Whatever happens with the superdelegates, the Democratic party MUST hold its potential supporters together in the end. Perhaps this extremely painful and conflicted campaign must go on until the two candidates' camps believe they've done all they could for their candidacies, and then accept the outcome. As much as I HATE the idea of an even longer campaign season and believe strongly that it should be settled, like tomorrow, the party has a larger concern, and that's whether the campaign in the end has been decided fairly. That's the only way many of the Clinton camp would vote for Obama if he's the candidate and the only way many of the Obama camp would vote for Clinton if she's the candidate, fairness plus a period of time for everybody to settle down and begin to deal with the reality of the campaign for the GE.

Let me repeat, the win/loss must appear to be have been fairly decided to reasonable people. Those who don't think the nomination of the Democratic presidential candidate has been fair will go in many directions, Green, stay-home, write-in, McCain, whatever.

As for the effects of a scorched-earth campaigning style, one's response to that is more visceral rather than reasoned. Some will think it's quite all right, citing other campaigns where it's worked to help a candidate win. Some will despise it and never support a candidate who conducts such a campaign, calling it Rovian.

That's just the way things are this time around.

Just to clarify, I too would prefer that there were no superdelegates. If that were the case, the election would be decided, because Obama's elected delegate lead is just too large.

But given that they exist, I'd like them to play a constructive role. To me, that's stopping the blood-letting one way or another, either by making their preferences known now, or making clear that it would have a cost.

Re Florida & Michigan, I'd be fine with a do-over, although paying for it is a problem, as is Rush Limbaugh encouraging Republicans to cross over. I'd love to see caucuses which mobilize lots of energy, but with forms available that if you were working and couldn't get off, you could sign and give to your neighbor and they could take it to your local precinct.

But one way or another Clinton's destructive campaigning has got to stop

MaxheMust, don't don't hold your breath waiting for Hillary to do the right thing. Others will have to do it for her.

kathyodat

Barack Obama is keeping his cool, but poor old Hilary Clinton seems to be about an inch or two away from being hysterical all the time. She'll get well, after she quits fighting and begins supporting Obama. It's not about winning or losing, it's about doing the right thing.

This major battle between the forces of light, love and truth, and those of darkness, fear, and deception will soon be over - be sure that you're on the side you want to be on.

Wake up ye supporters of Hilary - and get behind the man who is giving hope to millions of people who have been without hope for decades, who wants to talk to our enemies, who wants to wage peace instead of war!!

TreeFitz, I'm sorry that your first experience voting was so disillusioning. I hope the same doesn't turn out to be the case for all the young, first-time voters who are all psyched about this election (but I'm not optimistic about that). My first time voting was for Jimmy Carter, who, of course, lost to Ronald Reagan. I cried like a baby.

Before I could vote, I wanted McGovern over Nixon, but I knew little about them; I was just going off what I heard in my Democratic household. I remember getting in a big political argument with my best friend's older brother, who was a real right-winger and Nixon lover. He was out in his backyard throwing darts at a dart board with a picture of McGovern for the bullseye.

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. Just blame it on all the weed you were smoking. :)

OldRedleg, I totally agree there's no place for superdelegates. Our whole electoral system is so undemocratic, between the electoral college and the delegates and superdelegates. People think we have "one person, one vote," but that's a lie.

Kernel, Hillary chose to lie about always being against NAFTA and about not knowing Blackwater had immunity from prosecution. She chose to run a poison the well campaign against Obama, trying to make him unelectable so the super delegates would choose the "more electable" (her words) candidate. She keeps running into walls in her campaign because she expects a certain outcome, and has no plan for when it doesn't work out. Does all this sound like what we want in a President? Aside from all that, I really don't want another corporate President. That's all we've had since 1980 and look where it's gotten us. I couldn't say she's the worst woman in America, but I don't think she's fit to be President. And yes, I'd love to see a woman for President. How about Cynthia McKinney?

kathyodat

DaFazio had it right--- the Dems should be directing their bitterness at beating the Repug, and not at each others favorite Dem candidate.

Then guess what, immediately we get a blizzard of the same old crap, mostly against Hillary, who is apparently the worst woman in the USA.

However, it is probable that most of these vile accusations were planted by Repugs, and many are dumb enough to fall for the trick. As long as the Repugs can keep the two "front runners" that they promoted tearing each other up, they will win again, so just keep it up, people.

Where is the savior Obama Christ on the atrocities Isreal is carrying out in the Gaza? Or the increasing illegal Isreali settlements in the Wst Bank? Where is Obama's noise abt what is happening in Tibet?

And why did Obama denounce Rev Wright's loud tongue; but not denounce that Wright believes gay rights is responsibile in large part for the terrible things that befall the US?

Why doesn't Obama speak to any of this? Or that hack Loeb for that matter? Democrats desperate to gain power at any cost. Anyone who says differently is lieing to you.

Loeb is a vile flack. His mission: to try and keep presenting the Democratic Party as the only option for the US Left. he does a great job. He's one of the best flacks the Democrats could have working for them. I do hope tyhis hack Obama get's elected to these losers and newbies will see Obama is a shill like the rest. A shill like Loeb is.

This absurd "nomination race" would be over now except for the so-called superdelegates. I would like to know by what right they have to decide who the nominee for President will be! Certainly none of them were selected by the Democratic voters at large to be delegates.

The entire stupid "superdelegate" concept was just a scheme concocted by the reigning political hacks in the Democratic Party (after Jimmy Carter, a Party outsider, was nominated) to ensure they would have the final say in whomever the next and all future nominees would be. They did not want "their nominee" to ever again be selected by the politically undereducated masses of the people they were supposed to be representing.

Everyone should write to Chairman Howard Dean of the DNC and let him know that the superdelegates need to vote in accordance with the popular votes and that the entire superdelegate scheme needs to be scrapped after this year's convention.

I need to confess. I grew on Chicago's South Side. My family totally into the Daley Democratic machine. I was a Democrat, born and bred. And a liberal. I am more liberal now, at age 54, but I always was a liberal, born and bred, deeply liberal.

The Nixon/McGovern presidential squareoff was the first year I was able to vote. The law had just changed, lowering the voting age to 18 from what it has formerly been, 21. Young adults were old enough to be drafted and slaughtered in Viet Name so they were given the right to vote.

I retain the copyright to what I have written here. If you quote me, legally you must give me attribution. I'm not saying anyone will quote me. I am an anonymous idiot. But, just in case, I retain my copyright.

I couldn't wait to vote. I have never failed to vote in any election that I was eligible to vote in. And, I reiterate, always a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

I was involved in anti-war protests. The 1972 presidential election came after Watergate began to trickle into the national consciousness. I went to an excellent undergrad university. I was informed. I knew Nixon was a scum bag. I was knee-jerk anti-Republican so I would never have voted for Nixon just cause he was a Republican. But, hey, he was worse than a Republican to my young, liberal view. He was scary dishonest. Hey, he wasn't in big trouble for Watergate yet but I knew he was venal in 1972. Lots of people did. I don't claim to have special insight.

Yup, lots of folks new Nixon was venal, scary, rotten but, um, he won. He beat McGovern.

I was very young in 1972. Very naive. And I was really into smoking marijuana. In the fall of 1972, I spent the fall semester studying in Mexico, getting 'academic credit' and smoking a boatload of amazing marijuana (there really is such a thing as Acapulco Gold!).

I was in Mexico with about twenty other students from my university back in the States but I was the only one who had requested an absentee ballot before I left for Mexico. All the kids studying with me were green with envy that I was able to vote. All the other students were liberals like me.

When my ballot arrived, it was kinda like I was voting for all the Americans in our little study abroad program. I was the only one able to cast a vote in that presidential election in our crowd. It seemed like a sacred trust.

And, this is the confession bit, I voted for Richard Nixon.

In August 1972, the Democratic nominating convention, with McGovern at the head of the charge, had refused to seat the duly-elected delegates from Chicago. Yes, I had voted in the Illinois primary. At the convention, party officials changed the rules of the delegate game. I don't recall the details of the kerfuffle but it was similar to this superdelegate crapola. It seemed to eighteen-year-old me that George McGovern cared more about controlling political power for the Democratic politicos than, um, my little vote. I didn't understand the party bullshit. I believe, actually, that when McGovern & Co. refused to seat the delegates from Chicago that I had voted for (me and a whole lot of people, citizens in a democracy who had exercised their right to vote and then McGovern took my vote away from me because of political manipulation, to maintain party power). I was furious as I watched that convention on television. In those days, they used to cover everything, the cameras rolled all day. You didn't have the packaged soundbite coverage you get nowadays. I was so proud that I got to vote. I sat there watching the convention, imagining that my little vote mattered. I felt so invested in voting, in the primary, in the presidential election later that fall.

When I realized that George McGovern lead the charge to steal my voting voice (and the voice of a whole lot of people) for some bullshit party scheming, I decided I'd vote to Nixon.

My decision was petty, narrow, naive and stupid. I was young, naive, much smaller-in-spirit than I am today, wise crone that I am now. I felt so violated by the party baloney. My young, idealistic, naive teenage self had believed my vote mattered and that Democrats were good and that Democrats believed in democracy.

I was aware, vaguely, that Nixon was a scumbag. Remember, all the scuzziness of Watergate was not out. My vote for Nixon was ridiculous. I still have a hard time believing I did it. . . but I did. And I voted for Nixon because the Democrats were dicking around with the people's voice quite a bit like this bullshit superdelegate system seems to consider party insiders (superdelgates my ass, none of them should have a vote, one person, one vote, everyone votes in their own primary, screw superdelegates). I felt raped by that Democratic party in 1972 and I voted for Nixon in angry reactivity.

Down in Guanajuato, where I was studying with a small cadre of young, smart Americans, remember, none of them could vote. . . the whole program was aghast to learn that I intended to cast my vote for Nixon. My roommates actually tried to steal my ballot, to prevent me from voting. All the other students argued with me. Everyone was sickened by what I had decided to do.

I was kinda sickened myself, by the whole thing, by the Democratic betrayal of my vote, of democracy and by Nixon's scumminess.

I had to have my ballot notarized. I took it to a Mexican lawyer who charged me a ridiculous fee to notarize my ballot. He charged me something like fifty bucks just to notarize it. He charged me that much because my American buddy that went with me to get my ballot notarized blurted out to him that I was voting for Nixon. The Mexican lawyer was appalled that I was voting for Nixon.

I was young. The more people fought with me, the more determined I was to exercise, goddammit, my right to vote against the Democrats for disenfranchising me.

I am a little ashamed that I voted for Tricky Dick but, I gotta tell ya, I am still angry at that Democratic party elitism that seeded my anger. And the Democratic assholes/oligarchy are still doing the same thing.

I don't kid myself that Republicans are better. The whole system is corrupt. My vote is meaningless. Still, I vote. What the fuck else can I do?

I retain the copyright to everything I write. Hey, I'm not saying anyone will want to quote my Nixon confession but if you do, legally, you need to give me attribution.

Arrogance. Ruthlessness. Pride. Endless Ambition. Of such things Kings & Queens (Unitary Presidents) are made, read: smiling psychotic killers with major personality disorders. No rules for the Strong Ones. Scorched earth comes with the territory. Next stage: They kill each other. Last candidate standing. That would make a strong betting line in Vegas. Very strong. Big ratings too.

While the murder investigation splashes across ALL the MSM throughout the election, no resolution is provided before the election and afterwards no one cares. Yesterday's news like stolen elections, don't matter. Move On right? Just get over it, right? Who's gonna make it all better and go away this time? Maybe nobody?

Ah, AmeriKa. You breathe death upon the planet and my people call it sweet nectar.

Peece.

i love it! Dump democracy and let the superdelegates choose the nominee. The dem primary has been shaped to give the final word to the delegates. the democratic partu seems to have come to the conclusion that the people can't be trusted to choose correctly. They are right. the people are not qualified for democracy, they don,t deserve it. By all means, let the apparatchicks chose the nominee. Democracy is not viable in the US. Let us have no more primaries, let the party bosses choose the nominees, it is more realistic.

Have you seen Richardson's endorsement of Obama? You can see it here (it's excellent):

http://jazz-from-hell.blogspot.com/2008/03/richardson-says-viva-obama.html

PaulLoeb, I agree with you. A line is being crossed.

I can just see McCain showing videos of Hillary supporters booing Obama, and Hillary telling the crowd that McCain is a better commander-in-chief than Obama. But it isn't just that, it's the mean spirited backbiting. It's ugly.

kathyodat

The most challenging question asked here is the one about candidates needing to be battle tested. I agree with that, and agree that it doesn't make sense to try and get everyone to line up behind a selected (often insider) candidate before the voting has begun.

But it seems to me that something different happens when Clinton gives the Republican talking points legitimacy. And when she whips up Democrats to boo Obama in a kind of Orwellian festival of hating. As I said, you just can't turn then and get these people back.

So I'm fine with continued primaries, but with the real threat that if Clinton crosses the line she'll lose the support of the superdelegates who are her only shot.

The Dems are blatantly flat-a-- afraid of true democracy and the Constitution. They'd lose their Clinton-induced gravy train from corporate interests. Why else do you think the likes of Gravel, Richardson and Kucinich (among others) were marginalized - not by the press alone but a combination of press and DNC hacks.

COMarc, you're funny. Nothing like a little perspective here.

kathyodat

Hillary's one track mind does not bode well for her being ready on day one. She makes assumptions about how things will go and doesn't have back up plans. G W Bush had no back up plan either, but in his case, he didn't care. What's her excuse?

kathyodat

I'm always amazed at how much the Democrats hate democracy. There's this constant theme from them nowadays that any primary contest automatically leads to a Republican victory. Usually this is a weapon aimed at progressives. The corporate Dems always have their candidates lined up, and are often incumbents. Its usually the progressives that are trying to challenge this. (Or at least they used to, this year's been very quiet so far).

Thus, typically when I hear the professional politician Dems whining about how awful it is to actually have to have a primary campaign to get the nomination, that's usually the context. Its usually the progressive challenger who's being told to quit the race because the only thing that matters is that the candidate with the (D) after their name win in the fall.

So, maybe I'm already a bit turned off by this whole discussion from having seen it been used to bludgeon candidates I like out of the race. But I still feel its just plain and completely wrong.

First off, the classic rule of advertising is ... there's no such thing as bad publicity. Obama and Hillary are always in the news. McCain has to work to get there. That's good if you like the Dems.

Second, everyone knows the Repbulicans will play dirty in the fall. They are an even nastier and more disgusting bunch than the Dems, so you know its coming. There's nothing wrong with a primary process that makes sure the Dem nominee is battle-tested and ready to stand up to it.

Third, its better if the dirt comes out now. Obama would much rather be discussing the Rev. Wright (whom I never heard of but I'm starting to like) now in March rather than next October.

Fourth, this whole debate gives way too much credit to the American people. It assumes they are paying attention, and usually they aren't. And it assumes that they'll remember and be concerned about all of this in November. I find both to be very dubious assumptions. Most Americans might have paid close attention in a few weeks around Super Tuesday when they voted. The ones in PA might be paying attention now, but most of the rest aren't. And they are much more likely to remember who won American Idol than any of this stuff.

Also, there's the assumption that the Republicans couldn't research this stuff if the Dems weren't doing it for them. Of course they can. Both the Dems and the Republicans are pros at this sort of slimy, dirty politics. The difference is that its getting out in the air now. If it wasn't, the Rethug opposition research would still be finding the same things, but they'd save them for October.

All in all, let them go at it. Its called Democracy. I know the types that run the Dem party hate it. They hate the idea that the people might choose a nominee. That's the whole reason the Super-Delegates exist in the first place ... they are an anti-democratic force that's there because the party leaders are afraid to let the voters choose their nominee. And of course, the super-delegates believe that they are somehow entitled to select the nominee. If it was up to them, they'd be the only delegates at the convention. So of course they are whining about this stuff.

Its already been said--Billary wants to win--she doesnt care about anything else. If she cant win, she wants McCain.

She feels she deserves it-she didnt even expect Obama to be a contender so they had no plan-so if she cant be the nominee, no other democrat deserves to win.

Only a fool would vote for her now--or a Republican.

When did Hillary ever have experience as commander in chief ? What is she talking about? Indeed if she had had experience as commander in chief it would be in direct violation of our Constitution! And inspite of the express will of the American people at the time who had voted Bill Clinton to the office of President and commander in cheief. In the event he had been incapable of fulfilling his presidential duties, then it was the Vice President who should have assumed that role. Or was Hillary sometimes filling in in the War Room?

That was a very good suggestion from Peter DeFazio. I didn't realize Hillary was encouraging Democratic voters to boo Obama, but really nothing she does can surprise me anymore. If the super delegates were created to keep the Democratic party from self destructing, then they had better take a stand. I have been saying that for weeks, and the fairest stand is to threaten to pull support from any candidate who uses negative attacks as a campaign strategy.

To my mind, her scorched earth campaign style does not bode well for her governing style as President. That's just my opinion. I do know that Obama has approached her more than once to suggest they run positive campaigns. We know how much good that did.

kathyodat

Two problems. 1) Hillary and her campaign staffers might promise this, but they will never stick to that promise. They don't have any other weapon but slim to win this election. Asking a lier to stop lying is only going to invite another lie -- the lie that they will stop. 2) The corporate media won't play by these rules either. Look at the Rev. Wright dust-up and how they tarred Obama with such a weak and silly CRIME AGAINST THE COUNTRY. It is apparent that corporations want Clinton or McCain as president. Obama is too progressive. And while Obama is inclusive and wants to consider all sides of an argument: and Obama is not the most progressive candidate I've seen, he is miles ahead of Clinton and McCain. You have to wonder why Obama's Grandma mention was so examined by the media the other day (after his Towards a More Perfect Union speech) while the obvious mention that it is not black or white, or this religion or that that his the problem -- it is corporations stealing our economic power for their own bottom lines. I have yet to hear that on any TV show. Yet it was the thrust of his speech. In other words -- we are being divided with labels of race or gender by the corporate powers that want to maintain control of our country and its laws so that they can put those laws to the benefit of their own wealth...at the expense of our jobs, our health and our well being.

Why would they stop lying?

Yes, it must be Hillary's fault that a majority of voters haven't bowed down to Obama. So let's disenfranchise all the future primary voters and just lay down in abject devotion to St. Obama.

Loeb's advice is good but Clinton doesn't care about the Democratic Party winning, only herself. If Obama gets the nomination but goes down this year, she can run again in 2012. The smears will continue. By the way, what's wrong with driving a Prius when gas prices are over $3 a gallon?

Considering Clinton's fairly obvious pique at being denied a coronation disguised as a primary, as she and her flummoxed advisers did not expect Obama to become a serious candidate. Their desperation is not surprising. Clinton knows full well that this election is her sole chance to win the White House, and it would appear she lives by the credo, "Je ne regrette rein!"

Hillary's 'future' was assured when she 'got the nod' at Bilderberg/Toronto (just as her wayward-hubby's was in Baden-Baden when he was just a hick/wayward-Governor).
Here's what Clinton/Gore-2008 will get you:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7693
[Enjoy!]

And scorched earth is right. I think Hillary is trying to make Obama unelectable so the super delegates will choose her. Despicable.

kathyodat

Superdelegates and the Electoral College give the oligarchy final cut.