Bill Press has it right regarding Super Delegates.

[mac2]

Holy Moley....what is going on?

This morning Bill Press wonders why Pelosi and Reid (and Dean) want a commitment from Super Delegates as to who they support prior to the convention? Isn't that what the convention is for? To make decisions on the floor, agenda, etc.? Nope they must tell them right now!

It seems to me a humble Democratic voter that our party leaders are trying to manipulate us. Between Florida and Michigan this is not a good move. Isn't it voter intimidation to do that? A person's vote is a personal thing. This is a bit more than back room politics.

I can see where the "Super Delegate" status is getting in the way of real democracy and our vote by the party leaders. You are not royals but representatives of the people. The delegates to the convention should demand the Super Delegate status be removed. It is an idea which has outlived it's purpose.

We need new party leaders since they too fail to represent us. When we called for the end of the war and National Health Care they ignored us. When we opposed more war spending, they ignored us. They carry a big stick when running for leadership and then act like scared children when they are in office.

As a member of the party, I resent having Pelosi, Reid, and Dean manipulating our vote and forcing their agenda prior to the convention. Are they afraid of changes in leadership and policy? Geting rid of the Super Delegates power? I'd say so. It's about time we do. Too many lost elections since 2000.

Pelosi, Reid, and Dean resign before the convention as our party leaders. Just in case you haven't thought about this fact for some time...this is a democracy.

[bigtree]

1. who wants to 'change the rules' now?

[mac2]

2. They are changing them as they go along.

This is a change in rules making them commit prior to the convention and making Florida and Michigan lose their primary vote.

[woolldog]

49. that's not a rule change.

in past years the superdelegates have committed before the convention.

[Yossariant]

50. Wrong. Superdelegates are never committed. They may always and at every point

vote as they please.

[woolldog]

51. Wrong. They publicly commit every election.

They can change their mind, and can vote as they please, but they do commit.

[Yossariant]

53. You're still not getting it. They "endorse." They do not "commit."

endorse: to express support or approval of publicly

commit: to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge

[woolldog]

54. That's a distinction without a difference.

saying that they commit but are free to change their mind and that it's non-binding is no different from endorsing.

[Yossariant]

55. Saying that they are committed, but are free to change their mind, is some kind of Obamaspeak.

"It's raining, but if it stops, it won't be raining any more."

:wtf:

[woolldog]

57. your argument is picayune.

When you come out and endorse someone, you are publicly committed. You are free to change your mind, but the point in coming out and doing it in public (and the reason why it carries more weight than a closed door endorsement) is precisely because it is more of a commitment.

I was responding to the idea that asking for super-d's to come out and stand for one candidate or the other is some new phenomenon, and tantomount to "changing the rules of the game." It's not. You've ignored the substance of my point, and instead focused on parsing definitions of "commit" and "endorse". That tells me you don't have much of a point.

Now I've had just about enough of you. Good day, sir.

[Yossariant]

60. Still wrong. Dean, Pelosi, Reid and Obamafans are trying to change the RULES.

Or trying to dupe the sheep into believing what ain't so.

:wtf:

Shocker.

And good for Bill Press for catching them by their long, skinny tails and calling them on it.

[woolldog]

61. Nope.

Article from 1992 about Clinton campaign tyring to encourage super-d's to commit. (Also notice use of the word "committed" or "uncommitted" to refer to superdelegate endorsements.)

Senator Tom Daschle told news organizations in his home state, South Dakota, that the moment had come to rally around Mr. Clinton. But beyond that there was little movement.

Of 264 superdelegates in the House and Senate, 93, or 35 percent, have endorsed Mr. Clinton so far, according to a continuing survey by The New York Times. Most are Southern, and most made their statements some time ago. A much larger number remain officially uncommitted.

<snip>

One of Mr. Clinton's supporters said heavy pressure has been brought on Senator George J. Mitchell of Maine, the majority leader, and Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, who may be the most influential Democrat on Capitol Hill.

<snip>

Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, has been phoning uncommitted delegates and others, "discussing the lay of the political territory," as he described it. He denied putting pressure on anybody,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[Yossariant]

62. You now resort to misrepresenting your own link which does not even contain the word "committed."

It speaks ONLY of superdelegates ENDORSING.

:wtf:

[woolldog]

66. Learn to read.

"A much larger number remain officially uncommitted."

The opposite of uncommitted is, obviously, committed. If those who haven't endorsed are "uncommitted" then those who have endorsed are "committed". If that were not the case then the word "uncommitted" would be a misnomer, as use of the word when applied to those who haven't endorsed suggests a lack of commitment that is reversed upon an endorsement.

~ uncommitted = committed

Per your argument upthread, the NY Times article (and the super-d's themselves) are wrong for using the word since the super-d's don't swear an irreversible oath of fealty when they endorse. :rofl:

Good argument. :eyes:

[mac2]

74. Never noticed any public commitment because years ago

we didn't have "Super Delegates". It is a new ploy for the elite to control who wins the primary. It's undemocratic since they have more pull than the average delegate (who was elected by the people). Super Delegates aren't elected but maybe selected and by who?

[Ganja Ninja]

3. I think FL & MI are the reason they want to know beforehand ..

which way the super-delegates are going to vote. If they know that FL & MI won't affect the outcome of the floor vote then they can seat them and let them vote.

[mac2]

5. Brilliant a non-vote!!

[my3boyz]

4. The same Bill Press that has had his head up Hillary's ass the entire primary?nt

[mac2]

7. Air American has been anti-Hillary.

I've turned them off. Try and listen to Mike Malloy now that the election is near. Randi has the whole page on Nova radio (got kicked off Air America for her anti-Hillary remarks). Whose fooling who? Hillary is the target of the media. Obama, Obama, Obama don't dare vote for anyone else.

I just might.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. What are you saying? Air Am is anti-Clinton so they fired Randi for being anti-Clinton?

You aren't making any sense.

Seems to me if AA was anti-Clinton thy would be firing Bill Press.

You sound a wee bit confused.

[mac2]

12. No I said they fired Randi for her comments about Hillary

I haven't heard any pro-Hillary comments when I turn Air America on. Was I in a parallel universe?

[Windy]

9. bill press and Mark Green of Air America are shills for HRC. I can't listen to Press.

He is over the top for Clinton and is not objective at all. (not to mention that his show is boring)

[mac2]

10. Bill is right about this though.

I agree with him and just happened to turn it on to listen to what is going on in our party. Since I can't get information on media for Progressives.

[Skwmom]

16. He is being a Clinton shill. See my post below. The manipulations are so obvious.

[earthside]

14. Bill Press is a Fool ...

... yet he thinks because he was on Crossfire he is a wise political sage.

And he isn't fooling anyone with his "neutral" stance -- he is a lay down for Clinton(s).

The problem with waiting till the convention (which anyone who isn't a shill for Hill knows), is that it comes at the end of August. Then comes the Repug convention. You effectively then have about six weeks of time to heal the party and engage McCain. That is not enough time ... but Press is too in love with himself to figure that out.

It was the Clintonites that pushed this schedule because they expected her to be coronated after Super Duper Tuesday. Since that didn't turn out, they are trying to drag this thing out for as long as possible on the hope that "something" happens to change everything for her personal benefit.

And, yes, Press has a very boring, and rather condescending radio program.

[mac2]

17. I haven't heard him supporting the Clintons...just the opposite.

[Windy]

31. Then you haven't been paying attention. n/t

[mac2]

32. No not listening much since I can't stand their station any longer.

[my3boyz]

24. EXACTLY! nt

[EnviroBat]

34. Bill Press is a complete Hillary shill, and the crap he's been spewing

lately has me turning off Air America in the mornings. I can't believe what an ass the man is.

[butterfly77]

65. Yes, he is hard to listen to..

when someone calls and they are a supporter for Hillary he lets them ramble on and on but if they are for Obama he cuts them off and doesn't let them finish their point and then gives the audience his spin.

[Buzz Clik]

6. I have no desire to see this bullshit going on nonstop until August.

[Texas Hill Country]

23. it isnt about what YOU desire... there are millions of people that want to vote... let them!

[Buzz Clik]

27. Really? It's not about just ME? I'll be a sonofabitch.

It's my opinion, and nothing more.

Have you ever posted at a bulletin board in the past?

The concept is that people post their views, and other people post theirs. It's a democratic process ... until some raging asshole suggests that someone's opinion doesn't matter. We generally tell these assholes to go fuck themselves, but the moderators object. So, we don't do that any more.

[shadowknows69]

29. I'll tell them

Any Hillary supporter that wants this charade to continue, thereby hurting our chances in the GE can go fuck themselves. they are not real democrats.

[mac2]

37. Real Democrats vote for Obama?

Also the globalist and no impeachment Obama?

Real Democrats don't want those trade unions (EU, Americas, etc.) and open borders, amnesty, etc. Workers are ignored by globalists no matter what they promise (better enviornment, rights, new laws, etc.). It won't and can't be done under the WTO organization because only profit matters.

So as a "real Democrat" there is no good candidate running for President.

[mac2]

33. Exactly...this is America is it not?

Sir Obama nor Lady Clinton have no say as to how it is run. Certainly not King Reid or Queen Pelosi.

[BeyondGeography]

11. It's over in June

because most people in the party actually think getting on with the business of winning on November is more important than making the world safe for Hillary's ego.

[mac2]

13. Wait...and Obama and his supporters have no ego?

Standing here on the outside of not supporting either candidate, I'd say that is not a true statement. Picking our own leaders seems to have been over in 2000.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Obama has the lead and the race against Hillary has been going on for 14 months

By June it will be 16 months. That would leave 4 months for John McCain, or one-quarter the amount of time spent running against Hillary. We could leave it until the convention, which would leave us two months for John McCain (and no time to unify).

Think it over and get back to me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. We don't pick our candidates, the corprat media does and we get played.

:thumbsup:

[mac2]

35. Why can't the rest of us figure that out?

Corporate media makes us "believe" we just have to have this or that candidate. I'm voting the opposite of what they want since my vote was stolen before Super Tuesday.

[Skwmom]

15. B/C at the convention the Clintons are convinced they can win on a second vote.

Why do you think they have been manipulating in MI and sucking up to the Edwards (who hold 18 delegates -31 w/MI and FL included)/ All along H.C. has been saying that pledged delegates are not pledged. She doesn't want the SD screwing with her "let me steal pledged delegates" scheme.

[mac2]

20. If Obama were to win you'd be happy to have it on a second vote?

[rucky]

18. It's their right to ask this of the super-d's

just like it is the right of the SD's to wait until the convention.

nothing non-democratic about asking people to vote.

[mac2]

22. No they want to know how they vote.

Will the Super Delegates have the power to determine a candidate? Just start out 50/50 and let the Super Delegates decide. Isn't this like the Supreme Court (not elected by the people either)?

[rucky]

30. That's not how the sides are drawn.

And we won't have an honest discussion by painting it that way.

There's a disconnect between how it is and how it should be. Trouble is, we can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Everybody's doing it how they think should be done - the states, the candidates, Dean, Reps, the SD's - and that's what leading to the train wreck we'll see at convention. Dean is trying to mitegate the damage, which is his job. Dean is enforcing the rules agreed upon prior to the primaries - also his job. Reid and Pelosi are backing him up. If we have two camps it's not mapped out between "change the system"/"keep the system" - or even Clinton/Obama - it's "buck the system now" vs. "work with what we have".

Nobody's peachy with the way things are now - process or product.

[mac2]

38. These are not the rules...it has been made up by them

What we have in our party is chaos and betrayal. I've been voting and listening to many campaigns over my life and this one sucks.

"Dean is enforcing the rules agreed upon prior to the primaries - also his job. Reid and Pelosi are backing him up." Agreed to by who in the party? Not the party members.

Dean stinks to high Republican. So do Pelosi and Reid.

[rucky]

48. The delegates vote on the rules...

And we pick the delegates. And the time to take issue with the rules was before the primaries, and is during the convention. It's not direct democracy, and the party is in a clusterfuck - but it's not in chaos because it's not a direct democracy.

[Yossariant]

52. Wrong. The rule is that superdelegates are NEVER committed.

"Off the table" Pelosi, "Who?" Reid and "Clusteruck" Dean think voters are so stupid that this is a way to cover their asses.

[mac2]

69. We haven't had the convention

so how can the delegates vote on the rules which are being made up now?

[cali]

25. bwahaha. a humble voter demanding that Dean and Pelosi and Reid resign

too funny. text book case of cognitive dissonance. There's nothing remotely undemocratic about asking SDs to weigh in. Did you have a problem with 200 SDs endorsing Hilly well before the voting began? How about that for trying to influence voters? Your rank hypocrisy is quite amusing. And no, the convention is not for deciding the nominee, and hasn't been for years, really. It's for coronating the victor and getting the party unified and gung ho battle ready.

[King Coal]

Here is Cali. Being a first class snot again. She can't be nice to anybody.

[msmcghee]

26. I don't like the whole format where the candidates are . .

. . chosen months ahead in some states and much later in others. All Dems should be able to have the full campaign play our before having to decide. Who knows what we'll learn along the way of a hard-fought nominating contest. I want to wait until the last practical minute to make my decision. Our current method eliminates all but a couple of early strong contenders. I could easily have gone for Edwards or Dean if I had more time to get to see them in action. I was warming to them.

BTW - the early debates are not too useful for me. Way too much posturing and caution and attempts at "Gotcha" sound bytes. Charlie Rose, Larry King and Daily Show interviews and such are where bits of the real person comes out and as those accumulate I start to get a feel for who they really are and why they're running - and those take some time to accumulate.

But, it seems to me that the SD's are critical. What if, for example, one candidate finally fights their way to the top of the ticket as the convention nears - and they make a huge mistake or some very damaging info comes out on them - something that would really make it hard for them to beat the Repuke. It's not likely, but it seems to me the SD's are the "Get out of jail free card" for just those remote possibilities. Besides, I think long time party stalwarts who have done the hard work of party-building over the years, do deserve some extra proportional power when it comes to such things.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[mac2]

39. What?

"Besides, I think long time party stalwarts who have done the hard work of party-building over the years, do deserve some extra proportional power when it comes to such things."

How about the agenda for democracy, our Constitution and rule of law? How about our borders? How about the lack of impeachment for the worst and destructive President ever? Our companies stolen and jobs gone?

It's been lost in the fight for power elite.

Nope in a democracy it's one vote per person. Not you get many votes because you were once powerful, etc. We put some of them out of power. They are not elected to represent anyone in the federal government...some only local or state. They were once "citizen representatives"...not kings or queens. What arrogance!!

[msmcghee]

44. Political parties are free to form themselves for any reason . .

. . whatsoever and set up any damned rules they wish to choose their nominee. One person can start a party and nominate themselves if they want. You are free to join that party or not depending on how much you appreciate their rules and other factors. Anything less would be unconstitutional and undemocratic. Learn the bare minimum about how the system works before you claim that my opinion on how my party decides who our nominee should be is anti-democratic or unconstitutional.

[mac2]

70. OUR party can set the rules but not before the party

delegates meets to agree on them. The leadership is changing the rules before the convention.

[redqueen]

28. Ridiculous.

Hillary and her DLC buddies have made this primary into a farce.

[mac2]

40. No...Dean, Pelosi and Reid.

The candidates do what they can to win. We all let them.

[thoughtcrime1984]

36. They know if this goes to the convention undecided

that the Dems will lose. It is a near certainty. 1968 and 1972 did not end well when the nomination took place at the convention. Why drag it out nearly 3 months after the last contest? It makes no sense. After June 3, it is time to get the SD's votes collected. If we still don't have a presumptive nominee, then we'll go to the convention, and McCain will win the Presidency. Do you really think the Party will allow this to happen?

[mac2]

42. It's not the party looking out for us to win...

It's manipulation from the beginning. Why not just chose Obama to run against McCain and see McCain win? Obama is not loved by Republicans and many Democrats.

All of them are globalists. That is what they are trying to control. They don't want the delegates discussing the war, the economy, and the Americas Union. Real issues which are critical to Americans off the table mostly. The discussion will be tightly controlled just like every convention since 2000.

They want the convention to be a pep rally? Republicans won't be watching after a year and a half of stupid discussion and so called debates.

[thoughtcrime1984]

46. Obama can beat McCain

With the hard work of dedicated Democrats, this can be a reality. I don't see why McCain is considered such a difficult candidate to defeat. If we're going off polls that are 6 months out, well, those do not provide a very accurate indicator of what will happen in November.

[mac2]

72. OK maybe he can win against McCain but we must complete the process

and keep it fair and open. No manipulation of the dates, rules, etc. before the delegates meet to decide how they want our party to operate.

[madfloridian]

41. Bill Press is for Hillary....he wants a bitter fight.

He and Krugman, Joe and Valerie Wilson, Larry Johnson...sold their souls for Hillary.

It is sad.

[mac2]

43. I'll have to listen more but I don't see any Hillary support

in the Air America Chicago area.

[newmajority]

45. Good thing that Bill Press is on 3-6 AM in my time zone

I feel sorry for anyone who has to actually wake up to such shit.

(Thank God for Stephanie Miller!)

[burythehatchet]

47. Mr. Press has been hacking for Hilldog for some time now.

[RamboLiberal]

56. Press is being an idiot here. Yeah take to the convention

Have a big friggin' floor fight and back room deals. And then let a weakened candidate come out with a good part of their base pissed with no time to get over it and 1/20/09 taking the oath of office will be McCain!

[Hamlette]

58. LOL funny stuff

you don't want Reid and Pelosi to call it but you want the superdelegates, ppl who are elected BY NO ONE to call it.

You ppl can't even see how silly you are.

[elizm]

59. Bill Press is a Hillary shill from WAY back. Big deal. nt

[Blarch]

63. I can't stand Bill Press.

what a hack. He spends his entire show making a case for hillary staying in the race.

[Blarch]

64. and he loves saying ...

"Why can't Obama seal the deal"

[U4ikLefty]

67. I tuned off to "Shill rePressed" when he started "whoring" (thx Randi) Hillary

while pretending to be neutral...like nobody pays attention!!!

I've never liked that insider-DLC-partisain hack.

I set my clock-radio "off" of 1150am KTLK for my wake-up because I don't need to hear his simplistic cheerleading sHillary BS in the morning.

When we win...let's get some real advocates (not cheerleaders), becasue Bill SUCKS!!!

[mac2]

73. That's not what I heard.

He was pro-Obama just like the rest of Air America.

[intaglio]

68. Another pointless "Everyone hates Hillary"

Except us poor, misunderstood zombies

[mac2]

76. Everyone does not hate Hillary or she would be 1%

[Bensthename]

71. Who ever wants this to go to the convention wants McCain for Prez.

There are too many reasons why this should not go the convention for me to go into this morning. But basically we need a gen election campaign to start ASAP and start raising gen elect funds..

Supers need to act soon after the last primary.. There is nothing left to wait for after that.

[mac2]

75. The delegates (who represent their party at home) pick the primary winner

at the convention not you or a few leaders of the party. If we ignore that why wouldn't McCain win? The Republicans would claim we are not "democratic" because a few party leaders (Super Delegates not elected now) decide who wins. I've already heard it discussed in the media.

Starting this primary so early was the problem of costing so much. Who allowed that? We are almost to the end (where we should have started for November) and you want to stop now?

As far as I can see this long primary was a smoke screen to keep us from discussing real problems we have in our country (like impeachment, open borders, 911, and the war). Only safe issues are discussed. Same ole, same ole Neo Con elections.

Our party leaders are not acting in our best interest only their own.