Speechless!

[ray of light]

Senator Hillary Clinton took issue Saturday with the notion put forward by the Obama campaign that party superdelegates should vote the way of their states and districts.

“Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,” she told reporters after a town hall in Orono, Maine. “If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.”



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4503485

[Mass]

1. That is a logical argument. If he is asking for superdelegates in places that voted for him, the

reciprocal is true. (and I said as much concerning Lewis a few days ago).

I am not shocked she made it.

[sandnsea]

5. No, he isn't

"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination," he said.

"The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then i think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty improtant when it comes to the general election," he says.

[Fabio]

2. It's a great retort

whether you are pro HRC or not.

[ray of light]

3. It was a fantastic retort. I actually laughed when I saw it because

it's one of those things that remind me of a fencing match.

They call fencing, "Physical chess" because it encompasses both the thinking skills of chess and the physical actions to follow through, plan ahead, respond, parry-repost, attack, defend, etc. I think that politics is also a chess match. This was a perfect example of it.

[ray of light]

4. speaking of great retorts...

Prosense's response was great too.

[sandnsea]

6. I think it's flat stupid

He is talking about the final count of delegates and constituencies as a whole, not any individual constituencies at this point in time. Just more manipulative triangulating bullshit that people are sick to death of.

"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination," he said.

"The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then i think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty improtant when it comes to the general election," he says.

[ray of light]

7. The point of Hillary's post was that Edwards and Kerry are superdelegates and

would be forced to vote their vote for Hillary instead of for Obama.

It's irony, sandnsea. And it's smart not dumb.

It's not the same thing as what you're saying.

So if Obama gets more super delegate votes, BUT if Kerry and Kennedy who have been outspokenly pro-Obama MUST follow Obama's rules and vote for Hillary, then Hillary is pointing out that they would have to follow those rules too. It's irony. It's part of the chess match.

And if Obama loses Kerry and Kennedy but receives the votes from other states where he won, then it would more than equal out.

Edited to add:

I'm sure Obama already weighed all that too. Because it is part of the whole political arena.

So Hillary gets her Phyric Victory if Kerry and Kennedy have to vote for her. Although she thinks it would be a Phyric Victory for him, not her. (Meaning that because Kennedy and Kerry would be forced to vote for her, their two votes might cause her the actual victory.) That's why it's smart not dumb, sandnsea. It was brilliant for one of them or both of them.

[sandnsea]

8. Except that's not what he said

so the "irony" doesn't apply and I fully understood her intent. It only works if he said the superdelegates should line up in accordance with their constituents today, and he didn't say that. He is clearly talking about August, when all the constituencies in the country have spoken and he is right that the superdelegates better not give it to the candidate who doesn't have the most votes.

[ray of light]

9. my understanding of Obama's comments is that the state superdelegates need to

be doled out the way each state voted. So that the superdelegates can't go against the peoples' votes.

[sandnsea]

10. "If this contest comes down to superdelegates"

He isn't talking about anything happening right now. She completely distorted his remarks to make a cheap political shot. Oh isn't she so clever. :eyes:

[karynnj]

14. But in fact it shouldn't go winner take all by state

I think the best response by anyone Kennedy, Kerry included is that they are willing to vote for the NATIONWIDE winner of the pledged votes (as long as something fair is worked out on MI and FL) and ask ALL super delegates to commit to doing this before the winner is known.

It is just undemocratic and will hurt the party if it is seen that the powers that be fixed the nomination. That would be 1968 all over. (I like HHH, but the view of many who voted for McCarthy or Kennedy felt that the nomination was stolen from the anti-war people. I was only 18 and couldn't imagine how my elders COULD NOT vote.)

[Inuca]

16. I am not sure I understand your first paragraph

This would be equivalent to eliminating any impact the super delegatea vote would have, right?

[karynnj]

17. YEP - my view is that they should NOT be able to change the decision of the voters

I was happy to read after I wrote this on many threads - diagreeing with HRC that there is a politician that has the same opinion - and I am not surprised as he is the politician I have always agreed with most. Though Kerry is helping Obama get super delegates, as that is the way the game is played, here is whet he told the NYT:

"“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.

I also find that HRC distorted Obama's comments. He did not mean that the super delegates should vote as their state did - but that they not overrule the decision of the voters. This would mean that if he earned more pledged delegates overall, they should vote for him and if HRC did they should vote for her - which boils down to exactly what was said very clearly by Senator Kerry.

Here is what Obama said:

"“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 voters,” Mr. Obama said. “I think it is also important for superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November and who will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/us/politics/10superdelegates.html?hp

(I wish Obama had said only the first sentence - though I agree with the second, it is not provable and HRC says the opposite. More importantly there is something immensely wrong with having what will be a nearly 1 and a half year process of people learning about the candidates and voting and then not honoring the result. HRC already had enormous advantages from being married to the man who has controlled most of the power in the party since 1992 - even in months that Gore and Kerry should have had more. If she doesn't win with that giving her extra "fingers on the scale" is just wrong. It reminds me of how I felt at my kids' birthday parties where they "won" all the games.

[TayTay]

15. Yes it is.

It's what several LTTE in MA papers said this week as well. If that argument is made at all, then this is a logical rejoinder to it.

"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Edmund Burke, British MP and a conservative, Nov 3, 1773

Is this a conservative argument, I wonder? Hmmmmmmm.

[beachmom]

11. Hillary is clearly maneuvering to win this nomination BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

There is no tie going on. It's all just a charade up to the point when Ms. Inevitable is annointed the Democratic nominee. Nobody here is actually confused that our nominee will be chosen democratically, do they?

I agree it was a "great retort", but that doesn't make it right. It reminds me of the Bush campaign.

[MBS]

12. you betcha n/t

[ray of light]

13. I don't think it will work. Maybe that's why I see the humor in it.