I am very upset with Obama, Clinton & Kerry today... from an Obama supporter

[IndieLeft]

Actually, my problem is with John Kerry... but since he is part of Obama's campaign, I have to blame Obama also.

I believe that the winner of OUR delegates should be the recipients of the super delegates. We are the ones who are supposed to choose our presidential candidate, not politicians.

I listened to Kerry backtrack on this today... as it pertained to Clinton's large state wins. Obama also made a similar statement a few days ago, and it upset me then too.

This policy, of "going with the movement" as Kerry said is not the democratic way; whether it is done for either candidate does NOT serve the greater good for our country.

No, it is no worse than anything that the Clinton campaign has done, as they have done the same, but I expect more from Obama and his supporters. This doesn't affect my vote, but it is disheartening.

This system was not meant to run like this. The super delegates were designed to give the candidate elect a definite majority. The supers are NOT supposed to decide how to seat their votes until AFTER the primary campaigns are over.

This system is being manipulated. It is our job to make our voices be heard and tell our elected officials to WAIT and seat their votes according to their constituency; district by district, county by county, state by state.

I urge you to call, email, write you local state and federal officials and urge them to wait to cast their vote, and to make sure it is with THEIR constituency.

Let me know if you feel the same.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Obama has not backtracked. Most *people* would rather have THEIR delegates select the Nominee and

not make it "the smokefilled backroom" business of our illustrious party royals and/or insiders (super-delegates).

[IndieLeft]

5. I just listened to his statement. 5 minutes ago.

And yes, he has backtracked... Just as Kerry did.

I don't care if Clinton did it too... Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, he is still my preferred candidate, but it is very disappointing.

Also, as I have also said; NONE of the candidates deserve to go unscrutinized. They are all STILL politicians.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I want a link. No offense, but I don't think Obama has back-tracked he wants "the People" delegates

deciding who is our next Democratic Nominee. It's cool if the Super-Delegate insiders line up behind the popular winner, but I don't believe Obama would want to win "by cheating." I just don't buy into that. :shrug:

[rodeodance]

81. HERE YOU GO__Obama conveniently flip flopped

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[rodeodance]

79. I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Most of the supers will vote for who the majority of Americans vote for.

Watch.

[Mz Pip]

6. I hope so

whoever that may be. Going against the will of the people will smack entirely too much of Florida 2000 and the SCOTUS picking the winner.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LSparkle]

I hope you're right ... And, BTW, it shouldn't be winner-take-all" with supers

It bothers me when Hillary says that she'd be glad to have both Kerry and Kennedy vote for her -- if super-delegates are supposed to go "the way their state did." Problem with this is, pledged delegates were awarded PROPORTIONALLY, and super-delegates should be awarded in the same manner. Just because Hillary won a majority in California, for instance, doesn't mean she's entitled to the entire pool of California super-delegates (which is a large group because of the number of Congressional reps the state has). At the very least, perhaps either Sen. Kerry OR Sen. Kennedy might feel obligated to vote for Clinton, but since she didn't get ALL the pledged delegates in Massachusetts, there's no reason for them both to feel they have to vote for her.

[IndieLeft]

14. No it shouldn't be.

It should be done district by district, county by county and state by state, depending on how each super's constituencies vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. If Obama wins the delegate race my bet is most of the supers will endorse just to have it settled.

Whoever wins the most voted delegates will win.

Some supers will stay with their declared candidate as a show of solidarity, but the rest and largest part will go with the flow.

[IndieLeft]

32. But that is NOT what is happening.

The counts don't match up.

Obama leads seated, Clinton leads supers.

[John Q. Citizen]

96. Be aware but be patient. While some high profile Clinton supporters may stay with Clinton

for moral support, the majority of undecideds will go to Obama, and some of the pledged to Clinton will switch.

There is still plenty of time.

If Clinton is really going to stay in until march 4, that will probably be when the shift starts taking place. Unless Clinton pulls out some huge wins. Which seem continually less likely.

[sandnsea]

27. That's exactly what John Kerry said

as has Obama. Hillary is the one who said supers don't have to consider the voters.

[IndieLeft]

34. That's what they said until they were asked about who

Kerry and Kennedy would vote for. Then they said... what was it... We can make arguments on both sides...

That is backtracking.

[sandnsea]

50. John Kerry said the will of the people

go with what the voters had decided. Obama said the same. People are trying to make this a state by state thing, but that's not what they're saying. They're saying if it comes down to the supers, in June, then they should go with the overall will of all the American people at that time.

[IndieLeft]

74. Then they should have just said that...

And left it at that.

I don't need political posturing.

[sandnsea]

78. They DID

Hillary did the political posturing and pretended they said something they didn't. She's the one that distorted what they said by making it about Kerry & Kennedy supporting Mass, it was all her.

[IndieLeft]

84. Hey, I said Hillary is just as responsible.

[sandnsea]

89. She's completely responsible

If you're confused about them voting the way their state voted, it's completely because of Hillary. SHE said that and nobody else. Tossing it all in the air because you got snookered is not acceptable. She lied about what Obama and Kerry said, period.

[IndieLeft]

90. You know what... I didn't get "snookered"

And I didn't listen to what Hillary said about this. I listened to Obama and Kerry.

[sandnsea]

93. Then why'd you say "both of them"

You just said you blamed Hillary for your confusion too, now you say you didn't listen to her. Make up your mind.

[blm]

40. Yes - the twisting sounds like more Hillary camp need to attack Kerry - as if they didn't

do enough damage to this country when they sabotaged voters in 2004.

As observed by historian Douglas Brinkley April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill's timely defense of Bush for 3weeks in 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary joins in Bush's smear against Kerry 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[IndieLeft]

45. No twisting. I swear... You guys are just as bad as Hillary supporters.

Don't be sheep. I just heard him. His words. There is nothing to twist there.

[blm]

54. Well, then maybe you should double check - because I didn't hear it the way you did

He'll be on MSNBC between 6 -6:30, so maybe it will be clearer then.

[IndieLeft]

64. Alright... I'll be listening.

And I hope you are right, and that I misunderstood.

I have no problem admitting I am wrong, if in fact I am.

[catgirl]

3. You're wrong about this!

Obama said the Super delegates shouldn't decide who the nominee is.
Your post is totally misleading. Boy, out in force.

[IndieLeft]

8. I just heard his statement.

And what is that supposed to mean? Anyone on here who has read my posts knows who I am voting for.

Do not prove to be just as intolerant as Hillary supporters who refuse to say her Iraq War Vote was okay.

Don't be sheep.

[catgirl]

95. Show us a link

There were recent news items where Obama states that
he doesn't think party insiders should choose the dem
nominee. He was quoted in all of them.

[rodeodance]

86. but Obama fliped flopped on that--SEE HERE:

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[BluegrassDem]

4. How come no one asks Sen. Murray and Cantwell of Washington

They both supported Hillary. Washington went overwhelmingly for Obama. How come no one asks them?

[IndieLeft]

10. I suggest you ask them all.

As I said in my post. It is OUR responsibility to make sure they are doing the right thing.

[blm]

58. They won't GO ON TV these days. This is Hillary's team of fighters who are loathe

to find a camera or a mic these days.

[berner59]

7. I feel the same...

Super delegates should side with the will of their state or even by district... You can't go by how many states one person wins. Even in the general election, you can win more states but lose the election... Doesn't make sense to give the person ahead ALL the superdelegates...it's a state by state, region by region, demographic by demographic race...

[blm]

9. YOU didn't hear it right. Kerry said he didn't think super delegates WOULD vote

contrary to the MOVEMENT that is showing strong for Obama.

I trust Kerry's insight a HELL of a lot more than I would trust anyone else in DC.

YOU twisted what he said -

[IndieLeft]

11. I didn't twist anything.

I just heard what he said. And when he was asked about California he backtracked.

[karynnj]

55. He was not speaking of going on a state level

so it was not backtracking - only if you assume they need to vote by state - which some of the media is pushing it.

[BlueStateGirl]

12. I thought Obama's position was that Superdelegates should go the

way their state went?

[IndieLeft]

15. So did I, until they asked him about Mass. & Cali.

Then it changed. People saying it didn't are just fooling themselves.

I AM an Obama supporter, but you can't have it both ways.

Flat out... the supers should follow the will of the people.

[MagsDem]

29. LOL - what a shock

He wants the super delegates in the states he won to follow the popular vote, but in the states she lost, he thinks they should just all come over to his side.

How in the ever loving hell do any of you support this guy??? It's just inexplicable.

[IndieLeft]

37. He got the war right. He got bankruptcy right. That's how I support him.

And for those who think I'm a secret Hillary supporter... Just ask Mags here... we always butt head.

[MagsDem]

41. Watch out, your own Obamaniacs will eat you for lunch

if you don't watch out! :)

[IndieLeft]

46. No shit! I am really in shock.

I pride myself on being open minded enough to see the flaws of both the candidates, and the willingness to admit when mine makes a mistake.

It really is amazing, isn't it? LOL!

[ShortnFiery]

Well, how about some, IMO, "common sense" - starting a thread "being upset" with YOUR candidate

does NOT seemingly "pass the logic test" when you could have went to Obama's site and discussed it with those WITHIN OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.

The reason many Obama supporters are "less than thrilled" with you is that it's coming across like your are TALKING SMACK about the very people you are supposed to identify with?

The above just doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want to discuss the topic without TRASHING the candidate that you used to support but are now "upset with" then it's wise to do it with other Obama Supporters, not on a FREE FOR ALL Democratic Primaries Message Board. :shrug:

[IndieLeft]

57. I blamed them both.

I blamed the whole system.

Am I supposed to apologize for being open minded enough to look at this rationally instead of blindly?

I won't apologize for that. We should all be doing the same.

[MagsDem]

65. Not to me

But here's a smile for you anyway. :)

[satireV]

49. How did Obama get the war right?

He voted FOUR times to fund it, totally 300 billion in borrowed money.
And he didn't vote against the War Authorization. He wasn't a Senator!

[IndieLeft]

52. No, he didn't get to vote for the authorization... He just came out against it.

He was still right; I don't care if he didn't get to vote.

And, if the war hadn't been started, the he wouldn't have had to vote to fund it, now would he.

Just so you know, Hillary voted to fund it too. And, of course, she cast her vote with "conviction" to authorize the Iraq war.

You can't win this arguement. Stop trying. And every time you try to, you might as well spit on the graves of the dead soldiers from this war... the one Hillary voted for.

[satireV]

69. Just curious

Apparently you have your mind made u, and it cannot be changed no matter what. Just one question.

If Sen Clinton gets the Democratic Party nomination for POTUS. Will you support her and vote for her?

[IndieLeft]

72. As long as she wins legit... Yes.

If she wins the delegates, OUR delegates, then yes. If she wins ONLY because the super delegates give it to her, despite how american vote, then no. I would not vote for her. I would not vote... period.

[satireV]

92. Not voting helps the GOP.

I hope you reconsider your thinking.

[karynnj]

56. NO they want them to follow the National winner

[rodeodance]

80. NOPE-see this: I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[sniffa]

13. Sorry you're upset over your own misunderstanding

It happens on DU a lot.

[IndieLeft]

17. There is no misunderstanding... at least not on my behalf.

I think you might be understanding the facts here. That or you are being blinded by your absolute support.

As I said, NONE of them deserve to go unscrutinized.

[sniffa]

18. Now, I'm sorry for your side

But no longer. :hi:

[IndieLeft]

22. WTF are you talking about?

Read some of my old posts. You'll see what side I'm on.

[TheDonkey]

16. supers will vote with regular delegates. Any "drama" about this is fabricated by the media

Super delegates for the most part are ELECTED officials still running for office. They will avoid scandal.

[IndieLeft]

19. Well right now, they are not.

Otherwise, Obama would have the total lead; not just the lead in the seated delegates.

[DJ13]

20. Kerry didnt backtrack

He was saying the super delegates should follow the candidate with the most delegates and votes AT THE CONVENTION.

Your confusion is from listening to the Hillary talking points (and echoed by the MSM) that super delegates should follow the state by state delegate or vote tallies long before it reaches the convention.

The Obama camp has always meant that the super delegates AT THE CONVENTION should follow the TOTAL delegate counts in following the will of the voters.

[IndieLeft]

25. NO... No Hillary Talking Points here...

Just audio of Kerry & Obama.

This isn't a partisan issue. Don't you get that? This can affect either candidate.

Did you miss the whole point of this post? I guess so. Wow.

This is what they are talking about when they say we are snatching the defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Then we have different understandings. As an open-minded and avid Obama supporter why don't you go

on his website and "chat" with someone INSTEAD of giving us a negative interpretation?

Part of me truly wonders why you would start a thread SINCE you have not fully researched this, I'm miffed that you'd all of a sudden be upset?

[IndieLeft]

42. I have heard what he has said. I have heard Kerry too.

Listening and hearing what the candidates are saying is all the research you have to do. I heard Obama talk about this a few days ago. I just got done listening to him and Kerry again.... 15 minutes ago. I know what I heard.


And, if you missed my point, here it is again.

This concerns me... the whole process. It was NOT designed to run like this. The system is being grossly abused.

If you read the entire post, and not just half of that, then you would see that.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Then if you are truly an avid Obama supporter, you need to rephrase your thread title.

:shrug:

[IndieLeft]

47. Good Point. Done.

[blm]

63. Kerry said the super delegates should go WITH the national winner - go WITH the voters

and not against them. I don't get why this bothers you. Super delegates seeing all the movement from one side and then deciding to go against the national movement would cause a backlash on the party itself and really kill us in Nov.

[rodeodance]

82. so did Obama--until he flip floped==See here:

[DJ13]

38. I listened to Kerry's interview today

The only "backtracking" was that Kerry wasnt going to alow the interviewer to try and pin him down on the Hillary talking point that SD's should be bound on a STATE BY STATE basis.

Thats it, thats all that led to your confusion.

Kerry was plainly saying he supports the SD's following the voters in the convention, nothing more.

And THAT is no different than the Obama campaign has been saying for the last week or more.

Why this is something disturbing to you, is your problem, not mine.

[karynnj]

60. Here is what Kerry said in the NYT - simple statement:

“My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,” Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics

[MagsDem]

43. LOL - until they don't believe that

You'll see the tune changing on that in a heart beat if she wins PA, TX, and OH.

[MagsDem]

23. Again, these have been the rules for decades

And no, the system is not being manipulated. The system is designed so we have a slight check and balance against a totally batshit nominee. Obama comes damn close as far as I am concerned. The people get two thirds of the say, and the party activists and leaders get one third. That's fair.

Don't worry, Obama will get some supers. But you're afraid you won't get enough, so of course you want the rules changed just for him. Typical.

[IndieLeft]

59. And just when I was starting to like you....

LOL.

:mad:

[indimuse]

24. I thought there was a RULE in place BEFORE they all decided to run...

Going into the campaign...wasn't there a RRULE that has been a part of our system for a while...now they wanna cry and change it? When BHO decide he wanted to be potus...this is what he signed up for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










www.myspace.com/visualmuzique nothing to hide!

[IndieLeft]

28. You don't get it either.

This is NOT how the system is supposed to work.

Super Delegate are NOT supposed to cast their votes until the end of the primaries. They are meant to give the candidate witht he winning amount of seated delegates the majority they need.

The system is being corrupted. It is OUR job to call & write to make sure that OUR OWN officials do the right thing.

[MagsDem]

35. No you have it totally ass backwards

Look it up. What you are describing are the state delegates won in the primaries and caucuses. Those make up 2/3 of the total delegates seated at the convention. There is an additional 800 to 900 super delegates that can vote any way they please. That has been the system for decades now.

[KAZ]

36. I'm not sure your grasping the rules, but I agree with your

sentiments. You're in the party. Work to change the rules!

[indimuse]

71. oh! I gett it!

you don't...and you don't like how Hillary has close to 100 more than BHO. :)

[IndieLeft]

73. Wow, how thick can you be.

This isn't a partisan issue. If you choose to look at it that way, I can't help you.

It is MORE than our candidates. It is MORE than our party.

It is about democracy. Plain and simple. If you cannot see than, then I cannot help you. Open you mind. Stop thinking about this as Hillary vs Obama. It's much more than that.

[Barack_America]

30. I agree and disagree.

My feeling is that if a superdelegate endorses a candidate BEFORE their state's primary (before their constituents render their opinion), then their endorsement should be allowed to stand regardless of the primary results. Some people have favors to pay back for helping getting them elected, etc. and that's fine.

However, if they have not endorsed by the time of their state's primary then they really need to go with the primary results. They shouldn't knowingly vote against their constituents' opinion.

I hope that makes sense.

[IndieLeft]

51. yeah, but you see, initially, when the system was set up,

there weren't supposed to cast until ALL the primaries are over.

[Little Star]

33. Down thread some seem to say Kerry wants the...

Super Delegates to be lemmings. I think they should vote like the people of their district or state voted. Nothing to low to annoint Obamaa.

[IndieLeft]

61. Hillary is doing the same thing.

[karynnj]

66. He wants them to honor the choice of the voters

rather than change it.

“My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,” Mr. Kerry said.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=politics

My opinion (not Kerry's) is that superdelegates should not have votes.

[IndieLeft]

75. That's my opinion too.

What is wrong with a majority.

Look, this is what I am saying... If that is what he and Obama meant, then they should just leave at that.

That is fine, but when you come back and say that you can make arguments on either side, it seems too political and calculated.

If that is where you stand, say so. Don't diminish you message by making your statement more vague. Don't leave it up to interpretation.

I can't believe I am going to say this... but how about some... gulp...

Straight Talk.

I think I'm going to be sick now. Fuck John McCain.

I feel better.

[karynnj]

87. I think Kerry's comment was straight

The problem was the question dealt with voting as Massachusetts did. There was never a rule that they vote as their state does - some are not even elected figures. The Obama campaign has to call people - because both sides are. I think they would all be smart to make a statement like the Kerry one I quoted or the similar Obama one. (Note Kerry says - which ever way it goes)

They should not over rule the people.

Clinton surrogate O'Malley, Governor of Maryland actually said that the superdelegates SHOULD vote to change the will of the people if they feel there is a candidate who runs better in the general election - and that is WHY there are superdelegate votes.

[cboy4]

39. Leave John Kerry alone!!

lol

[IndieLeft]

76. Leave Britney Spears Alone!

[geiger]

48. take solace: don't you see everywhere today how HRC is looking desperate

for these "votes." I think Kerry is very wise now (although in his endorsement speech claimed to be greyer, not wiser), and Obama wise beyond his years.

Belief. Action. Faith.


Yes We Can.

[IndieLeft]

62. Yes We Can!

[rodeodance]

83. I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[karynnj]

53. Kerry has said that insiders and politicians should not change the

people's decision. What you are falling for is a false strawman - should he vote as Massachusetts did?

Kerry and Obama are in agreement with you on "The super delegates were designed to give the candidate elect a definite majority. Here is what Kerry said in the NYT, which is consistent with every answer he has given:

" Kerry said "“My personal opinion is it would be a mistake and disastrous either way for the superdelegates — insiders, establishment politicians — to come along and overturn the expressed view of those pledged delegates,” Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

As to the timing, it is normal for Senators to endorse - it happens every year - in 2000, Kerry and Kennedy endorsed Gore - in 2004, Gore endorsed Dean and Kennedy endorsed Kerry, Harkin endorsed Dean etc Kerry and Kennedy did nothing out of the ordinary this year.

Their endorsements had nothing to do with their being super delegates, which they never asked to be. (Kerry's comment suggests he doesn't like the idea.)

[IndieLeft]

70. What do you make of Obama's saying that they could make

arguments for both sides... when it pertained to Kerry & Kennedy having to seat their supers for clinton, since she won Mass?

My point is, we're getting it from all sides... Bill Clinton talking to a super for 50 minutes while the guy was in the car wash..

The system sucks. They all manipulate it. They pick and choose their words carefully so they can say something while saying nothing.

I am just saying, that in a system where the checks and balances are out of whack, we need to be that check and balance.

None of them deserve a free pass, and is un-Aamerican to give them one... even your own.

They are still politicians.

[rodeodance]

88. Obama says what is convenient for him:--HERE ARE HIS WORDS:

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4526958#4526958
4526958, I love the reaction of Obama when told Kennedy would have to vote for Clinton
Posted by bigtree on Sun Feb-10-08 05:39 PM

if the SuperDelegates were apportioned as he said he wants them . . .


Obama said superdelegates should follow the wishes of the voters.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voter," he said.

When it was noted that Sen. Ted Kennedy is one of his superdelegate supporters, even though voters handed Massachusetts to Clinton on Super Tuesday, Obama said, "Well, I mean, we can make arguments back and forth on this."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/09/2008-02-09_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama_battle_.html

[karynnj]

94. I think Obama should say unambiguously that the superdelegates

should not change the will of the people - and ask anyone speaking for him to say the same thing (surrogates who disagree can simply state Obama thinks... or opt not to speak on the issue. This is the high ground and a good place to be. (esp as he won't win it by superdelegates)

They would say all the superdelegates should ratify the pledged vote, which ever way it went. Then challenge Clinton to say the same.

I agree with you that if either wins the pledged count - and the other gets it because of the superdelegates it will stink. I also think it could lead to more people sitting it out because they would feel the whole system was rigged than happened in 1968. No one is suggesting this could happen if HRC won the pledged numbers, so consider how it will look when the wife of the last 2 term President is given the nomination that she didn't earn.

From the Supreme Court "deciding" 2000 and the disenfranchisement of inner- city voters in both 2000 and 2004 to this, might make many see that feel that we don't have a representative democracy - when our choices, if they are not sufficiently more than 50% are rejected for the party favorite.

[beachmom]

67. Ugh, let's wait for the transcript. I didn't hear what he said, but

until it's on video or in a transcript, I'm not going to rely on your memory.

[bpeale]

68. no. this is the system the dems chose 30 yrs ago.

you just have to live with it because they won't change it just for you.

[IndieLeft]

77. Yeah, it's all about me.

It's not about "me" it's about all of us.

[bpeale]

85. the superdelegates were put into place

to keep the american people from being stupid. i am, quite frankly, glad that they are there.

[IndieLeft]

91. Yes, because how dare the american citizens choose their candidates.

How dare us be... democratic.