Clinton Abandons Democracy

[bKangy]

Politico story: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html)



This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”


Jesus christ, how is anyone still supporting her?

[OldeWolf]

I wonder....if she becomes president, will religious conspiracy theorists find "reasons" for her being another sign of the devil via numbers like 666 or something similar? (Just like they did for President Bush). Seems like the above article is going down that street indirectly. ;)

[51|RandoM]

Why should I be upset if she decides to make her own rules for handling the broken two-party system we currently enjoy? All these "rules" that will go out the window? They're party rules, not rules of law.

[bKangy]

Why should I be upset if she decides to make her own rules for handling the broken two-party system we currently enjoy? All these "rules" that will go out the window? They're party rules, not rules of law.

Wait, so you're saying it's appropriate for her to say "I realise you're a pledged delegate elected by the people of the state you represent to vote for my opponent, but here's a deal for you not to do so" just because you dislike the two party system?

[Johan]

All these "rules" that will go out the window? They're party rules, not rules of law.

That's the TRUTH!

The rule that says 20% of the Dems. delegate total is comprised of DNC insiders and party leaders? A Democratic Party rule.

The rule that says the winner of a state in the Republican Party primaries wins ALL the delegates, even if he/she only wins by a single vote? A Republican Party rule.

[51|RandoM]

Wait, so you're saying it's appropriate for her to say "I realise you're a pledged delegate elected by the people of the state you represent to vote for my opponent, but here's a deal for you not to do so" just because you dislike the two party system?

Yes, I think it is fine, especially considering that is what really happens anyways. If there wasn't leeway there wouldn't need to be delegates in the first place, they'd just take the primary results and determine who got the party's nomination.

If there is an issue here, it is an issue internal to the Democratic Party. Considering how so many people seem to think she is just another cog in the machine I find it interesting how willing she is to disobey their "rules".

[Roc Ingersol]

While it's certainly shady and underhanded, the Democratic Party brought this on themselves when they installed an aristocracy in their nomination process.

Clinton isn't abandoning anything the party hadn't already abandoned when they drafted the rules. She's just playing their game.

It's all just another reason to remember it's fruitless to try to distinguish between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' along party lines. They're all career politicians and therefore suspect.

[bKangy]

Yes, I think it is fine, especially considering that is what really happens anyways. If there wasn't leeway there wouldn't need to be delegates in the first place, they'd just take the primary results and determine who got the party's nomination.

Not really, the pledged delegate system is clearly intended to give a direct advantage to the popular vote winner? To say it's acceptable to overcome that when one has a sizeable gap between the other in terms of those pledged delegates by means of subversion makes a mockery of the entire primary system. It dumbs the system down to a game of bartering and selling your soul.

As things stand Obama will be clearly above Clinton in terms of the popular vote. The only reason it'd go to the convention in the first place would be her stubborness.

What's to stop a candidate receiving all the superdelegates, and then buying off the pledged delegates with job offers or other incentives, if you judge this to be acceptable?

Edit: I realise it's a very crappy system, but sticking up for someone using it in the most aggressive manner to obtain power is surely hard to get behind?

[51|RandoM]

It dumbs the system down to a game of bartering and selling your soul.

We're already there, we've already been there for a long time. Welcome to politics. The popular vote doesn't have jack shit to do with who eventually becomes President.

[Darkholmme]

While this isn't the most openly democratic of rules, there are reasons (though it's really up to you to decide if they are good ones) for having superdelegates.

In theory, democracy is all about checks and balances, about being able to do the least amount of damage with government. That includes a tyranny of the people. This is why we do not have direct elections; it all goes back to the concerns over the North-South divide.

In order to make their primaries more "democratic," the Democratic party appears to be crafted as the obverse to the Republican party. Where most Republican races are closed, most Democratic ones allow for independents to vote. So what superdelegates supposedly do is make sure that the will of the Democratic party is enforced rather than the will of some outsiders who come in during a heated battle for votes and tip the favor one way or the other for various reasons (including negative votes intended to sabotage the overall Democratic party and their chances in the upcoming election).

In terms of a political theory, the superdelegates are elected in part to be the insiders in Washington, to use their political acumen in order to determine the best person to vote for whereas the people, if exposed to a demagogic influence, could be tricked into voting for someone who acts against their best interest. As I'm sure most of us are all aware, the same thought that goes into the superdelegate process is the same concept behind "Watchmen."

The problems are also apparent from that analogy. There is no guarantee that superdelegates will actually work towards our better interests. And while the check for that eventuality is the much larger number of binding votes in the primaries (though it is important to remember that, if I recall correctly, a good number of those votes are also not binding until the convention), that also has its flaws.

[rein]

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,”

A. It's not happening now.

B. Obama will be just as guilty as Clinton if it does happen.

c. :rolleyes:


Edit- I feel like somthing is missing...



http://www.stateofinsomnia.com/images/hillary.jpg



...there it is. :D

[Johan]

So what superdelegates supposedly do is make sure that the will of the Democratic party is enforced rather than the will of some outsiders who come in during a heated battle for votes and tip the favor one way or the other for various reasons (including negative votes intended to sabotage the overall Democratic party and their chances in the upcoming election).

I'd like to see proof that "most" Democratic primaries are open primaries. I don't think that is accurate. Proof?

Also, the superdelegate rules were instituted after the 1980 primary, when Kennedy was obviously losing but the delegate count was close enough that Carter could not claim an outright win...which led to Kennedy fighting all the way to the actual Democratic convention, which was very divisive and injurious to the Dems. chances of winning (they lost to Reagan).

This talk of "will of the party" and "tyranny of the people" is baloney. It was instituted to kill off insurgent candidates when the will of the people is muddied/split, which can happen in a democratic society. It enforces the will of party leaders and insiders when the votes of the people are, as they are now, very, very closely split.

Edit: I did some brief checking during my break time here, and found Texas has an open Democratic primary. Any others? Just one? More?

[Skull3r]

We're already there, we've already been there for a long time. Welcome to politics. The popular vote doesn't have jack shit to do with who eventually becomes President.

Bitter about 2000? Oh c'mon, we have a boy who got rejected from a state university and got into an Ivy league because of family connections as a president. Instead, we could have had someone who had just won a nobel prize. Thank God we narrowly missed that one.

/sarcasm

[bKangy]

A. It's not happening now.

B. Obama will be just as guilty as Clinton if it does happen.



Obama campaign has stated they won't be doing so?

[Darkholmme]

This talk of "will of the party" and "tyranny of the people" is baloney. It was instituted to kill off insurgent candidates when the will of the people is muddied/split, which can happen in a democratic society. It enforces the will of party leaders and insiders when the votes of the people are, as they are now, very, very closely split.

I will look up the info in a little bit, but doesn't a very close split highlight the disfranchisement of the people more? Is direct democracy really the fairest of systems when it comes down to, say, a 49% to 51% split in votes in the primaries? At that point, the Democratic system becomes as arbitrary as many claim the Republican system is with its largely winner-take-all system.

Democracy is a political system of resistances; it attempts to keep direct influence as diluted as possible. This is a big reason for the impression that democracy is overbureaucratic and lethargic to the point of paralysis, but it at least attempts to ensure that the least harm is done. And it is not as if the superdelegates are not democratically elected themselves, hence an indirect line between the people and these mysterious holders of power.

Of course, everything gets tested when one approaches its limits, and nothing really holds up well at the limit. But I hardly think that democracy itself performs at its limit very well; a pure democracy would take that 49% to 51% split (kinda like how Congress is run right now, and most parliamentary based democracies, though to an even more ruthless degree). I myself tend to think more like you, that is, cynically, with the impression that such maneuvering has too much the potential to enforce the will of an autonomous and possibly coerced party rather than better get at the will of the people when even that will is divided to the point of non-recognition. But that doesn't mean I can't at least try to see it from another perspective.

[Johan]

Is direct democracy really the fairest of systems when it comes down to, say, a 49% to 51% split in votes in the primaries?...And it is not as if the superdelegates are not democratically elected themselves, hence an indirect line between the people and these mysterious holders of power.

Two very good points.

[drakkarim]

i'm still disappointed that with the current level of technology, we support the current system the way it is. i know the reasons for which it existed in the past (the electoral college and junk), but now it has absolutely no use that i can see.

it should be as simple as one citizen, one vote. period. the citizen should elect their president, not have states determine things for us based on who gets the most of the state's votes.

there should be the initial election by the people, not the primary counting system, to narrow down the players, then the final election to choose from the remaining players, by the people, not electoral counts.

[broodax]

Bitter about 2000? Oh c'mon, we have a boy who got rejected from a state university and got into an Ivy league because of family connections as a president. Instead, we could have had someone who had just won a nobel prize. Thank God we narrowly missed that one.

/sarcasm

No offense, but the "Gore won the Nobel Prize" argument is not a slam dunk. If you think everyone who won a Nobel Prize is amazing and brilliant, you aren't exactly right. Almost since its inception, the prize has often been merely a "patting on the back" gesture of scientists. In 1994 Jasser Arafat won the Noble peace prize. Good job of keeping peace for a little while, maybe. Nobel PEACE Prize worthy? No way. Meanwhile, Mohandas Ghandi never won a peace prize because he died before the he could be awarded (also, he lost the peace prize in 1937 to the guy who came up with the idea for the League of Nations. Yeah, he was more important than Ghandi...). Also, Watson and Crick, the guys who discovered DNA never won a Nobel Prize.

[NationalKato]

A vote for Clinton is a vote for a punch in the face. Make the right choice this November.

[Disgustipated]

As far as I'm concerned, there are no rules for politicians.

They rape, they kill, they steal, they cheat, and they lie with nary a punishment in sight. The worst that happens to them is they get humiliated when they get caught.

So I'm not really surprised that Clinton has abandoned any "political courtesies" in her bid to become Supreme Cunt.

[GrinR]

i'm still disappointed that with the current level of technology, we support the current system the way it is. i know the reasons for which it existed in the past (the electoral college and junk), but now it has absolutely no use that i can see.

it should be as simple as one citizen, one vote. period. the citizen should elect their president, not have states determine things for us based on who gets the most of the state's votes.

there should be the initial election by the people, not the primary counting system, to narrow down the players, then the final election to choose from the remaining players, by the people, not electoral counts.

Hit the history books. Without having the context of why the modern system exists as it does, it won't make any sense to you. As an unintended consequence, your posts wont make sense to those who understand the system.

[Schnoogs]

I see nothing weong with this...if thats their party rules then thats their party rules.

What am I missing?

[Sandman]

I'm voting for Anyone but Obama 08'.

[doorlock]

No offense, but the "Gore won the Nobel Prize" argument is not a slam dunk. If you think everyone who won a Nobel Prize is amazing and brilliant, you aren't exactly right. Almost since its inception, the prize has often been merely a "patting on the back" gesture of scientists. In 2006 Howard Stapleton won the peace prize for inventing a device that emits a high pitch sound that deters young people. Neat invention? Maybe. Nobel PEACE Prize worthy? No way. Meanwhile, Mohandas Ghandi never won a peace prize because he died before the he could be awarded (also, he lost the peace prize in 1937 to the guy who came up with the idea for the League of Nations. Yeah, he was more important than Ghandi...). Also, Watson and Crick, the guys who discovered DNA never won a Nobel Prize.

In what dimension did Howard Stapelton win a Nobel Peace prize? As far as I know, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won the prize in 2006.

[broodax]

In what dimension did Howard Stapelton win a Nobel Peace prize? As far as I know, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won the prize in 2006.

Wow, lol. I guess in the world of copy and paste hell. Note to self, don't do an article about Stapleton and the Nobel Peace Prize at the same time, lol. I was doing an article about the Nobel Prize and and article the IgNoble Prize (sort of a Razzies for science) and must've got some crossover. I assure you, Stapleton never won a Noble Prize, lol. That passage should read "In 1994 Jasser Arafat won the Noble peace prize. Good job of keeping peace for a little while, maybe. Nobel PEACE Prize worthy? No way." Thanks, doorlock, you prevented me from looking like a total idiot. I do swear I know what I'm talking about, lol.

[doorlock]

Wow, lol. I guess in the world of copy and paste hell. Note to self, don't do an article about Stapleton and the Nobel Peace Prize at the same time. That passage should read "In 1994 Jasser Arafat won the Noble peace prize. Good job of keeping peace for a little while, maybe. Nobel PEACE Prize worthy? No way." Thanks, doorlock, you prevented me from looking like a total idiot. I do swear I know what I'm talking about, lol.

No problem. ;)

[Khash]

I'm all in favor for letting the election process be as cruel and corrupt as possible. The weak should be led by the strong.

[Khash]

I'm voting for Anyone but Obama 08'.
My left-coast liberal guilt tells me that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist.

[IrishWhiskey]

I see nothing weong with this...if thats their party rules then thats their party rules.
Actually its both parties rules. Republicans have "unpledged" unelected delegates, as opposed to "superdelegates" (the super makes it sound cooler) but it works basically the same way. Democrats have a larger percentage of those unelected delegates though, which I'm not happy about.

What am I missing?If Obama comes in with more pledged delegates, and Hillary gets some of them to agree to go against their voters wishes, it will be a rather blatantly undemocratic way of winning the primary, one that win result in turmoil and anger and quite likely and harm to the party.

I know people think of her as a power-hungry witch, but I have trouble believing she'd do that when she knows it would cost her the election anyways.

I'm voting for Anyone but Obama 08'.Any particular reason?

[Sandman]

Any particular reason?

No particular reason, I just don't really care for Obama. I didn't like him from the start and he's done nothing to swing my opinion....and that was before I heard about his middle name.

[Oxonian]

I know people think of her as a power-hungry witch, but I have trouble believing she'd do that when she knows it would cost her the election anyways.
Would it really cost her the election? Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will have significant structural advantages over McCain: anti-war sentiment, general exhaustion with the GOP, healthcare, etc. I have difficulty believing that very many people are still going to be so incensed by any convention shenanigans that they would stay home or vote for McCain rather than Clinton. Perhaps if the general election was held in September it might have some effect, but you're assuming that people who otherwise would have voted for Clinton will hold a grudge for months after the convention simply because she persuaded some delegates to switch their votes.

I suppose that's remotely possible, but I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton decided to take that calculated risk. After all, if she refuses to try to persuade the delegates and loses the nomination, she's guaranteed not to win the general election. Might as well try.

[IrishWhiskey]

No particular reason, I just don't really care for Obama. I didn't like him from the start and he's done nothing to swing my opinion....and that was before I heard about his middle name....Ugh

I can certainly understand if he didn't appeal to you in principles or as a personality. Its the whole "he's a scary black fundamentalist Muslim sleeper agent getting sworn in on the Koran while refusing to say the Pledge" thing that people keep spreading around that annoys me so much.

Why on earth would his middle name make him any worse of a candidate?

[IrishWhiskey]

Would it really cost her the election? Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he or she will have significant structural advantages over McCain: anti-war sentiment, general exhaustion with the GOP, healthcare, etc. McCain often does better than Hillary in head-to-head matchups for a reason, he appeals more to moderates and independents. Hillary could still beat him with a strong campaign and Democratic turnout, but if he completely hoses Obama supporters like that I suspect she's have trouble getting that.

Regardless, a "stolen" primary would be bad for the party, and I believe that having that happen along with a Hillary candidacy could put the general out of reach.

If she wins in pledged delegates, thats fine. I'm not particularly anti-Hillary. But if she does this, it will confirm all my worst suspicions about her.

[Schnoogs]

Actually its both parties rules. Republicans have "unpledged" unelected delegates, as opposed to "superdelegates" (the super makes it sound cooler) but it works basically the same way. Democrats have a larger percentage of those unelected delegates though, which I'm not happy about.

If Obama comes in with more pledged delegates, and Hillary gets some of them to agree to go against their voters wishes, it will be a rather blatantly undemocratic way of winning the primary, one that win result in turmoil and anger and quite likely and harm to the party.

I know people think of her as a power-hungry witch, but I have trouble believing she'd do that when she knows it would cost her the election anyways.

Any particular reason?

Like I said before...if thats their rules then thats their rules. Complaining about it now is as silly as when your average Dem cried foul when the Electoral College was explained to them back in 2000. If you don't think it's fair then try and change it...all I'm seeing from the TS are attacks against the candidates who would be FOOLS not to play within the rules.

[IrishWhiskey]

Like I said before...if thats their rules then thats their rules. Complaining about it now is as silly as when your average Dem cried foul when the Electoral College was explained to them back in 2000. If you don't think it's fair then try and change it...all I'm seeing from the TS are attacks against the candidates who would be FOOLS not to play within the rules.Okay. Do you have any suggestions on how to enact change? I've written to political figures and signed petitions regarding both the Electoral College and Superdelegates. Can I allowed to complain about it now, or is there anything else I should be doing?

And I think doing absolutely whatever it takes regardless of the consequences to others in order to gain personal victory, is one of those primary reasons why a person shouldn't get into elected office.

[Lint of Death]

I don't get the problem. Isn't the point of the primaries for the political parties to figure out which candidate they should run if they want to secure the presidency for their party? Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think it's required by law for them to even ask the public who they want to run for the party.

[Heretic Machine]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I will not vote for the person who wins the Democratic primary, regardless of who it is, if I don't think the nomination was done on the up-and-up. If this comes down to wooing delegates, I'll wipe my hands of the whole party. Good luck winning me back.

I don't get the problem. Isn't the point of the primaries for the political parties to figure out which candidate they should run if they want to secure the presidency for their party? Correct my if I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think it's required by law for them to even ask the public who they want to run for the party.

No one is saying that people should be going to jail, this is a matter of who you should be voting for on election day. If that person basically scams their way to the top of one of the two key parties, is that really someone you want to put into office?

[Schnoogs]

Okay. Do you have any suggestions on how to enact change?

Sigh...I'm not the one complaining about the rules. :confused:

I have no problems with either the electoral college or how the Dems chose to handle their Delegates.

Your question would be better directed towards those who are flipping out when they learn how things work.

[Johan]

I don't get the problem. Isn't the point of the primaries for the political parties to figure out which candidate they should run if they want to secure the presidency for their party? Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think it's required by law for them to even ask the public who they want to run for the party.

The problem is that the Democratic Party's rules call for primaries/caucuses to select delegates based upon the people's votes, but this was changed in 1980 to give party insiders 20% of the "say" in choosing a candidate, and now there is the possibility that one or both of the candidates could/would choose to tamper with the system as it stands by attempting to draw away delegates that are supposed to vote for the candidate they were selected by the populace to vote for, but which they cannot be legally forced to vote for.

In other words, it makes the idea of people voting for the candidate look like a charade/farce/fraud, which is worse than just picking someone of your own and saying "take it or leave it." If you offer people a choice between two options, they choose one, and you say "fuck it...we're giving you the other" it doesn't exactly win you friends...

[IrishWhiskey]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I will not vote for the person who wins the Democratic primary, regardless of who it is, if I don't think the nomination was done on the up-and-up. If this comes down to wooing delegates, I'll wipe my hands of the whole party. Good luck winning me back.Every year there is wooing delegates. However almost always, the majority of those delegates go with whoever is leading into the convention.

If the nominee is someone who didn't get the popular vote, I'll understand your withdrawal of support, but just wooing itself I don't think is sufficient reason. I mean McCain recently wooed away previously pledged delegate from Romney and Thompson, so you'd just be stuck voting for Ron Paul.

[Schnoogs]

The problem is that the Democratic Party's rules call for primaries/caucuses to select delegates based upon the people's votes, but this was changed in 1980 to give party insiders 20% of the "say" in choosing a candidate, and now there is the possibility that one or both of the candidates could/would choose to tamper with the system as it stands by attempting to draw away delegates that are supposed to vote for the candidate they were selected by the populace to vote for, but which they cannot be legally forced to vote for.

In other words, it makes the idea of people voting for the candidate look like a charade/farce/fraud, which is worse than just picking someone of your own and saying "take it or leave it." If you offer people a choice between two options, they choose one, and you say "fuck it...we're giving you the other" it doesn't exactly win you friends...


Enacting change is the American way...right? :D

[Oxonian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think it's required by law for them to even ask the public who they want to run for the party.
You're wrong. Many states passed statutes during the Progressive Era mandating direct primaries. Primaries are often heavily regulated and conducted at the state's expense.

[Slack3r78]

Is anyone really surprised by this after the shenanigans she's already pulled with broken pledges re: FL/MI.

[Lint of Death]

You're wrong. Many states passed statutes during the Progressive Era mandating direct primaries. Primaries are often heavily regulated and conducted at the state's expense.

Good to know. I still don't see the problem, though, of course.

[Whimbrel]

I'm not really sure what point the OP thinks he is making, but getting votes from supporters and getting opposing voters to switch sides is the status quo. It is what Obama and Clinton will both do as the role of superdelegates becomes more significant, it is what they, their appointees, their supporters and their opponents will do regardless of who is elected, etc. Same thing for changing rules in order to benefit your interests. How naive is this guy?

[TheFlyingOrc]

This thread title is a wee bit more sensational than the actual news.

[Schnoogs]

The title makes it sound like shes adopted socialism or something...oh wait

[TheFlyingOrc]

The title makes it sound like shes adopted socialism or something...oh wait

Schnoogs, thank you for being the exact foil of Zanzibar. You're crazy the OTHER way.

[IrishWhiskey]

The title makes it sound like shes adopted socialism or something...oh waitYou can be a democratic socialist. Now a democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You can be a democratic socialist. Now a democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.
I'm not sure of that - fascism is such a poorly defined ideology that I think voting could very well be included in it - the only thing truly required to be fascist is military being heavily tied to government.

[Schnoogs]

You can be a democratic socialist. Now a democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.

The Socialist States of America

Chairman Hillary

[Schnoogs]

Schnoogs, thank you for being the exact foil of Zanzibar. You're crazy the OTHER way.

Don't confuse a lame sense of humor for any sort of political direction. :p

[CaptStu]

Clinton can suck it.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Clinton can suck it.

Clinton can walk.

Clinton can dance.

Let's list everything Clinton can do!

[CaptStu]

Clinton can walk.

Clinton can dance.

Let's list everything Clinton can do!

Can she dance? Do you have proof?

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm not sure of that - fascism is such a poorly defined ideology that I think voting could very well be included in it - the only thing truly required to be fascist is military being heavily tied to government.I tend to think of socialism as an system in which the people, or select groups of people (which could be undemocratic socialism), make social/economic where decisions are based on a collective good. Whereas Fascism in primarily a political system/ideology, which holds that people are subordinate to the interests of the state, as represented by specific leaders/power structures such as a king or military. Even if there is voting, the structure of the government is such that the people do not rule for themselves (which is possible in a some socialist systems) but serve the state.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Can she dance? Do you have proof?

She can dance if she wants to.

she can leave her friends behind

[TheFlyingOrc]

I tend to think of socialism as an economic system in which the people, or select groups of people (which could be undemocratic socialism), make social/economic where decisions are based on a collective good. Whereas Fascism in primarily a political system/ideology, which holds that people are subordinate to the interests of the state, as represented by specific leaders/power structures such as a king or military. Even if there is voting, the structure of the government is such that the people do not rule for themselves (which is possible in a some socialist systems) but serve the state.
Makes sense.

However, in the small amount of research I did into fascism (primarily Wikipedia, I'll admit it - but I did spend a few hours trying to understand exactly what it WAS), it's really not that well-defined as an ideology. It's primary use is accusing a conservative of being a Nazi without breaking Godwin's law. :)

[Schnoogs]

I tend to think of socialism as an system in which the people, or select groups of people (which could be undemocratic socialism), make social/economic where decisions are based on a collective good. .

That's definitely NOT the socialism I was talking about...I was thinking more along the lines of Communism. If Hillary was abandoning our democracy for that then yes that would have been thread worthy. ;)

[Mojopin]

I have a hard time believing Obama will get the nomination. The Clintons are part of the machine that is currently in place and Hillary will be the puppet we all expect her to be. She will be the next president (sad as that may be) and I bet the first thing she does in office is change the shape of all the missles.

[Devilturnip]

She can dance if she wants to.

she can leave her friends behind

If she don't dance then she's no friend of mine.

[Zanzibar]

*sigh*

Delegates to the convention are selected. They're usually appointed by the campaigns of the candidate who 'won' that delegate. They're usually selected by their loyalty to the candidate and/or to the party. However, they can change their mind if they so choose. This is a safeguard to allow for unforseen changes in the race.

Let's say Hillary somehow comes back and takes the delegate lead. Let's say we found out that Hillary had a threesome with Bill and Monica way back in the day (shudder). Would those Hillary delegates be allowed to change their loyalty based on the new info? Sure they would.

Another use: Let's say, God forbid, Obama gets shot. Somehow, the Obama campaign selects Al Sharpton to become Obama's official replacement. Should those Obama-pledged delegates be forced to support Sharpton, even though they know how divisive he is?

It's the exact same thing as the electoral college. If bad info comes out about a president-elect, there's a mechanism that allows those electors to vote the other way.

But, oh, sorry, I forgot we were talking about Hillary. So, yes, of course, she obviously wants to subvert the Constitution and make zombie slaves of us all, etc. etc.

[IrishWhiskey]

However, in the small amount of research I did into fascism (primarily Wikipedia, I'll admit it - but I did spend a few hours trying to understand exactly what it WAS), it's really not that well-defined as an ideology. It's primary use is accusing a conservative of being a Nazi without breaking Godwin's law. :)I actually know two people, one of whom is from a wealthy, politically connected family and is certain to be mayor soon, rising to higher office later, who are both proud fascists. As in they admire and emulate Franco and Mussolini, and think that people are too stupid to know what is good for them and should be forced to a better society. Although neither claims to admire Hitler, I'm sure that some of his authoritarian policies would draw little objection from them.

Helps put things into perspective really.

[Johan]

But, oh, sorry, I forgot we were talking about Hillary. So, yes, of course, she obviously wants to subvert the Constitution and make zombie slaves of us all, etc. etc.

Well, there you have it. The truth will set us free!

Until we're enslaved by Hillary. :D

[Zanzibar]

The OTHER reason that candidates can try to convince delegates or superdelegates to switch sides is to convince them that there's more to the race than simple numbers of delegates.

If Florida and Michigan hadn't screwed the pooch, this wouldn't be an issue. Hillary would have crushed Obama in every high-delegate state except his home state of Illinois. She won Florida by 17 points, and although Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, she carried 55% of the vote up there. It's EXACTLY her kind of state, with high blue-collar/union turnout.

Now, the delegates and the superdelegates are capable of reasoning out that she could easily have been in the lead at the convention if that were the case. Thus, in the interests of fairness, they could be persuaded to change their votes to put her over the top.

[Slack3r78]

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, she carried 55% of the vote up there.
I still don't understand how people manage to spin this in Hillary's favor. She was the only leading candidate whose name was even on the ballot and 45% of voters still voted against her.

[Generation ABXY]

If she don't dance then she's no friend of mine.

Crap, that song isn't coming out of my head anytime soon. Curse you, Orc and Devil!

[Zanzibar]

I still don't understand how people manage to spin this in Hillary's favor. She was the only leading candidate whose name was even on the ballot and 45% of voters still voted against her.

Well, more likely was that those Obama and Edwards supporters didn't want her to win unopposed, so they voted in the same numbers that her supporters did. There was ridiculously low turnout in that state. I agree, Michigan should have a re-vote. I still have no idea why their state governments moved their primaries up.

[IrishWhiskey]

I agree, Michigan should have a re-vote. I still have no idea why their state governments moved their primaries up.Because they thought that by moving their primaries up, they would have more influence in picking a candidate. Ironically, had they gone with the Democratic leadership's ruling, they would have had way more of an influence on picking the winner, even without having their delegates stripped.

A re-vote is unlikely. Even aside from logistics, the fact that she campaigned there and tried to get their delegates counted means Obama would be at a disadvantage, and unlikely to agree to it. Normally I would be for having them counted, but that the fact that she voted for removing their delegates, promised not to campaign, and then broke her word, does seem very dishonest to me.

[Zanzibar]

That's fair, Irish. A re-vote in Michigan would be damned difficult. I think we've gotta admit that she would have done well up there, though.

[Johan]

She won Florida by 17 points, and although Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, she carried 55% of the vote up there.

Proportional allocation of delegates. More here. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D)

And, like her husband, Clinton changes the rules as she goes. She's a lying, manipulative, dishonest chameleon. Her husband, when it suits him, is a race-baiting misogynist.

GO OBAMA!

[cp#]

Is rein a man or a woman?

Why does he or she support Hillary?

He or she must feel sorry for Hildog when she cries :(

[Wslove]

The OTHER reason that candidates can try to convince delegates or superdelegates to switch sides is to convince them that there's more to the race than simple numbers of delegates.

If Florida and Michigan hadn't screwed the pooch, this wouldn't be an issue. Hillary would have crushed Obama in every high-delegate state except his home state of Illinois. She won Florida by 17 points, and although Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, she carried 55% of the vote up there. It's EXACTLY her kind of state, with high blue-collar/union turnout.

Now, the delegates and the superdelegates are capable of reasoning out that she could easily have been in the lead at the convention if that were the case. Thus, in the interests of fairness, they could be persuaded to change their votes to put her over the top.

First off Obama honored his pledge to not campaign in those states, in fact removed his name from the ballot with Edwards and every other runner of note in Michigan and tried to do the same in Florida (they wouldn't allow it). Hillary's excuse for not doing the same? "Who cares? It's not like it matters anyway."So you saying that she would have carried those states is a blatent opinion and no way related to facts. Everwhere Obama has seriously campaigned he has closed the gap to less the ten points if not beat her outright. Course I'm speaking in what ifs, just like you are when you say Hillary would have crushed him regardless. Who knows? Maybe John Edwards could have carried the state. I think it's telling that even without his name on the ballot Obama was still within ten points of her.

Moving on to Florida. Being that Obama does better with independents and republicans I don't know how you can say that Hillary would have crushed him in Flordia. The turn out there was due to a very popular Democractic measure dealing with property taxes being on the ballot. Her name got picked because at the time it was more the brand, and again Obama didn't have boots on the ground. They didn't turn out for Hillary. Their primary vote was an after thought to the ballot measure.

[Zanzibar]

By the way, the fire and brimstone from the OP is a little premature, particularly since the Clinton campaign disavowed it (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/dems-debate-poa.html):

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will not go after Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., pledged delegates after an unnamed Clinton official told Politico that both campaigns would pursue such a course if there is a "stalemate" between Clinton and Obama going into this summer's Democratic convention.

"We issued a very Shermanesque statement earlier today," said Wolfson on a conference call with reporters. "We have not, are not, and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama's campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates."

Once again, if you are part of a campaign, you will be punished for speaking your mind. 'If it's a stalemate,' you're goddamned right people will be after each others' delegates. Even though the guy said 'everybody will be going after everybody's delegates' is of course interpreted as 'Hillary will be stealing delegates OMG!!!', even though the term 'everybody' is used.

Once again: *sigh*

[Johan]

"We issued a very Shermanesque statement earlier today," said Wolfson on a conference call with reporters. "We have not, are not, and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama.

What a horrible analogy. Are they going to create a path of destruction through the South, or through the remaining states until the convention?

Also, considering her about-face on seating Florida and Michigan, and the shenanigans of that whole mess, I hardly see her campaign's "Shermanesque" statement as anything but a promise to utilize a "scorched earth" policy to win, as Sherman did in the South.

Clinton changing the rules. (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/bill-clinton/17332/hillary-clinton-changing-the-rules-on-florida-and-michigan-delegates/)

[bKangy]

Wolfson's a fucking hack, I can't wait till Barry Obama chases his likes out of the party. He's drilled the current "plagiarism" scandal into the media on every single chance he's gotten despite the man it was supposedly "stolen" from congratulating Obama on his usage as a collaborator, ally and a personal friend. It's ridiculous.

[Zanzibar]

Hey Johan, were the rules in place that the Credentials Committee could revisit the status of the Florida and Michigan delegates?

Oh yes, yes they were.

Did she campaign in Michigan or Florida?

No, no she did not.

Oh, those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of rhetoric.

[bKangy]

Hey Johan, were the rules in place that the Credentials Committee could revisit the status of the Florida and Michigan delegates?

Oh yes, yes they were.

Did she campaign in Michigan or Florida?

No, no she did not.

Oh, those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of rhetoric.

It wasn't exactly required to campaign in Michigan when she was the only name on the ballot. Congratulations to her for winning a one horse race! As for Florida, in the run up to it, it was well reported she was making frequent appearances, and playing it as a state Obama was trying to disenfranchise. That's not rhetoric, that's what happened.

As for the revisiting the Florida/Michigan votes? That'd be great, maybe when Hillary has to deal with Barack's quality there she'll start changing the rules again.

[Johan]

Did she campaign in Michigan or Florida?

No, no she did not.

Oh, those pesky facts. Always getting in the way of rhetoric.

Do you have a damn clue? Seriously! Those "pesky facts" prove that you are so blinded by your extreme liberal zealotry you can't see the truth, which is that she campaigned in Florida. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080127/D8UEG4RG0.html) This AFTER she had agreed not to.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she was going to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her commitment to seeing the state's delegation seated at the national convention.

Though the Democratic presidential candidates largely have heeded the national party's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to voters there who are showing heavy interest in Tuesday's primary. Early voting is under way and drawing strong interest, she said.

Most people get tired of towing "the company line" when it stinks of shit. I guess you don't??? :confused:

[Zanzibar]

Do you have a damn clue? Seriously! Those "pesky facts" prove that you are so blinded by your extreme liberal zealotry you can't see the truth, which is that she campaigned in Florida. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080127/D8UEG4RG0.html) This AFTER she had agreed not to.



Most people get tired of towing "the company line" when it stinks of shit. I guess you don't??? :confused:

Did you actually bother to read your own linked article?
She arrived in Sarasota taking care to abide by the details of the agreement, because events in Sarasota and later in Miami were not open to the public.
Private fundraisers. Not campaigning. Abided by the details of the agreement.

Oops.

FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS FACTSFACTSFACTSFACTS

[Laughing_Penguin]

It seems to me that, from a purely strategic viewpoint, the Democratic "superdelegates" would want Obama over Clinton. Why?

For one, look at the primary results. Sure, Hillary took the big states like NY and California, but honestly... those states will vote Democrat in the Presidential election regardless of who is running. They could put up Cookie Monster for the Democratic nomination (campaign slogan: "It's Good Enough For me!") and he'll take NY and California over any Republican option. Obama however did much better in states that generally choose Republicans for President. In fact, there are still areas of this country where "Clinton" is uttered like a curse word. Obama will likely win the die-hard blue states that Hillary has won so far, but he also has a real shot at making progress in those states where she didn't, and has appeal with independents and Republicans who have gotten pretty pissed off at the party over the last few years. Hillary has strong support in the Democratic base, a base that will mostly support Obama if he's their only option.

Now look at it from the flip side. McCain has decent appeal with independents and undecided voters, but there's a decent segment of the Republican base that views him as too moderate, and possibly even a sellout. While they wouldn't jump ship and vote Democrat out of spite, some of them may just stay home election day unless given a strong reason to get motivated. Whatever you think of Hillary, these voters HATE HATE HATE her, and will show up strong just to vote against her. Obama has not developed that kind of comtempt (at least not yet, time will tell).

Finally, it seems that in the case of race and gender, I can't help but feel that the swing "red" states would be more likely to vote for a black MAN than a WOMAN of any background. The "Year of the Woman" was not a huge gender change in Congress, it only resulted in a couple of seats changing over from male to female.

Sorry that was so long, I got into a rhythm there... heh. But really, Obama seems to have a much better shot at states "in play" that Clinton. the last election demonstrates clearly that these states are important... people HATED Bush last time around, but he still won because Kerry only appealed to his base, and made no headway anywhere else. Hillary has the same problem, plus being genuinely hated by many, deserved reason or not. Assuming the Democratic leaders want one of their own in office, Obama seems like a better pick...

[Johan]

Private fundraisers. Not campaigning. Abided by the details of the agreement.

You're waist deep in horse shit. You sound like Bill when he said, "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." :rolleyes: Repeating the mantra of "FACTS" while plugging up your eyes and ears won't change the actual facts that:

1. Clinton initially agreed with the other candidates that Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the DNC because they broke party rules. She AGREED to this.

2. Clinton realized that Obama, with his crushing victory in South Carolina, was suddenly not just a contender, but a real threat to beat her!

3. Clinton changed her mind, and now wants Florida and Michigan seated.

4. She went to Florida, in contravention of her agreement not to do so, the day of the primary there, receiving plenty of press and achieving exactly what she had hoped for; a campaign stop with the subsequent attention a campaign stop draws.

I'm actually quite excited about this for the Democratic Party, because it is becoming increasingly clear, from reading the split amongst some of our raving lunatic liberals here, that the Democrats will probably eat themselves alive on the way to the convention, while blowing through a ton of cash in a hotly contested race AND revealing themselves to be typical politicians who talk of "change" while doing all that is required to win...including reversing their own commitments, twisting arms in back rooms to get the final "superdelegates," and making the actual will of the people (which increasingly looks like Obama) a question of racism (thanks for that, Bill Clinton!), plagiarism, and the like.

If the Dems. nominate Hillary against McCain, they're in for a very sad November. Obama would win, but Hillary will not. He's inspiring, he's attractive to independents and even some conservatives, and he's actually different from McCain on the issues, while Hillary and McCain are extremely similar on the issues that really seem to count (like, say, Iraq...didn't you want to get out of there? Hillary's not getting us out. Neither is McCain). Hillary will do what nothing else can do right now; motivate the Republican base to get out and vote...something NOTHING else has accomplished, but Hillary will. Thanks for that! :D

[Johan]

I'd like to be the first one to congratulate Obama on beating Hillary in Wisconsin.

CNN Report. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/19/feb19.contests/index.html)

The disturbing part for Hillary? THIS:

Wisconsin Exit Polls:
Obama Won:
Women (51-49)
All age groups under 65
All education levels
All regions of the state -- urban, suburban and rural
Voters without college degrees (50-48)
Democrats (50-49)
Whites (53-46)
White men (59-38)
Voters who decided in the last week (58-42)

Won or tied voters of all income levels
Tied among white women
Tied among union members
Tied among union households


Man...when the Clintons get their claws in the superdelegates, it's going to be fugly!

Nine in a row, baby! GO OBAMA!

[Church42]

Obama also won Catholics in Wisconsin...carried Brown county which is a heavily German Roman Catholic county

Simply put, Wisconsin killed the Clinton campaign unless she manages to somehow win TX or OH....but considering that Texas lacks many of the Clinton voter types (that Obama won in WI) and Ohio has many of the Clinton type voters (Which Obama won in WI) that will be tough.

[Slack3r78]

I really don't understand how win-at-any-cost opportunism is particularly defensible.

This is my favorite and a large part of why I think Wolfson is a total prick:
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will not go after Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., pledged delegates after an unnamed Clinton official told Politico that both campaigns would pursue such a course if there is a "stalemate" between Clinton and Obama going into this summer's Democratic convention.
"We issued a very Shermanesque statement earlier today," said Wolfson on a conference call with reporters. "We have not, are not, and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama's campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates."

Jesus Christ, the fucking spin is making me dizzy.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I actually know two people, one of whom is from a wealthy, politically connected family and is certain to be mayor soon, rising to higher office later, who are both proud fascists. As in they admire and emulate Franco and Mussolini, and think that people are too stupid to know what is good for them and should be forced to a better society. Although neither claims to admire Hitler, I'm sure that some of his authoritarian policies would draw little objection from them.
Well, his authoritarian policies weren't really the problem. That whole "genocide of the jewish people" is the BIG problem.

I'm no fascist, but you honestly aren't allowed to consider the position because of something terrible that one its major advocates did. (I still disagree with fascism, but calling someone a fascist isn't really a good insult - it's definitely used to call people Nazis without calling them that)

[Schnoogs]

Well, his authoritarian policies weren't really the problem. That whole "genocide of the jewish people" is the BIG problem.

Invasion of Europe? :confused:

[Slack3r78]

http://uploads.evilavatarcomics.com/Slack3r78/images/shotvotes.jpg

First time I've ever been glad that Apple gave me a copy of Comic Life with my Mac.

[Slack3r78]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

It's like NPR is doing the Daily Show's job for them.

[Johan]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

Oh, how I love NPR...they do such a good job. :)

Hey Zanzibar, how do you explain HER OWN WORDS??? :D

[Wadmaasi]

Edit: I did some brief checking during my break time here, and found Texas has an open Democratic primary. Any others? Just one? More?
My son and I have been sick as mangy dogs the last couple days (with my poor wife catching it worse than either of us last night) or I would've chimed in sooner, but both of VA's primaries were open. I'm registered independent and voted in the Dem primary. It was kind of sad; there was an old white dude manning the Republican lists and in the 15 minutes during which I could see him, while the line snaked up to the table, only one person (a younger white woman) went up to him in order to vote Republican.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Oh, how I love NPR...they do such a good job. :)

Hey Zanzibar, how do you explain HER OWN WORDS??? :D

That...that's just the dirtiest campaign trick I think I've ever seen.