|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Let the superdelegates decide
Dear Bart,
The nomination will have to be decided by Superdelegates
if neither
candidate withdraws. This upsets Obamatons to
no end but I'm fine with it.
I never heard of "superdelegates" until this year,
and I don't have time to
investigate but one would assume they're here
in case the party gets "stuck."
If they're supposed to rubber-stamp all previous
decisions - why do they even exist?
Why not just let Pat Leahy do it and save all that extra time and money?
.
"The people
rule!"
Obamatons (and media whores) claim it is undemocratic
and they claim that as soon as
their favorite got a few more pledged delegates
the whole thing should have been over.
Tweety Matthews even tried last night to angrily
quote JFK - "believing in democracy
means accepting a decision even it is only by
one vote."
Yeah, but try governing when 49% of your own party
doesn't support you.
Hillary even has experience with that :)
To me, that's the biggest problem - we can't win
without each other.
Obama can't win without Hilly's people and vice-versa.
The Dem rules include superdelegates IN CASE THE VOTERS CAN'T MAKE A CLEAR CHOICE.
I agree - for what other reason could they exist?
When there is a mere 100-200 difference in pledged
delegates, the decision goes
to the "adults" of the party because the "kids"
can't make a clear choice.
The superdelegates are not mysterious insiders
who have an unfair weight to their decision.
They are people who have either been elected
to some office by huge numbers of Democrats
or they are people who have sweated blood for
the party.
Plus, I imagine Obama has more of them, but still his people panic.
Obamatons are essentially saying: "It's unfair
that people who have given years or decades
of their lives to the party decide. We
think disloyal and fickle Independents (along with strategic
Repubs trying to kill Clinton's chances) who
carried Obama in tiny states should get to decide
this for the Democratic Party."
As Democrats, we are supposed to understand that
in a situation like this both candidates
are satisfactory to us - they are both Democrats
and both express the views with which we
essentially agree. It's not like 2000 and
a choice between extremes, with the Court deciding.
Once the voters cause a virtual tie in this primary,
we are supposed to be fine with letting
superdelegates have the final say.
Hammer On Bart!
Jeff in Rochester, NY
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog