There needs to be an advert campaign and quick

[barack the house]

What is being attempted at the moment is to confuse, what is, the Democratic party process. A process Geraldine Ferraro even helped instate. The public will was honored as they did not elect candidates directly they elected delegates. These delegates are brought about so smaller states count in the candidates radar as they would go to high populated states only. All Democrats entering that race know those rules. We need an ad campaign even if just an internet campaign to explain this so there is no confusion then record to DVDs and delivered door to door. So no-one is left in doubt. So public will was not ignored as they all elected delegates for candidates not candidates. Even in the GE it is no direct popular vote but a representation of each states will.

This is the most essential thing we need to do as reality is trying to be distorted, not for everyone but some are being confused. Democracy is always about an informed decision, we ultimately only share in the party's decsion for leader not decide ourselves.

[lob1]

1. On one level I agree.

But I'm afraid many of the people you're trying to convince already know the facts...they just choose to ignore them.

[barack the house]

2. I am not totally sure not everyone out there pays that close attention they can take surrogates...

words for granted. We need to calm any further frenzys off before they even begin. The ad campaign has to be independent of Obama too.

[Why Syzygy]

3. None of the decision makers believe this. They are the ones that matter.

Obama knows the Smear is coming, is here. That plays right into his message, as someone else noted.
All they have is Smear. They don't have the SOLUTIONS.

[barack the house]

4. It's ok just saw the dkos story of the hillary campaign letting go of staff, so probably fine now...

Although the DNC site could have a small site ad to clarify this just to be sure. It's just I'd prefer not to see another protest like one Saturday if we can avoid it.

[Why Syzygy]

6. Cool.

It's too soon to panic. A lot of the noise coming in the guise of Clinton "support" is bogus. They will be fighting against the Democratic nominee, so, aka GOP.

Soon, they will be invisible on this site. There are many good posts from Sunday by calm, rational people here who know the score. Read those. I can link some if you'd like?

[cyclezealot]

5. There in is the problem. Selecting surrogates.

Its unrepresentative. Some of us are turned off by the whole process. Its about as representative as the electoral college in the GE. Some of us don't care all that much to be in on selecting the nominee , if the process skews out certain viewpoints and those not dependent upon Big Money. And don't say New Hampshire is less dependent upon Big Money. I read 10 Million dollars was spent upon puny New Hampshire. Same for Iowa. / I know what might make the system work and lead to a more democratic outcome. New DNC rules that forces candidates to spend no more $75,000 dollars in both New Hampshire and Iowa. Then we might have a chance at democracy. And only then should we not be fumed by the power of New Hampshire and Iowa.

[Skittles]

7. it is one fucked up piece of SHIT process

absolutely it reminds me of the election of 2000. I SAY THIS AS SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE FOR EITHER CANDIDATE.

[Why Syzygy]

8. There may certainly be room for improvements ..

HOWEVER, the moment for that is NOT when we are preparing to take our country back from the Real Bad Guys.
THAT'S why the Committee had a meeting in AUGUST 2007 to establish the rules to govern what is happening NOW.

Talk about reform, certainly, as much as you like, we're progressives. But not when we have a MUCH bigger job to do at the moment. Big people learn to delay gratification. They know how to set priority. And the hardest of all. They face every circumstance with acceptance. Or strive to.

According to the rules that were in place, are in place, and have been met with satisfaction by all but a very few; we are right where we are supposed to be.

[cyclezealot]

10. " Satisfaction." that is relative term.

Maybe you. Not all of us. We live with it grudgingly. Issue oriented people think the present system is crap for reasons listed above. I really doubt we'd have the same outcome if we had a more representative system. / Yes, we are begrudgingly with you in regards to Obama. But, many- as the media has said, find Obama's rhetoric shallow. Take defense spending. By Obama's own words , We are not all that sure we will be all that better off. Increased defense spending. Too bad Robert Scheer could not be president. he has real guts. he is a profile in courage. His convictions cost him his slot at the Los Angeles times. If I could theoretically could vote for Scheer vs Obama. I know where My vote would go.
$$$
From Today's Scheer Opinion piece

"Indefensable Spending."

What should be the most important issue in this election is one that is rarely, if ever, addressed: Why is U.S. military spending at the highest point, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than at any time since the end of World War II? Why, without a sophisticated military opponent in sight, is the United States spending trillions of dollars on the development of high-tech weapons systems that lost their purpose with the collapse of the Soviet Union two decades ago?

**
The Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2008 set a post-World War II record at $625 billion, and that does not include more than $100 billion in other federal budget expenditures for homeland security, nuclear weapons and so-called black budget — or covert — operations.

And what are we spending all this money on? We are talking high-tech war toys designed to fight a Cold War enemy that no longer exists, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with its estimated total price tag of $300 billion, and Virginia-class submarines at $2.5 billion each. Who cares that the terrorists lack submarines for the Navy to battle deep in the ocean, for which the Virginia-class submarine was designed?

Then there are the F-22 Raptor jet fighters that no longer fill a credible military purpose but will take $65 billion out of taxpayers’ pockets. The Raptor includes stealth technology and elaborate electronics designed to counter threatened leaps in Soviet war-fighting capability. In 2005, Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, wrote that the Raptor “is the most unnecessary weapon system being built by the Pentagon.”

Since President Bush’s first year in office, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department has doubled its future planned investment in those ultra-pricey weapons from $790 billion to $1.6 trillion.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/01/9349/

[AtomicKitten]

9. Clinton preys on the stupid in trying to sell her sleight of hand magic trick.

She calls them her base.