oil if Iran is attacked...

Of course it is about lives but the message that will reach them is their pocket.

[KittyWampus]

37. If you don't agree with the opening statement, why POST IT? Why give any energy to it?

why validate Hillary's argument in any way?

Sorry, it doesn't help and I wish Obama supporters would stop doing this.

[2rth2pwr]

39. That might be a valid theory, except most of the primaries and caucuses

were held before the public learned about Ayers, Wright, and Clinggate.