julie777 is a moron. There is no difference between Clinton and any Republican. I wouldn't vote for Clinton if my life depended on it and I consider myself more of a progresive than anything. Clinton is a fake who says she is for the working class but supports increasing H1B & L1 visa caps and also the way we do trade. Hillary is a coporate puppet who is out to enrich herself. The Clintons are more at fault for the loss of jobs in this country more than even W himself. Any working person who supports Hillary Clinton is an idiot and will feel sorry for voting for her once she is in office.

This super delegate rule is crap. Again, subverting democracy. The Clintons are cheaters. The popular vote should stand.

Clinton is pro-war. Clinton is pro Nafta. Clinton wants to lock us into giving the HMOs a mandated monopoly on health care... probably permanently halting any move for a single payer system so desperately needed in our country.

Clinton IS McCain... she CANNOT win. She's hated by progressives and galvanizes the extreme right wing like no one can.

So, the DNC in complicity with the Corporate run, War Profiteering Media, is foisting yet another corrupt PRO WAR Democrat down our throats

So all you young, white, priviliged, spoiled rich folk are upset about the super delegates.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1975 in Cousins v. Wigoda that political parties are entirely private entities and can do whatever they want. Super delegates have been around in the Democratic Party since 1980.

Where were all you crybabies since then?

Both candidates got into this election under the current existing rules. You can't change horses in the middle of a stream. And you can't change the rules because all of a sudden they don't work for your candidate. And now some of you are acting like crybabies and saying this isn't fair, this isn't fair. Oh grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're worried about "legitimacy" and yet you think a system where someone who loses the popular vote in a state, but gets more pledged delegates due to some arcane rule, is fine, but if super delegates make the decisive choice of the nominee, it's not?

Plus longingforsanity says that of Clinton gets the nomination she will take all her toys and run away home. Or in other words she will not vote for Clinton. How grown up is that? Longingforsanity says play by my rules or I won't vote at all! This person is saying they would rather not win the White House at all and cede out government to Republicans who want to continue to subvert our country and our Constitution. WOW!! What a choice.

Obama has said that he would get Clinton's voters, but she not his. Well with selfish people likes longforsanity I can see why. If Clinton should get the nomination and Obama does not support her that too would be a tragedy for America and would make him care more for himself than the good of the country.

NOW THAT IS NOT THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. THAT IS THE ARROGANCE OF HYPE.

I'm going to write the DNC to complain. Anyone else want to join me? Talk about "taxation without representation!" It goes right down to selecting the candidates!! This cannot stand!!

if the dem party elects anyone other then the person who the people want how is this different from the electoral process that elected bush. I for one will not vote if this happens. in addition to signing the petition above. I suggest that everyone write the super deligates in there own states and inform them that they will not vote for the democratic nomine if the person who wins the populer vote is not the selected candidate for president.a list of super deligates can be found at http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page

I'm reposting this since it's gotten a bit lost in the comments:

There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.

Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.

Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html

The democratic party is far from perfect. The super delegate debate and the close race between two strong candidates is good medicine and could strengthen the party. The future of the party will be in the hands of the next leader of the Party, the nominee. I believe that Obama can win the race, win the super delegates and unify the Party. I believe he can unify the country. I think he might even keep an open mind and listen to calls for reform from within the Party. I do not have this confidence in Clinton. She is a polarizing figure with no demonstrable ability to build consensus. I do not trust her. Her health care task force in Bill Clinton's first term was more secretive than Dick Cheney's energy task force. I do not believe she would reform or strengthen the Party or the country. If she wins I will register independent.
Obama can win. We can win.

I definitely think that with all of the "superdelegate" bullshit, the Dimocraps indeed have shot themselves in the foot, and parties other than the Repugnicans ought to step up and become much more visible. To me, this is classic patronage where the Dimocraps have to wine and dine their leaders who call the shots in the Party. Yet another reason NOT to vote Democrat. Eight years ago I removed my name from the Democratic Party and switched to Independent, and am very happy I did. What amazes me is how many people are drunk on the Obama kool aid, when he "claims" to be the agent of change. And people are being fooled yet again, because it is the SYSTEM that controls politics, not the political faces. That system is entirely dominated and controlled by corporations. Obama and Billary are not going to take on the corporations. Also, Obama and Billary are not going to take on the Military-Industrial-Media-Complex. In toto, nothing will change. That is why we need to either vote for a third party or, concentrate our efforts on changing the system. Yes, we might have to suffer for another number of years, but if that is what it takes to change the system, then I am all for it.

kelmer, The Dog is wagging and has been for quite some time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a GP activist I would love to see a GP victory in 2012, as suggested in an above posting, but in all truth it won't be in my lifetime. (I still have some very good (hopefully many) years ahead)

What the GP should be pushing for is 5% in order to receive matching funds in '12. The best opportunity we have for that is for Clinton to be the top of the ticket with Obama merely giving his endorsement, and not being on the ticket at all. I've read how so many Democrats on this article's discussion list talking about balking if she wins bec. of superdelegates.

It's so clear that, like McCain who is despised by so many Republicans, Hillary is equally despised. This tsunami of hate of the status quo- McCain/Hillary, is gratifying for anyone interested in building an electoral left in America. Frankly, if the Greens are not able to capitalize this time, they're likely not ever. Also, if either Hillary or McCain make it to the White House, the resentment of the left would be enormous. Hillary will rule and govern like a Republican, like Bill did, and a McCain victory would mean that even the Democrats couldn't win it back this time.

If it is Hillary, the Republicans wouldn't have to steal a third election. As much as McC is hated by the Republican base, there's probably more who would desert Hillary for McC. Remember, 200,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida alone in 2000. Gore, quite frankly, was a lousy candidate. That's likely to multiply with Hillary on the ticket.

This could be the make or break moment for all sides.

Myles

If you run as a Democrat you are playing by the Party's rules. The Party wants to win and Party insiders hold some cards in this game. Clinton does not by any means have a lock on these votes. Both candidates have to convince the Party as well as the voters that they can beat McCain.
What is more disturbing to me is the efforts to change the rules in the middle of the game. Clinton wants to seat delegates for Florida and Michigan even though she agreed not to campaign in those states. Would Obama be making the same case if he had "won" those states?
Like them or not super delegate rules are not corrupt. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is corrupt and will seriously harm the Democratic party.

I agree that all the candidates knew the rules going in and they also knew that the sanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries would yield no delegates. Only Hillary put her name on the ballot in Michigan and barely won over 'nobody'. I do not vote for unopposed candidates and I don't believe I am alone in this practice. I wonder how many did not vote at all in this uncontested contest? To me having a choice is what voting is all about and she should drop this shameless attempt to have these votes count or support doing the whole thing over.
regards,
james d granata
holyoke, MA

Vote Nader: http://www.naderexplore08.org/

I assume Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are superdelegates too. Now there's a scary thought.

Staggers the mind that all this anti-democratic bullshit was created by the DNC---in order to tame back the "liberal bent" of American voters! We must not be allowed to vote for progress! Well, check out George Carlin on voting at YouTube. It used to be, he says, that "if you don't vote you have no right to complain." On the contrary! Carlin says. If you're the one who was suckered into voting for the next group of incompetents and criminals, then YOU're the one with no right to complain: after all, you voted them in knowing full well what they were! I don't like this logic, because I know how many people bled and died for my right to vote. But voting has been destroyed from within by capitalism (like everything else it touches)...

Hillary, the former Wal-Mart board member, versus the son of a Kenyan Luo. But was Barack's father a loyalist to British colonial forces or not?

It kind of looks like slave versus master though. I mean god, Wal-Mart is based upon paying Chinese children 6 cents an hour.

Go slaves! Become the slave masters!

This will be the tipping point for a Green party win in 2012.

The Democratic party is done.

I like New England town meetings because they are the purest form of democracy. They aren't always pretty and they take a long time (sometimes running well past midnight) but I have seen them make better decisions in small towns than when the ruling elite put up their budgets and proposals for ballot issues on election day.

Likewise, I like the caucus system better than primaries for selecting candidates. Getting your neighbors together and talking it out allows people time to think and persuade one another, rather than relying upon quick decisions usually based on massive advertising and 20 second "sound bites".

It is very telling that Obama has been winning caucuses by 2-to-1 margins. It means he has a more powerful, more persausive message, and his supporters are better organized and more deeply committed than Clinton's supporters.

I want to believe that the superdelegates are smart enough to figure that out, and I predict that the majority will go with Obama come convention time, but I could be wrong because they seem to put a lot more into the political calculus of their decision making them simply pleasing all those newly won-over Independents and Obama supporters. I just hope they don't try to get too clever!

Sorry for the mis-spelled words up there, after 15 seconds had passed, the CD's computer program said I'm not allowed to edit, because I either didn't write it, or had passed the three minute time allowed. I wonder if Diebold wrote the soft ware for CD's computer?

What I believe will happen is, in spite of Obama's current momentum, Hillary will win in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Those are not caucus states and she has now raised enough money for TV ads there. After those states vote, hillary will then have more delegates than Obama will have, ___ without counting any super delgates.

When they get to the convention, the super delgates will then mostly go to her and she'll be nominated, probably after the first round. There wil be hard feelings, but that won't cause a blood bath fight, especially if Obama is chosen to be the VP running mate. That choice of course is possible, but an unknown. If Hillary is the Demo's choice, based upon that scenerio, it is very possible John Edwards will be our next Attorney General.

If I'm wrong about Clinton winning in those three states and Obama does have more delegtes when the convention comes around, the super delgates better go to Obama. If the two candidates are tied, or very close to it, and then they count the Michigan and Florida votes and Hillary wins, then the Democratic party will fall to pieces and McCain will likely be our next president, almost for certain if Huckaberry is his VP choice.

That is how I see it delvelop, and is just my opinion. I am usually wrong however, _______ according to "Riverman" and some other experts here.

Warren Buffet supports both Hillary and Barack. He says, "they won't kill the goose that laid the golden egg."

I have not seen any golden eggs lately.

COMarc wrote,

"We should mount a strong Green party campaign in 2008 to start building an alternative. Its the only way to achieve any measure of political power in the system."

Or we could start the difficult and slow process of creating communities of resistance that are the world that we want to live in.

Voting for the president (read: manager of capitalism) is not a chance to create real and substantive change. Organizing in your community, helping get a green party candidate elected mayor, is something we can DO. Electing a Green to president isn't, and it will make this country worse to have another Republican, which is more likely if we all vote green.

If you're not fired up about the election, tell people your voting for the Dem. candidate when they ask you and then use the question as a bridge to something more interesting and critical. Use the opportunity to show that you are BOTH politically saavy and committed to more substantial change.

Invite the person to start a bookclub with you since she seems to be interested in politics.

Invite the person for dinner and one of your favorite movies.

Do the WORK!

hanif February 11th, 2008 3:29 pm:

. . . "And here is where the arrogance checks in: this rule is more important to you than Millions of human beings. Millions of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Haiti, and all over the rest of our planet Earth. What is wrong with you!!??

There are millions of reasons to never vote for the Democrats as it is already!!! But you care nothing for this. The poor and non-white of the world obviously rank with animals, as you do not care a bit for our suffering. This is informed by your indignation at the Superdelegate situation as your cause for lack of support for Democrats, because the implication is that you will support them otherwise.

Shame on you. I hope at night your dreams are filled the shreeks of mothers as they weep over their dismembered children and are raped and dishonored in front of their homes, as you try and consule them with: At least its a Democrat and not a Republican.

When will you wake up?"

***********************

We may not, hanif. And where you come from, have different sects, tribes, regions never savagely attacked each other or started a war or defended against a war?

Great Teachers have come and gone. They all essentially teach the same values. Go within. Go in peace. Share. Don't kill or steal. Be nice, ... generous, compassionate, understanding ... These Great Teachers are worshipped and revered, and then usually they get killed, often by the same people who thought they were really terrific ... at first. But then these same worshippers have to live up to those teachings themselves and often have to be courageous in doing so and mindful about their own thoughts and their own actions.

"Awake ye that sleepest." circa 30 - 32 A.D.

You know what happened to the Great Teacher who said that, and especially because he took on The Establishment. And then the little people, like us, got scared and turned away and even called for his death.

And Muhammed? Beautiful, humble man. He was in one battle [a total of about 100 people] to save his life, and when there was victory, he immediately tended the wounded and ordered his followers to do the same, and then told his "enemies" to go home and go in peace.

Three hundred years after Muhammed died, the top echelon ... the elite ... of the society, all male, decided to interpret the places in the Qu'ran that seemed to have been left for the ordinary people to interpret. By the time these fellas were through, Sharia law was in place, and could be used as a club politically and against women and undesirables and to get rid of or hurt people who weren't toeing the mark at home base or who lived in another region, etc.

I do hear you, hanif. Everyday when my heat goes on and I'm warm, when clear water comes out of the faucet, when I eat ... I think of the suffering people, especially the children, in Gaza, Iraq, Darfur ... anywhere in the world, including the little ones who are beaten and hungry, sick and cold in this country. I've lived 70 years, plus a few months now. From my earliest recollections of the Great Depression and WW II, nothing much has changed even though there were periods of great hope and leaders who brought that hope. But the majority of them were killed.

It drives me nutz sometimes. My heart hurts at the waste, at the insanity, at the cruelty ... and most folks don't give a damn, can't see past there own fences, don't really take it personally, even though they dutifully go to their places of worship on Saturday or Sunday, and as Mark Twain said, "...make a holy show of themselves." And certainly those who lead us aren't losing any sleep over what they have wrought.

Here's the Holy Show of George W. Bush, sharing his insights about prayer, at the 45th Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D. C., just last Thursday [2/7/08]:

"When we lift our hearts to God, we're all equal in his sight. We're all equally precious…In prayer we grow in mercy and compassion…. When we answer God's call to love a neighbor as ourselves, we enter into a deeper friendship with our fellow man - and a deeper relationship with our eternal Father."

I wonder who wrote that for him? Because certainly he couldn't be that much of a hypocrite or in that much denial, could he?

AWAKE YE WHO SLEEPEST, GEORGIE! If Jesus appeared suddenly in the Oval Office and said that to him, George wouldn't get it, and Jesus would likely be labeled a potential terrorist and whisked away, and maybe even waterboarded to find out how he got into the White House and what the code of AWAKE YE WHO SLEEPEST, GEORGIE meant.

I do hear you, hanif. Likely a lot of people on this message board hear you too, and wrestle with the dilemma of the seemingly relentless Slow Suicide of the Human Species and what to do that will change things for the better ... consistently. Our options sometimes do come down to trying to pick the best candidate out of a field of imperfects. They're human too, and there's always the hope that, as only a few presidents have, they'll grow and get it and really be strong and try to do right by the people at home and of the world.

In the meantime, Do No Harm and do not support people, policies or practices that Harm. And try to help and speak out so that others understand what's going on too.

peace, hanif ...

A party can choose its candidate in any way it likes. If you don't like it, form your own party.

Kernel my views are shared by an extremely small number of voters. More than likely Obama will win. I hope, no I pray I am completely wrong about them (Obama and the Clintons) and that you are right. I admit I have been wrong about people many times.

tailcap__ I am a member of the middle class and well realize how we are getting the shaft ever since the Bush tax cuts which benefitted mainly the rich took effect. In case you had not noticed, both Dem candidates have promised to back up the Bush cuts and make the rich corporations and individuals pay their share of taxes to keep the country solvent.

With Repubs in, things will just keep getting worse until all we have is a few billionaires and the rest of us will be out of luck for good. I do not see what choice we have but to give the Dems a chance to turn it around and they could do it if they can get a good majority in Congress.

If one believes in socialism, which is no better than pure capitalism, then vote Green, but do not look for improvement as they cannot get elected at the present time. Eventually, they could help right things, but we need fast action to help people survive this disaster.

rtdrury February 11th, 2008 11:54 pm

I agree with you. Voting for a candidate based on their chance of winning is unprincipled and is buying into the whole lesseroftwoevilism that has gotten us where we are now, which is screwed. If Obama and Clinton represented any threat to the status quo they wouldn't back them to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars. They are truly the establishment's choice and if they weren't they would have never gotten this far. Any threat to the status quo gets eliminated as did Kucinch, Gravel and Edwards.

This is the party of the Democrats: An establishment party that is so thoroughly undemocratic that they reserve the right to overturn the wishes of the very people that vote for them people and install their choice instead. That why undemocratic Democrats invented "Super Delegates".

Don't sell out folks. When enough of us do this we can finally throw all the bums out including the Democrats. Vote Greens or Socialist. Vote for what you want and sleep good at night.

Basing your vote on a candidate's chance of winning is not wise. That perverts the expression of the public will. It becomes lost, nobody knows what it is, because people registered something else at the polling booth. Something rather stupid in comparison - one's anticipation of the future direction of the herd. Oh I think the herd is running off the cliff. So I'll run off the cliff too, and maybe more will follow and we'll all die in a much bigger pile of crunched mangled bodies on the canyon floor below.

Oh great, just when the KKKonservatives are falling apart, the last thing we need is another Klinton. To all you HITlery supporters out there, I guess you won't mind more NAFTAs and HILLARYcares, eh ?!?!?

You people better realize that out here in Red State America, plans are already being devised to further up the evangelical vote which will make 2004 look like a low turnout. The reason ? We're angry at the Democrats who took our vote and betrayed us and we're kick their ASSES out !

Worthy thread! An excellent piece in Rolling Stone explores the problem we will continue to face ... as long as we foolishly grant Democratic politicians a free ride .... it will be at our expense!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves/print

What I worry about is much more sinister, that Bush will attack Iran in 2008 and swing the vote to the man with military experience, McCain. No need to declare martial law.

Kernel February 11th, 2008 9:44 pm
"..we could have spared the nation four years of reckless killing, destruction, and hopeless debt, as well as wrecking the middle class for the benefit of the rich?"

Wait, oh shit! We are saying the same thing. The difference is that we think going Dim is like going Repug (it's going to give us more of the same). We want to break with the Democratic-Republican Party. Voting for a Dim will give us what you claim the Repugs will bring because to us we see how the Dims always end up supporting Repug measures or just don't vote at all. Just look at how they caved on the "Stimulus Package" and ended up passing the Repug version and gave up on their own. Look at how they fund bush's war and refuse to end it. They always do this. A vote for a Dim is a vote for the status quo.

Dump the Dims! Go Green or Socialists

Kernel February 11th, 2008 9:44 pm

Sure, bud, works real good for the super rich and you apparently. In case you haven't noticed it isn't working all that great for the rest of us. Check out the economy and all the people losing their homes, and the shrinking middle class. You are an apologist for the status quo. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's working for everybody.

iowablackbird___Swell idea you have there, shutting down the Dem convention. Real good training for the younger generation. My question is why did you not organize that operation in 2004 at the Repug convention and see if we could have spared the nation four years of reckless killing, destruction, and hopeless debt, as well as wrecking the middle class for the benefit of the rich?

Where do you Dem haters think you got things like your computers and the internet connections, from a bunch of Greens out working in their organic gardens? This high living standard many people have would not have happened without the profit motive that both Dems and Repugs embrace.

peaceistruth February 11th, 2008 8:33 pm

"I don't think we should disappoint the young, new voters thirsting for change so soon, although they will when/if Obama wins and shows his true corporate colors."

good point peace is truth,

but there isn't conclusive evidence to suggest obama will sell out, why? because he's excepted most of his money from small contributers (lesss than $2000). his advantage against clinton is he hasn't tapped these contributers (meaning if i donated say $123 I could donate another say $1900 to the campaign). obama makes a point of not accepting pac money and while he was in IL senate he crafted legislation that made political contributions transparent to the public. i'd say the people (based on enthusiasm and contributions) have as much if not more of an influence on mr obama than the mnc's. (his senate races are not even relative compared to the amount of money required to maintain a presidential campaign) - it's why edwards dropped out, the fact obama is emphasizing the grass roots (in fund raising and organizing techniques) to win caucuses demonstrates his true colors.
it's a choice. perhaps hollow perhaps meaningful. i approached this election supporting kucinich. but my personal experience at the caucus (an event i held my nose at, as i attended) in iowa changed my mind. the mass of people in my neighborhood, people who never voted before or even thought their voices made a difference were standing in a corner of a church in cedar rapids ia. i live in a poor black/white neighborhood adjacent to a liberal arts college. the room quickly dived into two groups. clinton (older than me 40 and mostly women and dem faithfull) and obama 3/4 people in the room (1/2 black, 1/2 under 25), friendly people who weren't scarred with the light beyond the cave (as myself and so many cynics here can attest to, the truth blinds you, it scars you). so 3 delegates to obama one to hillary (all white, comfortable - many women). the night and subsequent days (when i realized there were 8 or 9 people (especially young, poor, white and black) who didn't/couldn't participate in the caucus who can participate in the general who also supported obama (i have given them a voter registration forms in past 3 weeks). the point is i realized something. who in the hell do activists imagine they represent? most people (%95) can not visualize cynthia mckinney (not party, region or voting record). dennis wasn't going to win the nomination, nor mr edwards (he didn't have the resources or national organization capable of winning). clinton is the DLC (dem leadership council - conservative wing of dem party not to be confused with the dnc - the national committee --) candidate. obama is the r kennedy, mcgovern, carter, hart, dean, the insurgent candidate of the dems. the fact obama has made it to this stage is a miracle. dean is in obama's court, the only thing stopping a dem victory in nov is the clintons. hopefully dean will demand caucuses in michigan and florida. obama (especially w/ edwards' support, carter's support and gore's support) would fare well in michigan and split florida to the point where only superdelegates could make the decision (it's imperative the superdelegates vote the will of the people from their states even if it is politicaly emabarrasing to some. if this scenario (direct democracy) doesn't play out, the people in the street should shut it down (the dnc). just like the WTO. the sound of the people would be heard round the world (beyond the fiasco in mexico last time...)

vote/act your conscience..............
please donate to kucinich and sheehan..................
see you in the dtreets of denver..........peace...........................

truthteller February 11th, 2008 4:00 pm
There isn't a dime's worth of significant difference between Clinton and Obama.

How can you possibly say that!
One is a pro-war, pro-corporate, status quo black Republican, and the other is a status quo, pro-war, pro-corporate female Republican.

I say punish the Dims for selling out and not stopping the war when they could simply by not funding it.

I'm going Green or Socialist.

When you study red states like Kansas, you see that there were twice the number of blue votes cast than red. This is odd. If Kansas has an open primary, then red votes could cross over to vote for Obama, because McCain is so far out in front. Could it be that Republican red voters would want McCain to face Obama and not Clinton?

what was it Will Rogers said ?
something to the effect that he was not a member of an organized political party -- he was a democrat
still holds true 70 years later

It's a bird! It's a plane! More powerful than a locomotive! Faster than a speeding bullet! Able to leap skyscrapers in a single bound! Dedicated to truth, justice and the American way! It's Super Delegate!!

I'm a Green so won't vote Democratic. All I see is one Corporate party with 2 halves. However, I do have a preference for Obama over Billary for many reasons. I believe that nominating Billary would be a terrible mistake for the Democrats. For one thing, Obama may be ever so slightly to the left of Billary. Obama seems more capable of defeating McCain. Obama also seems more inspired than Billary. Nominating Billary will alienate most of the young, new voters who are backing Obama - they are the future of the party. I don't think we should disappoint the young, new voters thirsting for change so soon, although they will when/if Obama wins and shows his true corporate colors.

Nominating Obama will break the Bush-Clinton dynasty, another plus. Hillary's chief claim to fame is that she was the Queen, uh I mean the First LADY, which is hardly a compelling reason to vote for her. I would never vote for someone based on gender or race, I care about issues. There are at least a few voters out there who claim it is about time we've had a female president. There are thousands upon thousands of American women far more qualified than Hillary to be president, brilliant women who have made a difference, women who aren't in bed with corporate America, unlike the power-hungry, egotistical, pro-corporate, pro-status quo, hawkish, has tons of baggage, uninspired in the extreme, unidealistic Hillary. There is nothing remarkable or compelling in her career that suggests she would be the president capable of fixing this country, about bringing about the changes we need to make this a better America.

On the other hand, I believe Hillary is very well qualified to serve as a director and/or consultant at various multi-national corporations, just like she did at Walmart and the cases she represented at the Rose lawfirm.

I do agree with the the article and the commentary that holds that seating "super delegates",who seek to over ride the will of the people,spells disaster for both the Democratic Paty and "democracy".

I am with you Crone.My Democratic Party,has certainly anguished me,with,some of it's current disfunctionality. However,it is currently the only game in town.I beleve that we progressives are still better off with it,as opposed to the Republicans. Yes,we need alternatives to the current set up.If alternative parties are ever to grow and become effective players,we need electorial reforms,that would allow such innovations,as "instant run off" voting,that would allow someone to make both an idealistic first choice,(i.e Green,Nader) and a more pragmatic choice,such as the Democratic candidate. That way,smaller parties could grow and exert greater influence on the process,pressuring the "big boys",without being spoilers.

iowablackbird,

You raise some good points. Maybe Obama is inspired by high ideals for all I know, behind all the rhetoric. Problem is, some other politicians have arrived in Washington with lofty ideals, only for them to be shot down by the powers that be. Even those who may at first refuse to sell out find they have to do some serious compromising to hold onto power.

Corporate America is essentially the 4th branch of government, and almost nobody in Washington ever talks about this elephant in the room. There's no telling what this branch would do if a true left-winger or progressive became president. It will probably be like Dallas, 1963... and the president then wasn't even a REAL progressive.

The extra super duper delegate is MONEY. Anyone who can't raise tons of it in massive conflicts of interest and amoral ethics is out. Compared to the money game the super delegate is direct representation.

How many of the rich are hedging their bets by funding all candidates that look that they can win?

firewall, what an orwellian term considering the stakes during this particular primary. obama is the firewall. obama is one of 2 people who can prevent 32 consecutive years of 2 families controlling our administrative government; the folks who ultimately stack our courts, and point us off to war, the people who determine our standing with others in the world fairly or exploitatively. it is important, i always believed that the impulse of the russian people as the ussr tumbled wasn't economic but was political, based on the notion the people were tired of the cronies of the state circumventing fair distribution of wealth, meaningful standards of living, education, health care, responsive environmental and labor practices. the ussr over strained itself spending untold fortunes to compete w/ the west. the price... 17 years after the collapse of the ussr, the people still find themselves at the mercy of gangsters, oligopolies and corrupt politicians that resemble stalin and peter the great.
and so it is with the bushes and clintons. this democratic contest will go to the convention. if the people can shut down the WTO, they can shut down the dem nat convention. the convention will occur in the summer (aug 25-28) when 1000's of college students will be on break (many of whom are part of obama's youth movement) if the left (pda, move on, others unhappy w/ clinton 1 and the first vote on the authorization of force) would participate to shut the city down, it would be an incredible message to the world that americans will not tolerate absolute corruption within the ranks of the left-center party. the people in russia went to the streets they stood in front of tanks (im sure they would have stood in front of tasers and msnbc as well). t roosevelt was the last third party candidate to recieve a significant amount of the vote in 1912 (2nd place less than 30% of the vote). this occurred because the republican party splintered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1912

"For the first time some delegates to the national convention were elected in presidential preference primaries. Primary elections were advocated by the progressive faction in the GOP, which wanted to break the control of political parties by bosses. Altogether, fourteen states held Republican primaries. Robert LaFollette won two of the first four primaries (North Dakota and Wisconsin), and Taft won the other two early primaries (New York and Nevada). Beginning with his runaway victory in Illinoi on April 9, however, Roosevelt won nine of the last ten presidential primaries (in order, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Oregon, Maryland, California, Ohio, New Jersey, and South Dakota). Of the last ten primaries, Taft was only victorious in Massachusetts."

The Republican Convention was held in Chicago from June 18 to June 22. Unfortunately for Roosevelt, Taft had started much earlier in rounding up delegates, and the delegates chosen by primary election were a minority. Taft had the support of the bulk of the party organizations in Southern states. These states had voted solidly Democratic in every presidential election since 1880, and Roosevelt objected that they were given one-quarter of the delegates when they would contribute nothing to a Republican victory (as it turned out, former Confederate states supported Taft by a 209-40 margin). When the Republican National Convention gathered, Roosevelt was challenging the credentials of nearly half of the delegates. By that time, however, it was too late. The delegates chose Elihu Root — once Roosevelt's top ally — to serve as chairman of the convention. Afterwards, the delegates seated Taft delegations in Alabama, Arizona, and California on tight contests of 597-472, 564-497, and 542-529, respectively. After losing California, where Roosevelt had won the primary, the progressive delegates gave up hope. They voted "present" on most succeeding roll calls. Not since the 1872 election had there been a major schism in the Republican party. Now, with the Democrats holding about 45% of the national vote, any schism would be fatal. Roosevelt's only hope at the convention was to form a "stop-Taft" alliance with LaFollette, but Roosevelt had alienated LaFollette, and the alliance could not form.

Unable to tolerate the personal humiliation he suffered at the hands of Taft and the Old Guard, and refusing to entertain the possibility of a compromise candidate, Roosevelt struck back hard. On the evening of June 22, 1912, Roosevelt asked his supporters to leave the Convention. Roosevelt maintained that President Taft had allowed fraudulent seating of delegates in order to capture the presidential nomination from progressive forces within the Party. Thus, with the support of convention chairman Elihu Root, Taft's supporters outvoted Roosevelt's men, and the convention renominated incumbents William Howard Taft and James S. Sherman, making Sherman the first Vice President since Richard M. Johnson to be nominated for reelection."

it's an interesting parallel.
t roosevelt (i mean obama) lost in the general election but came in second place, in front of the republican candidate taft (wilson D 6,296,284, roosevelt 4,122,721, taft R 3,486,242).
obama is the reason the new youthful dems have been drawn to the party, he also is the reason republicans are voting for him (many of whom are not happy w/ mccain) obama appeals to independents as well. considering john mccain and hillary clinton both have a myriad of quesitons concerning their electability their own party; it's not implausible that obama could run and win as a 3rd party candidate (drawing many dems from the current congress to his side), effectively redrawing the lines of american politics, opening up the reality of third party politics. He's publicly stated he has no intention of running again. obama/edwards 3rd party candadate, policy focused on class inequities ? ok im dreaming...........

list of superdelgates and website devoted to superdelegates

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

if your planning to go to denver to shut down the city, be a witness for peace or participate in demonstrations against the party platform, check out the dnc convention site.

http://www.demconvention.com/

please donate to kucinich and sheehan..........
see you in the streets of denver.............peace...........

MendoChuck, the wswn article critical of Obama concludes with this doctrinaire, and wrong, pronouncement, which is the premise for everything preceding:

"The only road to progressive social change in the United States is the road of the political independence of the working class, through a break with the Democratic Party and the whole structure of capitalist politics, and the building of a mass political movement based on a socialist and internationalist perspective."

"The ONLY road..." So dogmatic, so doctrinaire. There are a hundred ways structural change happens, not just one and only. Collapse of the second biggest empire in the 20th century did not happen through an independent workers movement but because a CP apparatchik rose to the top with social-democratic ideas and basically let the non-Russian states of the USSR go free without crushing them militarily. Other systems are overthrown by military coups which then oversee democratic elections (other times they don't of course). Other systems are overthrown by external invasion (e.g. the American confederacy invaded by Lincoln with spinoff result of freedom for slaves). Other systems are brought down by general strike and mass boycott (which have nothing intrinsically to do with leaving the Democratic Party). Other methods of change are caucuses within existing major parties. Occasionally an empire withdraws peacefully from conquests (e.g. Chalmers Johnson on the British empire giving up some parts of its empire peacefully). Other times there are productive reforms within existing systems, e.g. the scandinavian social democracies and New Zealand. Be a little less dogmatic ...

Here is one major argument against the thesis that Obama was put up by oligarchs as a plan to humanize the face of american despotism, etc.: it was unexpected that Obama would become the frontrunner. It was CLINTON who got neocon-related and Republican-related backing bigtime. CLINTON was supposed to be the Democratic candidate (and then lose). Obama was never expected to win. But sometimes surprises happen in american politics. As for the analogies with Carter and Bill Clinton, I think Obama would be more effective than Carter and more principled than Bill Clinton. Just one example on this last point: Obama has consistently and categorically ruled out use of torture ("enhanced interrogation methods"). Bill Clinton recommends legalizing use of torture by the President, in fundamental agreement with formal Bush policy. Hillary also has in the past recommended legalizing torture same as Bill, though her most current position is that she's not sure and will need to look into the matter after becoming president before deciding whether she will continue waterboarding. Ugh!!

I like both Hillary and Obama. I intend to vote for Obama in the Texas primary. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the national election - and I'll vote for either of them with more enthusiasm than I've felt for a candidate in years. Third party candidates put Reagan in the White House, GWB would not have won without the Nader vote. There is a difference in the political parties. If Gore had been elected, I doubt we would be in Iraq, the US would have done something about global warming and social services programs would not have been gutted.

I vote and work for certain policies. The Democratic Party is the electable party that comes closest to implementing those policies. I was very pleasantly surprised by Lyndon Johnson - he did more to actually empower the poor with his store-front lawyer program, PELL grants, work/study and getting the Civil Rights Act through Congress than any President this century but FDR. I'd rank him 2nd best president of the 20th Century. I would never have voted for him in a Primary.

The Superdelegate Firewall

What's this "Superdelegate" crap!

It's Orwellian that's what it is!

Please tell me anyone or everyone. If Hillary is the Demo nominee after the Demo party shit fight, and McCain is the Repugs and has Jeb Bush as his running mate. Would you REALLY wish to see McCain win, because a lot of people either didn't vote, or wrote in Paris Hilton, Ralph Nader, or voted for a candidate who had NO chance whatsoever of winning? Is McCain really a better choice? __ Not in my book.

Personally, I have never __ ever __ voted for the one I thought was the "least-worst". I have always cast my vote for the one I felt was the BEST choice and one who had any prayer of winning. I wanted Edwards or Kucinich, they're out. Now I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic party, which ever one it is. I would take a chance on Danny Quale over McCain if he was the Demo nominee.

Both Hillary and Obama have super delegates, that's the way the party wanted it, they got it and have to live with that stupid idea. ___ So do we, ___ if we don't want another Republican president.

I wonder, if we had a Democratic president, and the congress was split 45% Republican, 30% Democratic, and 25% Green, who the Democrats would try to form alliances with?

Hey COMARK if you return, could you clarify somethng? Here you state you don't believe Bush would ever declare martial law and cancel the election. However on the thread, "Bush orders clamp downs on flights to the US", you just wrote that you believe Bush is advancing a Fasciest state by his actions. Those opposing opinions do not seem to be cosistant rationalization to me.

They will cry foul and do what exactly? Already half the people don't vote. So it will be 60% or 70%. This would make American democracy seem a sham? At 50%, it already looks like one. Third party? Aside from the fact that it isn't allowed in practice, the people don't want to think. A third party makes everything too complicated. They will cry foul, call for reform and maybe get something.

peaceistruth February 11th, 2008 10:34 pm

i respectively concur. which is why 1968, in my mind, is the closest analouge to this election. both king and r kennedy went down (riots ensued). its a legitimate wager and im positive you could find a bookie in vegas or london who would take the bet. carter, gore and edwards need to step in now - after the victories in VA, MD and DC.
your point about lofty ideals is legit. obama needs to be more specific as the campaign teeters on the general. without relying on ambiguities he would not have made it thus far following the path of edwards and kucinich. if he doesn't follow through, as many have noted, it's time to meet them in the streets (as we've allways done anyway, there's nothing to lose).
about the dnc. it isn't bush2 here, it's the left-center party of the usa and if 1/2 the voters in this country give a shit they need to schedule their summer holiday around aug 25-28 to do something meaningful in action. or just stay here at CD and complain.........

donate to kucinich and sheehan
see you in the streets of denver..........peace.......

There are more than DNC at work here . . . .
Try this on for size:
US political establishment lines up behind Barack Obama
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f04.shtml

Michelle Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1J54St7ZYY

For those looking for something beyond the Democrats:

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ReconstructionManifesto

What We Want; What We Believe; What We Need. Now! Draft Manifesto for a Reconstruction Party
Submitted by admin on Thu, 02/07/2008 - 00:54.

Note: This Draft Manifesto was produced by a group of Reconstruction Party activists who met in New Orleans on Saturday, Jan. 26 in support of the International Days of Action against Neo-Liberalism. This draft is being submitted for wide discussion and amendments to all activists interested in joining the effort to build a Reconstruction Party. Sister Cynthia McKinney participated in this meeting and contributed to this Draft Manifesto.

What We Want; What We Believe; What We Need. Now! Draft Manifesto for a Reconstruction Party

" . . . whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." -- Declaration of Independence

There is always someone that has to say something nasty to people that don't agree with this democratic heist. But then again, this would have to be a democracy for there to be a democratic heist.
I am one of those that will not contact the 800 super delegates, but I will re-register (no longer will I lend my name to the Democratic party). And aside from having more than a two party system, something more must be done to put an end to this Fascist style of government and the media that promotes it.

jbowen, I think you are the one who is naive and you should grow up. A lot of people on this blog are venting their worries about a government that has gone haywire. Here on CommonDreams you can read messages from like minded readers which is helpful. Many of the truths about our present government is ignored by the many but not here on commondreams. You should get another blog to vent your blockheaded opinions.

Scroller, thanks for the great and optimistic analysis, and for the Nation link. I can use that to convince some of my would-be Hilary voters to think again- along with the video on YouTube of Michelle Obama's Feb 3 speech at UCLA. OMIGOD!!! Who would you rather have as first spouse-- her or Bill "cozy with the status quo" Clinton? Huh?

So these super delagates are really the ones who will be choosing their candidate. And the campaigns are just another money making ruse to fill the coffers of big media, advertisers, and who all knows. it's all a big joke and trick played on the public. What will they do this time if obama wins a landslide but they want Hillary? I hope he does, or even ron paul so that the public will see these connivers for what they are. And how does Hillary give herself a "loan" of $5 million. How does she pay herself back. One has to have a politians mind to unravel our intangled voting proceedures and while the public is caught up in another trick, Bush and Cheney are continuing their gutting of not only our Constitution, but are busy finding ways to spy on the world, destroy American forests, and planting more spying technigues that will bind Americans and erase privacy.

I'm thinking I'll vote "None of the Above."

I understand from the papers that Michael Bloomberg will not enter the race against Obama. But if Hillary wins, then he'll enter as an Independent. Maybe I'll save my vote for him.

There are definitely a lot of whiners on this site. If you don't know the rules then you can't play by them. Get a clue. If you want to know what's on the minds of the super delegates then ask them. They are known and they are accessible. Grow up.

the party bosses should realize that all options are on the table.

Ah.. superdelegates, it sounds so familiar--like the electoral college, property qualifications for voting, only men can vote, the 3/5th compromise robbing Black representation and on and on.

Consider- when the "revolutionary" worthies figured out the Constitution they steered between two opposites they didn't like: monarchy and democracy. And guess what? They settled on oligarchy. Rule by the rich! As Jefferson saw it, the yeomanry--propertied farmers. We still have it. No,not the farmer part, the rich part. They are the superdelegates who get their money from the lobbyists who get their money from the defense contractors and the rest of the corporatocracy.

And it's our empire that greases all wheels. The military goes out and gets another lucrative country--say, Iraq, the defense contractors make a fortune building planes and ships and so on, the plane and ship contractors get rich and pay off the politicians and the cycle begins again.

What a country!!

Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers.

"Does anybody think that if their positions were reversed Obama wouldn't be playing the super-delegate card for all it's worth?"

Hard to say, given that he didn't protest the possibility that FL and MI might get back into the primary system later on, despite Hillary's having done more campaigning there.

And does it matter what Obama would, or wouldn't, say? Fair is fair, after all, and to me it's the idea that the superdelegates may subvert the democratic process rather than who they subvert it *for* that's troubling.

Yet another reason not to be called a Democrat.

Not that I would want to be called a Republican either.

;)

If Obama wins and is disenfranchised by the Billary machine, I will vote Republican.

If Obama is the choice by the majority, but the super delegates give the nomination to Hillary, kiss the Democratic party goodbye. There will be no change. Just continued war spending and no significant domestic programs, health, education, housing, etc.

Thanks David_78 for that link, I did sign it and also my husband will do it. Hope it helps.

SuperDelegates: a super way for the Democrats to disenfranchise the electorate and guarantee their defeat in '08

The "democratic" party. What a joke.

There isn't a dime's worth of significant difference between Clinton and Obama. I've already decided to vote Green in November after registering a protest vote for either Kucinich or Edwards in MD tomorrow. Yes, it would not be a good thing to have a McCain Presidency for things like the Supreme Court. However, there is not a significant difference between the three of them on the big picture stuff - Iraq/defense spending, Israel, oil, big business control, real environmental action, true pro-labor reform, etc.

The only way we are ever going to get control of the Democratic Party away from the corporatists is for them to lose big time. Power is the coin of the realm. We need to bankrupt them by taking away the source of their power - winning elections.

To those who say the Greens are stealing votes from the Democrats, I say to you, I OWN MY VOTE, not the Democratic or Republican Party. We all own our individual votes. If everybody started voting that way, this would be a better country.

Why on earth would you assume there won't be a third party challenge if Obama wins the nomination?

One reason for such a challenge is the complete disdain the Dems have already shown towards progressive issues while they hold the majority in Congress. They continue to fund the war and make sure it continues. They continue to make sure Bush gets every police state power he wants. They continue to vote to protect corporate profits at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This record of Actions alone justifies a challenge to the Dem party on a massive level.

Then there's Obama. There's absolutely no reason to think he's any different from the rest of the leadership of the Dem party. He's back by much the same corporate and Wall St money. He draws his closest advisors from the same people who've been setting Dem policy for 20 years now. He fills his speeches with words that test well with pollsters, like 'hope' and 'change'. But he says nothing to back this up. He never says exactly what 'change' we should 'hope' for, beyond a bunch of bs bromides that mean nothing.

We know as people that electing the Dems to control Congress made no difference in 2006. Just on the face of that, there's no reason to think that electing a Dem to the White House would make any difference in 2008. This is reinforced when even the 'outsider' candidate (Obama) won't say anything about exactly what 'change' we could expect.

We should mount a strong Green party campaign in 2008 to start building an alternative. Its the only way to achieve any measure of political power in the system. If we don't, the Dems will just continue to take our votes for granted and do nothing to help us just like they've been doing for the last 20 years. If we want change, we have to change that cycle.

So, I think Mr. Nader is already leaning towards running for the Green nomination. And Cynthia McKinney is already openly running for that nomination. I'd gladly work for and support either over Obama or Hillary.

Anybody care to tote up the combined white corporate wealth behind the so called super delegates that will back Mrs Clinton? Thats the vested interests that make the Democrat party undemocratic.

The real purpose of this rule is to keep someone like Kucinich from ever winning the nomination. With two establishment candidates like Obama and Hillary, these delegates split. Maybe not exactly 50-50, but they still split.

The real purpose of this rule would be if someone like Kucinich had caught fire during the primaries and was leading in the popular vote. then these un-democratic delegates would go almost entirely towards the establishment candidate. The result is that someone like Kucinich can only win the Dem nomination if they get 60% of the vote\delegates, while someone like Hillary can block such a nomination with only 40%.

The reason to leave the Democratic party is that this is just another manifestation of the fact that this party does not want to listen to its base. On one hand, the Dem leaders will try to con you into believing that the course to change is to work from within this un-democratic party. But then they put rules into place that doom such efforts to certain failure.

The obvious answer is that if you want change, trying to do it from within the Dem party is not the answer.

If they were open and honest and democratic, maybe that might be that you could change this party from within. But when the entire internal system is rigged to make sure that the grassroots of the party can not win and can be effective within the party, then the only answer is to leave the party.

The constant message from the Dem party is that they want you to vote for their pro-war, pro-corporate candidates. Otherwise they want you to sit down and shut up.

To those that pledge to never vote for another Democrat again if Superdelegates do not vote according to the popular vote:

This is a perfect example of decadent and imperialistic hubris. This is a system that has been in place for 26 years! Perhaps instead of being angry at the Democrats for having this system in place, you should be angry at yourself for your own ignorance. You have been implicitly supporting such as system for 26 years, without care. Only when your candidate is threatened do you care: pathetic.

Also, you would leave the Democratic party because of a rule that you have no excuse for not knowing, and no excuse for not moblizing against. And here is where the arrogance checks in: this rule is more important to you than Millions of human beings. Millions of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Congo, Haiti, and all over the rest of our planet Earth. What is wrong with you!!??

There are millions of reasons to never vote for the Democrats as it is already!!! But you care nothing for this. The poor and non-white of the world obviously rank with animals, as you do not care a bit for our suffering. This is informed by your indignation at the Superdelegate situation as your cause for lack of support for Democrats, because the implication is that you will support them otherwise.

Shame on you. I hope at night your dreams are filled the shreeks of mothers as they weep over their dismembered children and are raped and dishonored in front of their homes, as you try and consule them with: At least its a Democrat and not a Republican.

When will you wake up?

Hillary is UNELECTABLE, and I wish that all the nostalgia crowd who supports her would wake up! As John Edwards said of nostalgia, you remember the good times, but gloss over the bad times.

IF Hillary gets the nomination, then Ralph Nader is going to run. Even if Nader doesn't run, Hillary as the Dem nominee is going to cause a lot of us (myself included) to vote Green. In recent polls, Hillary is only dead even with McCain, and if the Green candidate takes alot of would-be Dem votes, McCain will win handily.

I'm still holding out hope that Obama will get the Dem nomination. If he gets the nomination, just like the polls show, he can beat McCain, because if he gets the nomination, I'm assuming that Nader won't run, and there won't be a mass defection of Dem voters to the Green candidate.

If Hillary gets the nomination, we can all thank her for more war, and another Scalito or two on the Supreme Court.

The one thing that you absolutely won't see is this election being cancelled. I keep seeing this same nonsense kicking around.

Cancelling the election would risk waking the American people up to the fact that they've lost their democracy. Why cancel an election when the results are so well under control? Corporate Amerika has already swung to supporting a Dem this time around. They could care less if Republicans stay in power because they've got the Dem party and both Obama and Hillary so under control that they are perfectly happy it either wins.

The only way you'd see the election cancelled would be if there was such an upwelling of opposition that someone like Kucinich was going to win the Dem nomination and the White House. Or if the Green Party was threatening to win the White House and Congress.

Otherwise, they wouldn't dare risk waking up most Americans to the fact that they've already lost their democracy.

You didn't mention the imfair caucus type of voting in your letter ~Aturepatriot~.

If the super delegates decide the outcome of this election, over the popular vote, I swear I will never vote for another Democrat - period. And I will not vote for Hillary. I don't and won't vote Repuklican either. Our elections are democratic and fair, and reflect the will of the voting public??? NOT!

I've sent the following letter to our state senators:

Dear Senator ___________,

I am writing with respect to your recent decision to endorse Senator Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee for U.S. president. While I have always had the utmost respect for your office, I am saddened that your pre-announced decision to support Senator Clinton goes against the clear, resounding voice of voters in Washington.

On February 9, 2008, Washington voters made clear that they wanted change in this country. Their voice was heard loudly when over 67% of Washington caucus voters decided to support Senator Barack Obama. As our elected official, we look to you for leadership and integrity as you represent the will of the people.

**The will of the people in this state is that you support Barack Obama.**

Over the course of this election, your stance as a leader will become critically clear. As you exercise your function as a super delegate, please consider the clear, resounding voice of over 67% of Washington democratic voters. Democracy cannot survive when our elected officials do not represent the true will of the people. I trust that you will make the right decision.

Respectfully yours,

jjohnjj (1:38) tries to justify the keep-voting-Dem-until-death position by trotting out the tired old "I do not want John McCain to appoint the next three Supreme Court Justices" argument.

It was once reasonable to base one's vote on a seemingly significant consideration like this, but the argument is no longer that solid. Far more fundamental issues have come to the fore. In many ways, it's literally an open question as to whether the Constitution is still really the law of the land. Issues like torture, the theory of the "unitary executive," signing statements, the doctrine of preemptive war, the existence of endless war, the protections of the Bill of Rights, warrantless surveillance, the division of powers between the 3 govt branches, international treaties -- all these things are much more basic than the question of who sits on the Supreme Court. One needs a certain amount of constitutional foundation, before Supreme Court justices begin to matter.

In the Jose Padilla case, the Bush admin took the position that the president can arbitrarily throw anyone (even a US citizen) in jail, torture them, & keep them locked up indefinitely. The Democrats raised no serious challenge.

Basically, the rightwing has taken the position that "the Constitution" is whatever the president says it is. And the Democrats have not challenged that position. They haven't challenged a single one of the abuses I just referred to. They refuse to even talk about these things. (Did anyone hear those issues being discussed in the "debates"?)

Since the Democrats have demonstrated their unwillingness to defend the Constitution, voting for them on the theory that their Supreme Court choices will be better is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse. It's absurd to vote for a party that won't even defend the Constitution against blatant & repeated egregious violations, on the chance they'd produce better Supreme Court nominees.

All of this guessing aside, some of which sounds pretty accurate, we are going to have a depression before the next election. If not, I will eat all of my stored beans and rice and sell toilet paper, peanut butter and kleenex at the swap meet.

If the depression hits. Bush will inact the Presidential Directives, declare martial law and there won't be an election. We'll have a King George and that's where we started in 1776.

McCain won't win if Boris Karloff is the nominee. He's dead too, but he'd beat any Republican this time around.

Now it Huckster is the VP choice we may have a small problem. The born again idiots will slither out and vote.

@BeForKids: Remember who was the GOP front runner all last year, according to all these polls? Rudy Giuliani. The only poll that counts is the one on election day. Obama 08 = McGovern 72. Kumbaya.

I also fully agree with JJ JOHN JJ.

If Obama wins the popular vote delegates and the superdelegates overturn that and nominate Hillary I won't vote for her.

shirtsleeves, so who is the stronger candidate? Results of latest polls:

Obama, an Illinois senator, led McCain in the poll by 48 percent to 42 percent when people were asked which one they would prefer if the presidential race were held now. Clinton, a senator from New York, got 46 percent to McCain's 45 percent in their matchup.
The poll shows Obama leading Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, 46 percent to 41 percent.

Another point is that while many independents will vote for Obama, they won't vote for Clinton. Since the Republicans will be up to their usual election stealing tricks, we need the widest spread possible if we don't want a Republican in office in January.

Greg Palast thinks it's moot, there's no way to stop the Republican election theft. I hope he's wrong, but he may be right. Unfortunately he's been right far too often for comfort.

kathyodat

~BeForKids~ 1:09pm. __ You are absolutly correct. However Hillary may end up with more delegates after the Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania votes. __ She may not, right now Obama has the momentem and he may take those states also. If so, the super delgates had better vote for Obama.

Then there is one more very important issue. Will Dean and the the Democrat party leaders allow the Michigan and Florida votes to be counted at the convention? I believe they will and it won't be a court issue to decide that. The Supreme Court has previously ruled, that political parties may have their own rules and it is a moot issure for the courts. ___ Very interesting.

As of Feb 11 11AM PST:

(C)linton (O)bama
(S)uperdelegate (P)rimary (T)otal

CS CP CT OS OP OT source
247 889 1136 166 942 1108 Yahoo/WashingonPost
211 920 1131 137 997 1134 CBS News**
243 893 1136 156 952 1108 AP / Fox News
----- 895 ----- ----- 943 ----- MS-NBC
----- ----- 1128 ----- ----- 1116 ABC News
224 924 1148 135 986 1121 CNN News
204 939 1143 99 786 885 NY Times*
223 895 1118 129 968 1097 demconwatch

* NY Times excludes caucus state results, which hurts Obama's count more… doesn't list caucus count separately
NY Times claims caucus delegates, like superdelegates, are unpledged & could change their mind at convention
NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on January 25, 2008
** CBS News only organization to predict Obama leading in total delegates

All news organizations except NY Times show that Obama has a lead on elected delegates. This is despite trailing in the national polls, less so recently.