.
February 18th, 2008
01:54 PM ET

Clinton allies question reliance on superdelegates?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Hillary Clinton probably doesn't like the message coming from some of her supporters, who are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates in order to beat Barack Obama.

New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, who is one of Clinton's top African-American allies, insists it's the people, and not the superdelegates, who will select the Democratic nominee for president. Rangel adds, "The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is."

Then there's New York Senator Chuck Schumer, another big Clinton supporter, who doesn't seem pleased with Clinton's willingness to fight it out with Obama on the floor of the convention in August. New York's senior senator is calling on both Clinton and Obama to agree on a winner after the last caucus in June. He says, "I don't think either candidate wants, or can even get away with, forcing their will down the throat of the other."

Meanwhile, Clinton shows no signs of letting up. She's been calling on superdelegates to make their own decisions about whether to support her or Obama. She says they should "exercise independent judgment" and should not just anoint the candidate who is leading after the primaries. Sure, why give the nomination to the candidate who has the most support from the people?

Obama has won the last eight Democratic contests in a row and leads Clinton among pledged and total delegates. However, he still trails her among superdelegates.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if some of Hillary Clinton’s allies are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates to win?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Eric writes:
Jack, As a lifelong Democrat and a two time Clinton voter, I have to say I'm unnerved by the prospect that the Republicans could be right about something. If Hillary is willing to manipulate the superdelegate system to her advantage, then the Clinton-hating Republicans could be right, "The Clinton machine will do whatever it takes to hold onto power." It's a shame.

Glenn writes:
Hillary's quest to have superdelegates act independently of the voters is an act of desperation and will fail. She has a fair and equal opportunity to impress the electorate. If she fails to do so, this says that the other candidate is the choice of the people. A "brokered" solution will ensure a defeat for the Democrats in November.

John writes:
I think it's fair to say that the Clinton campaign just doesn't get it. They are like generals fighting the last war. They don't understand Obama's appeal; consequently they don't understand how to fight it. Repeatedly, they make statements which they believe are hardball, but turn out to be lowball. It's a combination of poor judgment and blind ambition that has become so obvious that even some supporters are taken aback.

Patricia from Pittsburgh writes:
Contrary to the "Evil Hillary Tries to Steal Nomination!" story that some talking heads have flogged for weeks, the truth is that the superdelegates are primarily loyal to the Democratic party–not to specific candidates–and therefore they will support the candidate who has the best chance of beating McCain in November. That more are leaning toward Obama is an indication that party leaders are lining up behind him as the new "establishment candidate."

Lyn from Johnson City, Tennessee writes:
If you were in Clinton's shoes, after all you've put in your campaign, would you dismiss the superdelegates? You'd be a fool. This was a stupid question


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Super Delegates
soundoff (264 Responses)
  1. Mike McKibben

    To me it means that the Clinton campaign is getting concerned over not getting enough delegates from the vote count to win at the Democratic Convention outright. Considering the vote spread over the past 8 primaries, Clinton shouldn't be the only one concerned. Obama received more votes in many states than the Republican candidates did as a whole.

    Mike McKibben
    Lady Lake, Fl

    February 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  2. Robert Las Vegas

    IT`S a QUESTION OF INTEGRETY AND ETHICS. SHE SEEM TO BE WITHOUT EITHER.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  3. Mary

    Jack, what her allies are really quesioning is the total lack of a 'Plan' by the campaign and Mrs. Clinton for after Super Tuesday. They went through money like water, they are not able to come up with a new message, and appear to have thought the nominee would be handed to Hillary on a platter. That's why she is not only relying on the superdelegates, but 'flip-flopping' on her (and all candidates) agreement to not seat MI and FL. McCain and the GOP want her so bad they can taste it.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  4. David Bakody

    What does it mean if some of Hillary Clinton’s allies are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates to win? Nothing in politics happens by accident, 1, could mean they see the writing on the wall as the Obama surge rises, 2, they are leaving no stone unturned in the path of the well greases Clinton election machine, 3. they want to get Obama off message, 4. they are calling in long time markers forcing Obama to make changes, or they know they have they have them in the bag and working on plan "B & C" well ahead of Obama should they both loose super delegates. So Jack please remember in the Clinton Election Team, all may not what it seems to be.

    David
    Dartmouth NS

    February 18, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  5. tina Texas

    Sounds like desparation to me. You better not rely on the super delagates to get elected. I for one don't like this super delagate way. It needs to cease. Put all the candiatates on the ballot and lets just vote the old fashion way. Who gets the most votes.....wins. End of story

    February 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  6. roxanne

    Nobody should be relying on superdelegates to win anything. The american people seem to be truley repulsed by the thought of backroom deals even being considered after such a historic well fought campaign between these two titans who have inspired the passion in politics we havennt seen since the sixties. So lets see how it plays out in the next few weeks and may the best PERSON win. Groovey baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spring Valley New York

    February 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  7. Sally Pakston, California

    It means that the scale is tipping...Watch out Hillary!

    February 18, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  8. Bruce St Paul MN

    What it means is that they think that hijacking your own party is supposed to be the exclusive realm of the Republicans. They are saying that Democrats should be more... well, democratic.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  9. Tom, Avon, Maine, The heart of Democracy

    It means political arrogance is finally outrageous enough to raise the dead. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and men who froze to death at Valley Forge are putting a chill into the conscience of Super Delegates. Enough of Supreme Court and Diebold picks, the only legitimacy of government is the consent of the governed.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  10. Kevin, Ohio

    Come this November whether it's Clinton or Obama as the nominee, democratic voters will be please of having a strong candidate who can defeat McCain. However, Clinton winning the party nomination due to super delegates will definitely send the wrong message to voters since she trails Obama in pledge votes. In doing so, many voters voice will go unheard in the primary and there will be a huge decline in voters turnout at the general election.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  11. John in NC

    Jack,
    Not all of her allies are questioning her use of super delegates. Lanny Davis was interviewed on CNN last week and defended the use of them. He said that that was the rule and that we shouldn't change the rule in mid stream. The interviwer didn't ask Lanny if seating the Florida and Michigan delegates was changing the rules in mid stream.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  12. Jim Richardson

    Watch out for Hillary. She is going to act like a wild animal in the corner. She will do or say anything to win the nomination. The true Hillary will emerge and she will not care about the Democrats or the party. Mark my words she will be ruthless.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  13. David from Jackson Hole , WY

    It proves that the flower of truth can even arise from the obvious cracks in the Clinton campaign/agenda. Look we know she`s losing and Bill has obviously lost it ,so, they`re going back seeking old favors from those they feel are owed to them and those superdelegates are not falling in line. Hillary says she`s ready from Day 1? God forbid, after seeing how she has run this campaign which has been her biggest undertaking in the last 35 years with the exception of raising Chelsea and Bill.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  14. Basho

    Dear Jack, I hope it means they are wising up to the people's call back of the Clinton brand, but that might be a bit too much to ask from politicians. My guess is they realize they can't spin this one much longer if Obama keeps winning. Love your show Jack. Kevin, Champaign, ILLINOIS

    February 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  15. joe m

    thes superdlegates are trying to keep the focus off them. from most projections it will unfortunately be up to them to choose the democratic nominee. they're looking to dodge this bullet b/c in the end it is not going to be a good thing for the democratic party. they are hoping against hope that one of the candidates will give up and they can say they did not interfere with the elctoral process. i don't like the idea of these superdelegates, but in the end they need to all grow a pair and do what they need to do.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  16. Wyatt A. Robinson

    Jack,

    It means that her allies are not willing to destroy the Democratic party and foster a 2000 repeat where the winner of the people's popular vote (Al Gore) somehow lost the Presidency and the Supreme Court handed the fate of this country into the hands of the biggest loser (George W.). If Obama wins the majority of pledged delegates and Hillary takes the nomination because of a few inside political boardroom execs, any halfway intelligent Democratic recognizes that the party will be perceived as a "Walking Contradiction" who are no better than their friends on the other side of the aisle. They also understand that in this election in particular, they should at least try to appear as if they truly want to place the Federal Government back in the hands of the people and take it out of the hands of corporate conglomerates, insurance companies, and our dear friend China.

    Wyatt
    Atlanta, Georgia

    February 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  17. Terry North Carolina

    Jack
    The Clinton campaign is starting to come apart, top campaign people are starting to abandon ship or take lesser roles. She is losing the delegate race and yes she has to rely on these superdelegates in order to stay in the race with any hope at all to capture the nomination. Obama is definately on a role and everytime Bill Clinton loses his temper at a campaign function Hillary falls further behind.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  18. Elise

    Winning at any cost is not the image the democrats want going into the most important election of my lifetime.I think Clinton's allies realize that if Obama goes into the convention as the peoples choice he should walk out of the convention as their nominee.
    If backroom deals are made they will lose african american and college students votes.All they'll have left is the confused look on their faces on election night wodering how on earth that republican guy got elected.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  19. Margaret

    Nothing really... None of them saying what to do. All they suggest is to calm down, wait for the outcome of the election, see the numbers, and only then start to think what to do if necessary. Superdelegates is not the only issue – remember we still do not know what will happen to Florida and Michigan delegates.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  20. vic

    super delegates should choose whomever they think is the best qualified, not a personality with big talk & no experience like obama.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  21. Mike Smith, New Orleans

    If Hillary wins the nomination by a handful of superdelegates, she will lose much support from Democrats, especially Obama loyalists, and it will cost her the general election. She has to win the remaining primaries by large margins to convince Democrats that she won fair and square; otherwise she is in a lose/lose situation even if she wins the nomination by a nose length.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  22. Evan FL

    It shows that her shell is beginning to crack and expose her true vulnerability. She has not been consistent in winning primaries and she now has to put her entire election in the hands of the Superdelegates. Her allies are starting to see that there may be an end in sight for the Senator, and the powers of the Superdelegates may not be able to save her afterall.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  23. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    Jack, maybe they have come to the reality that Hillary and Bill will do anything to get back to the White House including destroying the best candidate that the Democratic Party has had in many years. It is sad but true that it appears that the way of politics hasn't changed as the good old boys and girls will decide, not the people. We are not a democracy of the people, by the people or for the people, we are and have been a government of the rich, by the powerful and for the ones that know where the bodies are buried. That's not a joke.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  24. Tom Endres

    It means she's in deep doo-doo Jack. Even Bush Sr. said in his endorsement for John McCain that he was one of the last to know when his presidential bid was over. Someone from outside the campaign will have to give her a wake up call if she loses. They can't let her destroy the party.

    Tom
    Ithaca, New York

    February 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  25. Yvonne

    It means that they're starting to question her ethics and motives on a whole. First she was relying on her Super-Duper Delegate husband to get her through, and that didn't work. Now she wants her Super-Friends to put her through. It's time to put the Clinton Mobile in park.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  26. Liz from California

    What is means is that the mainstream democrats are beginning to open their eyes to the kind of person Hillary Clinton is. She's someone who will fight to the death for a nomination, even if it's not the will of the real people. Doesn't that remind us of another past President with the mix up in Florida? The more Hillary fights, argues, and cheats against Obama, the more her allies will begin to distance themselves from her. She's headed in a downward spiral, weighted down by that personality of hers, that husband, her endeavors,of the past, and her unceasing drive for power.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  27. Thomas, Tallahassee FL

    She feels the nomination should be hers even if people don't vote for her. Now that she's the underdog it looks a lot more like an arrogant sense of entitlement than a sense of confidence.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  28. J.C. from Raleigh, NC

    Jack,
    Perceptions being as important as reality in a campaign, allies of Hillary are afraid that eking out a nomination by superdelegates or controversial delegates from the penalized primaries in Florida and Michigan would appear to frustrate the will of the people.

    Clinton's allies fear a hemorrhaging of the diverse voters who have turned out in record numbers, mostly for Obama. Winning by superdelegates or controversial delegates would be a Pyrrhic victory for Clinton. Winning a nomination at the cost of losing the election to the Republicans should make Hillary think twice about playing an inside game,

    February 18, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  29. D. Casey Sebastopol, CA.

    I think it would be best for the Democratic party if it never comes to needing these votes, but that doesn't appear to be the case. That said, you cannot first agree to how things work (the rules) then, when it suits you, change your mind and claim it's all about "fairness"... this applies to Super-Delegates changing their minds as well as the debacle in Florida and Michigan...

    I have to hope that she has the wisdom to avoid duking it out at the convention... if she does, and it turns out that it causes whomever is nominated to lose in the actual election... her career is OVER. period.

    Surely Clinton can see the handwriting on the wall should she lose in Wisconsin and in even one of the big states...

    February 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  30. Dylan

    This is proof that Hillary is not who she says she is. She cares more about securing her spot in history than she does the American people. A democracy is supposed to be about the people, and they should be the ones who decide their leaders. The best option for Hillary would be to step aside, apologize, and support Barack, because that's who we've chosen. It would help to redeem her reputation, carry her into 2012 or 2016, and best of all unite the people, which is what we really need right now.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  31. Jerry Wilson

    Jack, it means she wants to win. Daaa!
    As you know superdelegates are free to vote as they please, so not seeking their support would be rather idiotic. And please, spare us the, "what the voters want rethoric". It is impossible to know who the majority of democrats want for a candidate, considering the Florida, and Michigan debacle. Not to mention a primary, and caucus system, incapable of determining a winner in a close election. So if it comes down to superdelegates, lets not complain if they proceed as allowed.

    Jery Wilson

    February 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  32. Christina; Plano, Tx

    It means they are putting their careers as "career politicains" ahead of her possible career as POTUS. In other words, they are hearing from their electorates and have decided their own self perservation means more to them than she does. I guess the ole 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' is no more?

    February 18, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  33. Praetorian, Ft. Myers, FL

    Is anyone really suprised to find the Democratic Black Caucus now suddenly on the fence about Clinton?

    Their loyalties go–where their constituents go.
    Does anyone think that Rangel would go down in history as one of the few influential black politicians who "did not support Obama"?

    February 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  34. Keith from Irving, Texas

    It means they don't like what they're hearing and seeing from Hillary and some of her other 'insiders.'

    It's apparent to anyone with half a brain, and who has been following the campaign for a while, that Hillary, Bill, and others thought her nomination was a shoe-in BEFORE Iowa and Super Tuesday.

    They had the next 8 years all figured out. Now that they see it slipping away quickly, they will do ANYTHING to get her the nomination.

    It's sad, but I'm seeing a side of Hillary I hope I never would. I once supported her.

    If she were the nominee now and got the nomination because of back room deals with super delegates, I'd have to chose between not voting at all in the general election, or voting for McCain.

    I couldn't imagine having to do that.

    Shame on you, Hillary.

    February 18, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  35. MICHAEL BURNETT L.I.N.Y.

    JACK' thats a simple question, all hell is breaking lose in the hillary camp! All of the supporters of the hillary camp are now seeing that the clock is ticking down. And when the clock strike's '12' they do not want to find themselves on the wrong side of the fence! the superdelecates that support Hillary also know that going all the way to the convention without a nominee is going to be bad for the democratic party. What is the meaning of allies? it means that your allies are only your allies when you are on the winning team!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  36. Beca

    Well Jack, this is politics weather we like it or not. And why do we have superdelegates if they are not going to count? The Democratic Party system to nominate a candidate is very inconsistence, they have a royal mess, people are getting very upset. This just the beggining!

    February 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  37. Doug from Bloomington IN

    The super delegate scenario reeks of the same odor as the electoral college. It appears that the super delegates could easily sway the direction of the democratic nomination. The electoral college is much the same way, where New York, California, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Texas will choose our president for us in the fall.
    Whatever happened to one person, one vote?
    Of course the good news for me is that when our Indiana primary rolls around in My, my democratic vote may actually count for the first time in my voting history! Yipee!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  38. john fraser

    Jack, i have watched this race from the start. The American people should proud of there candidates. A women and a black man, its history.
    I can see now that the media and most of the men in the USA are not ready for a women president.Hillary doesnt need the superdelegates,she needs a break from the media. I say go get them Hillary!

    John Fraser
    Belleville, Ontario,
    Canada.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  39. john

    I just figured it all out you know the super delegates and how the Obama supporters are all up in arms about what they will do.
    First most of them , the voters, are Indenpendents voting in the Democrated primaries telling the Democrates who should be there nominee.
    Second , most Obama supports are young and eat at fast food places
    after all they might not even know what the word "PLAGIARISM" means.
    Now, I expect that many of his supports will head to California because they been recalled suffering from Mad Cow.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  40. Dave Brooklyn, NY

    It simply means that they are questioning her and her ability to win – not to mention the ethical questions of her wanting to override the popular vote.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  41. J.D.

    It means the superdelegates realize this isn't a coronation. If the people want one candidate, it doesn't speak well of democracy if a few hundred superdelegates override that decision. Senator Clinton has run one of the worst campaigns in political history because it was based on the assumption she would be the nominee on Super Tuesday. They had no plan beyond that and it shows.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  42. David Richards

    It's not just the super delegates. She's also relying on those disqualified delegates in Michigan and Florida. It's the only way she can catch up and pass Obama. In a fair election he gets the edge in delegates. She needs to keep all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. She can't afford a revote. And she can't afford a revolt in the super delegates.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  43. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Hillary's reliance upon superdelegates for her win can only mean she intends to tip the hands of justice in her favor. The question is how she plans to do this and what are the ramifications for the Democrat Party.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  44. W B in Las Vegas

    Jack,

    it means the "Supers" don't want to get on the wrong side of "movement" like this country has never seen before. as Bob Dylan said in his song The Times They Are a-Changin',

    "your sons and your daughters
    are beyond your command
    your old road is
    rapidly ageing
    please get out of the new one
    If you can't lend your hand"

    and the young people of America are no longer going to put up with current "policics as usual" that is robbing them of their future.

    IF the "Supers" rob Obama IF he has a clear elected delegate lead, Denver will look like Chicago in 1968.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  45. James in Cape Coral,FL

    Jack,
    It means that even her strongest supporters are getting Obama fever and as the American people make their choice very clear it will be harder for any superdelegate to vote for their own selfish desires.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  46. Cathee

    The super delegates are there to break a tie. Surely you are not suggesting they aren't up to the task? If the Democrats don't want to follow that rule, then go ahead and break the other rule and seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  47. Gina Racine, Wisconsin

    p.s. we see what happened last time someone overrode the popular vote.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  48. Will Kerslake, San Jose CA

    If the superdelegates override the final popular vote, I will not vote for either democrat in the general election.

    If you abuse your political power against the will of the people, don't expect their support.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  49. onenibble

    JACK! , Obama has paid more money to superdelegates than Hillary. Hillary won Florida & Michigan because Obama chose to remove his name from the ballots. She also, won most of the big states. It is impossible to know which candidate is the winner. If the superdelegates pick Hillary for president, that would be super. Hillary is the "MAKE IT HAPPEN" candidate.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  50. Donna

    It's politics as usual for the Clinton's. They are not interested in the Party only in getting the nomination. They are running scared and want whatever they want including seating Michigan and Florida delegates. Now if Obama needed those delegates, do you really think Clinton would roll over and say "Sure"! Obama is what is good for Democrats and can beat McCain. Hillary continues to have too much baggage and this super delegate thing only shows just how much she doesn't care what the 'people' want.
    Donna
    Wisconsin

    February 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  51. Adarrah, NC

    Though I don't believe Hillary is breaking the rules, I think her stance on this issue brings into question her character and ability to lead.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  52. Bill L.

    These people are super delegates so that they can attend the party convention and have a vote on issues. They should all vote for the individual that receives the most votes in the primaries. However, we know that the Clintons will do anything to achieve what she has had as her goal for many years. If the superdelegates determine the race, many first time primary voters will stay home or vote Republican.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  53. earl illingsworth

    It's quite obvious that her message is being channeled towards the superdelegates now, rather than the issues. This has all the presursers of a sinking ship, Jack! Her messages have been lame, and now that Obama's has got her," M.O." down from past debates, she lost her edge! Texas, Penn. and Ohio, if she sweeps, should't be overwhelming, with a 60%/40% Split. Chelsea is in Hawai for one reason , that is to get the Asian vote,i.e. California's huge Asian population, and it' close proxmitity. Finally, her reliance on superdelegates, simply ain't gonna work, the public is to well informed!!! Earl from Provincetown,Mass.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  54. Jordan from Kentucky

    Jack,

    It means that Hillary is on the ropes and unlike Mohammad Ali, she is without the vigor required to rope-a-dope for 10 rounds. As more time passes, it becomes clear the her quest for the nomination is more about power than it is about furthering the standings of the democratic party. I wish she would see the light and get out before she wounds the Obama campaign and gives McCain anymore ammo to use in the general election.

    -Jordan

    February 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  55. Dr. Lyman Baier

    Jack, I grew up in Baltimore. There was a cartoonist whose work appeared in the Baltimore Sun by the name of "Yardley." His favorite footprint was to put little characters in the lower right hand corner, titled 1/8 boss, 1/4 boss, 3/8 boss, on up to 1/1 boss for the mayor or the Governor depending on the topic at hand. Hillary is going after all the bosses, little and big, in hopes that she can ride the super delegate wave to the finish. We have to remember Hillary probably knows the words of LBJ, "If you can't beat them at the polls, get the fight into the back room, and make sure your people out number their people." She sure doesn't want the decision to go to the Supreme Court.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  56. Carolyn

    Jack,
    If the nomination is given to Hillary only because of the super delagates, then you can crown McCain the winner. Because there will be plenty of voters that will not vote if that happens. Hillary does not care about the will of the people, her only concern is winning the election at all costs. The American people will need to show BIlliary that our votes don't matter now why should they matter in November.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  57. Chris in Augusta

    Because some people will do anything to get the nomination, If i were Barack, I would count the Florida Results, ask for a caucus in Michigan, beat her in popular vote, states, pledged delegates and just wait to see what trick she pulls after she still lose. Message to Edwards, as a supporter, he can't be thinking about supporting Hillary after all of this and the people of New orleans overwhelmingly thinks Barack can help them, wouldn't he be turning his back on those people he said he would fight for.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  58. Katrina M. Dallas, TX

    I am 28 years old and have voted in every election I could since I could legally vote – from local county ones to Presidential ones. In all honesty, I had never heard of a super delegate before this race.

    If the will and desires of the people will be undone by a few hundred so-called political experts who are only super delegates for no other reason than that they held an office at some point – what is the point of my voting??

    This will be the second Presidential election that I am eligible to vote in. I am also an Obama supporter. However, if Obama wins the most delegates, but his successful grass-roots campaign is undone by the super delegates, I really won't believe in the Democratic party anymore.

    Clinton's reliance on super delegates to secure the nomination should speak volumns. If she can't win without them, maybe there is a reason for that.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  59. Les Young

    I will support who ever wins the delegate count, but if the Clintons think they can steal the nomination by super delegates, I think most of the public feels the same as I do. If the super delegates over turn this nomination the Democratic party will be the loser because they will lose the general election.

    The Old Okie

    February 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  60. David, NJ

    Interesting!!!! Hillary wants the Superdelegates to decide the race because she's behind in the popular vote, delegates, momentum, etc. One month ago, she claimed to have the popular vote and should win because more people voted for her.

    As for Michigan and Florida. The rules were in place before the campaigning began. Would she still want them seated if he had won the two states? Just a question but the answer is NO. She dont even want the caucas states to count because she can't win them.

    They wont get seated, they wont count and if she cant pull off a miracle over the next 3 weeks its all a mute point anyway.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  61. snoopy

    It means that they don't understand why Super Delegates exist. Like a Republican said on a Sunday Morning show, the Super Delegates are suppose to be intelligent. They were not put there to vote the way someone tells them to vote, they are put there to make an intelligent decision based on who they, in good conscience, think should be the nominee.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  62. dan in hopkinton , mass

    How about the notion that you walked right into Obama's trap. He started mentioning this super-delegate thing and sure enough a fire broke out. Ask Ted Kennedy and John Kerry if their gonna vote the way Mass. did. They will not give you a straight answer. This is a fair question, but only if it's thorough. We must get reparations.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  63. Jed from Chico, CA

    Should super delegates vote with their states, or with the popular vote, or with the delegate count? No, not necessarily. But why would anyone endorse someone for president who can't win with voters? But even more simply, the Dems can not wait until the super delegates meet in August to pick their nominee and still expect to win the presidency. If Hillary is still behind after March 4 she needs to seriously consider dropping out and move out of the way for Obama as the defacto nominee.

    I don't think it should matter who the superdelagates favor at this point because if the nomination isn't decided until their vote in August it won't matter who they choose because that person will have had no chance to fight against McCain and they will lose the fight for the White House.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  64. Mary

    The whole process is flawed to begin with, IMO. All states should have voter at the polls primaries, instead of caucuses, imo. There is no way I would ever participate in a caucus, and I bet there are a lot of folks who wouldn't. I say, as far as superdelegates go, let them duke it out, and may the best WOMAN win!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  65. marcus mt.olive

    IT MEANS THEY ARE LAYING THE GROUND WORK FOR AN EXCUSE TO ABANDON HILLARY WHILE SAVING FACE;

    February 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  66. Terry / Austin, Tx

    Jack, it means that Ms Hillary may not get the votes she needs to win, but is calling in those favors, for which she may not get a pay back

    February 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  67. Kevin (Jonesboro, GA)

    I just did some calculations that have me even more disgusted with the whole superdelegates and their infatuation with HRC. Of the 2080 pledged delegates awarded to date, Obama has won 1102 or 52.98%. HRC has won 985 or 47.02%. If these percentages were applied to the 395 superdelegates listed so far, Obama would have 209 superdelegates to Clinton's 186. This would give him an overall total of 1,311 delegates and Clinton 1,171.

    I know that logic will not prevail in this nomination process but it would definitely make things more equitable and less contentious if it did! Once this is all said and done, I will take a good hard look at our local superdelegates to see how they voted. If they failed to vote in line with their constituents, they deserve to be voted out of office!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  68. mark

    The superdelegates are professional politicians first and foremost. This is just a warning shot over her bow that unless she backs up her campaign with some wins in a competitive election, they won’t expend their own political capital to save her. Sen. Obama so far has run a much more competitive campaign and is winning the popular vote along with more delegates. Perhaps Ms. Clinton shouldn’t ignore the little states that "don’t matter". It does make one wonder what will her attitude be towards the little guy if she wins.

    mark
    upstate new york

    February 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  69. Karl in CA

    It's time for the Democratic Party to sit down and get it's act together. If Hillary,or Obama for that matter, gets it at the convention based only on superdeligates and not the popular vote, then it's time for Mike Blomberg to jump in and give everyone that doesn't want her or McCain someone competent to vote for and beat them both.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  70. Scott

    A co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's Michigan campaign said :

    "Superdelegates are not second-class delegates," says Joel Ferguson, who will be a superdelegate if Michigan is seated. "The real second-class delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never going to vote Democratic."

    February 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  71. mike studders

    Jack, the fallacy in her argument is that it could bite couldn't it? Besides ticking off the voters at this point what if it goes her way with the votes by a slight margin, including those New York missing Obama voters and the delegates then decide for Obama. Time to cry, for real.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  72. Delta Dave - Canada

    Hillary clinton was under the mistaken impression that she everything tied up in the primaries. Now, with Obama proving to be a formidable opponent, she is twisting and writhing to use any and every means to win. First she agreed that the super delegates would count, now, with evidence emerging that thay are slipping away from her, she wants a knock-down contest on the convention floor. The attack bulldog hasn't met with the success she wanted as he is flapping his lip too much, so desperation is setting in. When people like Chales Rangel begin to doubt her, she'd better look out!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  73. Steven

    Guys this is not going to happen. Obama train is going to sweep throught the rest to the states. Hillary may as well get on the train and enjoy the ride to Obama City. Super Delegates are only a mythological point of view.

    Steven

    February 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  74. Chris

    Persuading the superdelegates to vote for the leader in pledged delegates is NOT changing the rules!!! It's appealing to their sense of what makes the most sense for the Democratic party. I mean, show me the rules that are allegedly being re-written. Nice try by the Clintons.

    I, on the other hand, can easily show you the rule saying that Michigan and Florida delegates don't get seated.

    I understand the Clintons' disappointment. But that's part of life.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  75. Mischelle from Illinois

    Jack,
    Hillary Clinton's allies, and the democratic party superdelegates should be waiting to make up their minds until all of the primary results are in. Didn't another news network anchor learn that lesson a couple of elections ago, by mis-calling a state before all of the precints had reported.
    As I understand, superdelegates are NOT tied to any geographic locale and therefore are able to act independently of the results of where they live. Superdelegates are unlike the representative delegates which are specifically tied to the voting results within the areas they represent.
    I still can't wrap my brain arround why superdelegates exist, but in a close election, if you are a superdelegate what are you supposed to use as the scale of the "will of the people" – the results in your district, your state, or the nation. If the answer is the nation, then you better be holding your tounge and waiting until ALL of the nation has had a chance to vote.
    This is a good argument for a National Primary and not perpetuating all of this 'perceived influence' that one state may feel they have over another. I would like to hear a candidate (from either party) say that the first thing that they will fix after being elected is our election process, primaries and general elections. That would really get votesrs excited again in this country, that thier vote would actually mean something.
    As for the Democratic National Primary...if there is a mechanism (existing rule) in place at the convention for a vote by the entire delegation on the floor to decide the contested delegates such as MI and FL (actual delegates, not super delegates) why not wait for that too.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  76. Larry, Ohio

    Jack ,it means that the American public has finally found out that the are just in it for the power.I do not really agree with Obama,but anything would be better than return to the Clinton years!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  77. Adarrah, NC

    The party insiders where not elected to select the presidential nominees.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  78. Dave Ma

    Isn't her husband the one who keeps saying not to think past the next campaign stop whenever he's asked who would be her running mate? Apparently they both were thinking all the way to January 21st, and forgot that they'd have to have enough money and get enough votes before writing her inauguration speech.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  79. Joel New Brighton MN

    Her "allies" want to play both sides of the fence. If the smoke from the convention clears and the people are happy with Hillary being voted in by super delegates her friend can say I was always right behind you Hill if the people flip out and theaten to vote all the superdelegates out the first chance we get. Her friend can say I told you I didn't like Hillary leaving the Nomination up to her superdelegate friends. Some superdelegates are lobbists? Does anybody see something wrong with that!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  80. dave

    I think its a sign that they are scared that Hilary will try to steal the nomination and destroy the party by telling blacks and young voters they don't matter. if that happens the democratic party will be destroyed. sadly, I doubt the clintons would care.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  81. Dora, New Jersey

    Well, let's see. It's very obvious that the Clintons will do anything to snatch the power. She is underestimating American people now like the way she previously underestimated Obama's potential. She will lose once again.

    How could she even think to overturn people's choice through a bunch of super delegates and be confident to win the election this fall? I am very disappointed with her constant negative attacks on her opponent. That kind of politics must change in America.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  82. Sky

    I feel that Hillary’s camp will make the argument that superdelegates are needed to get to the 2,025 figure. I say that if this is the case then, to make it fair, simply allocate all of the superdelegates 50% to 50% between the two.

    This would provide the numbers needed to meet the 2,025 mark while, at the same time, allowing the candidate with the highest number of pledged delegates to fairly win the nomination. It’s simple mathematics and is the just thing to do…

    Sky

    February 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  83. Alex from Brooklyn, NY

    As a young person who had their first national election vote stolen by the courts in 2000, I know I'd have a hard time keeping the faith in the process if my primary vote was taken away from me as well. I think the leaders of the democratic party are starting to understand this and will not overturn the will of the people.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  84. Sharon from Michigan

    It means the Super Delegates are getting smart. Hillary can't win this election. Obama has the best shot.. Obama represents the changes needed in this country.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  85. AC Flint, MI

    This is a government for, of and by the people! The will and voice of the people must be heard and not the so-called "super delegates"! No more back-filled smoked- room politics. The voice of change is resinating all across America.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  86. Charles - Chicago

    It seems to me the Clinton campaign is playing the same old politics that Obama is trying to get rid of. They need to eliminate the super delegates and go back to the winner take all approach, that way, the decision on who will become president is left in the hands of who it is suppose to be with, the American People.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  87. Jamie, NC

    Jack,

    Lets be honest here if Hillary Clinton didn't have the huge lead among super delagates that she has then the race would already be over. But thanks to the quick to jump on the Hillary train super delagates the peoples voice is not being heard like it should. Ever who wins the popular vote should be the winner not the so called super delagates.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  88. Sean

    Jack, if superdelegates decide the candidate say goodbye to public support for the Democratic party. It would be shameful for someone to get the nomination this way and some supporters of Mrs. Clinton acknowledge that shame.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  89. Rodney from Michigan

    The DNC made the rules. Michigan and Florida knew the rules and broke them anyway, now Michigan and Florida will not be seated. I'm O.K with this as I get to vote in Nov.

    If the DNC flip-flops and seat Michigan and Florida...I will switch to independent. This will be a clear sign that the DNC can not be trusted.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  90. Akeem

    To the best of my recollection democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people,and I bet you the superdelegates knows it.This is a clue to the Hillary team on where the pendulum is swinging ,firewall or no firewall.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  91. Brian

    Super delegates need to vote for the same member that the majority of their constituents did. To do anything else would mean the destruction of the democratic process. It will give validity to the statement used by a lot of Americans come voting time: "My vote won't count, so why bother?" Elections shouldn't be about the giving the insider the meal ticket because of their clout, it should be about the will of the majority. There's nothing worse than an out-of-touch politician who believes they know what's best for the everyday citizen....the only thing they know is how to squabble and wheel and deal with lobbyists, special interests groups, and how to bully each other for votes on the floor. That sums up what "experience" means in Washington.

    Brian
    Chicago

    February 18, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  92. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    It means even some of her supporters are tired of the "old style politics" she's trying to use. We have just gone through nearly 7 years of a president who doesn't like to play fair. It's just another example of how the Clintons don't represent change.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  93. Dave

    Clinton's dependency on super delegates is understandable as she has worked very hard for many years to get where she is. I have supported the Clinton's for some time now and still believe Senitor Clinton would make a good president, however not at any cost!!!

    If the majority of the non super delegates are won by either candidate the super delegates must respect the outcome.

    If the super delegates over turn the will of the people, they do it at their peril. I would personally vote for the republicans while (holding my nose).

    Dave

    February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  94. Naomi Singleton

    It means she's scared, but it's not over. We need an Obama /Clinton ticket this fall to unite this divided party.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  95. Mary

    It means they recognize that Hillary's grasp on the nomination is slipping and the pressure on them is intense. For the most part they want to go with the will of the people but feel in debt to Clinton in some way and are trying to loosen her grasp on them. Chris above's suggestions about Michigan and Florida sound like a pretty good compromise since both were on the ballot in Florida.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  96. Pattie - Louisiana

    Jack –
    It means Hillary's latest argument is also starting to falter. Let's review:
    She thought she would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. Once she started losing, however, she attacked caucuses as not reflecting the electorate, she attacked Obama's wins as only being in the "red" states and small states which were "irrelevant", she has her lawyers now looking into seating the delegates of Florida/Michigan, and she has said superdelegates should not give their votes to the candidate who has won the most states, the most delegates and the most votes. Wow.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:53 pm |
  97. Abdikadir

    It does not make sense if either of them looses the nominee on the grounds of the superdelegates discretion. American has been an icon of democracy but this time will witness democracy strangled and we will mourn for it for decades to come. The common man's vote should precide all over everything else and we hope the superdelegates should follow the waves the American people are dancing with.
    Abdikadir
    San Diego, CA

    February 18, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  98. Kevin- Webster, MA

    Hillary Clinton will take any advantage she can get. If she gets nominated she'll want the superdelegates to decide the general election if she could. It is the Clinton game, win at all costs.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  99. Fred in Canada

    Superdelegates following the will of the people? Nuts. The people are following the will of Oprah. Superdelegates should make up their own minds. This is why they have a brain, to select a candidate that can deliver and can walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  100. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    It means even her allies are getting tired of politicians not having a "plan B."

    February 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  101. jasmine

    If Hillary Clinton wants super delegates to vote against their constituents and deny millions of people all around the country the right to have their vote heard just so she can get the nomination, then she'd better not try to talk about peoples votes in Michigan and Florida not counting when she herself signed an agreement to that effect due to their violation of the rules! She always seems to be on two sides of the fence depending on self serving motives.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  102. Ike Texas

    Jack,

    Simply put, Hillary wants Obama to pack up and stop winning more states and leave like a travelling circus because she believes she's got the last tricks. Our collective interests as people inspired for the fisrt time in the primary should not matter!

    I guess the "supper" delegates will not want to end the dinner for the democratic party!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  103. Angelo, Dallas

    Hillary, I thought it was about who the American people want as the next President….…… I guess its true ONLY if they vote for you!!!

    She has turned off many with her divisive attitude If you do not vote for Hillary, she will give the usual excuse why she lost and why your state is unworthy. That is, it’s a small state, it’s a Red state, its a purple state, too many activists in your state, to many immigrants in your state, your state doesn’t represent the electorate, ……….”

    The American people responded by saying, Hillary, you can’t pull a “Rudy Giuliani”

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  104. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    Hillary and her people had nothing to do with creating super-delegates. The rules were created by a democratic committee to try to make the nominating process as fair as possible to everyone. For people to say that somehow Hillary is rigging the super-delegate vote to benefit her is both wrong and unfair. She is only following the rules made by the party. You do not change the rules in the middle of the game because you don't like them. You change the rules after the season is over.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  105. jack jacksonville, fl

    It means that the "Democratic" party actually wants their selection process to be "democratic". Imagine that.

    wolf.....

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  106. Angela

    They should have just a popular vote an who get's more votes is the nominee.

    The Democratic system seems to become undemocratic.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  107. Steven

    It means that there are a substantial number of Democrats who see the obituary of their party should the super delegates decide the primary. Turn out the lights the Party's over should that happen.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  108. Peace

    The meaning of the whole process is to see how the majority think about the right candidate. Superdelegates should go according to the will of people. This is the only way the election can be won in Nov.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  109. Mary Adcock

    Jack,

    Either camp is going to need the votes of superdelegates to win...so why the focus just on Hillary's camp? The role of the superdelegates is to be the wisdom of the party, to look at who is really the representative of the Democratic base. It is, after all, the Democratic party, not the Independent party.

    And now I hear that Obama has given over money in the thousands to the superdelegates. Can you track that story down to see if it's true?

    February 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  110. Ken Payne

    It means that maybe some of her supporters actually care about the Democratic party and what it supposedly believes in. As a republican, one of the many that votes for president on the substance of the individual and not animal on their lapel, the Clinton camp has been a huge disappointment. Her statements lack any substance or refinement. The American people deserve a president that they can be proud of, and her and her campaigns dismissal of any states that don't vote for them. Their dismissal of anything that doesn't further Billary's points must finally be wearing on those that have supporter her.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  111. Robert from Springfield, IL

    It's true that the people will decide who the nominee will be. We can't have a broken convention. If one candidate is leading in total votes, states won, and pledged delegates, then he/she will NEED to be the nominee. Lawyers, back-room deals, or promised cabinet positions can not decide this outcome.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  112. Karen

    Jack-
    Unfortunately, people are creatures of habit and always want to back the winning team. It sounds better to always say that they backed a winner, but it is too close for everyone to decide which side to take. Clinton is looking for support only to insure her win through committments, this shows that she understands the need for loyalty within any political party. Obama does not have this political savey or he would be doing the same thing.
    As sited on "The View" last week, Clinton is not allowed to attack Obama because she would be labeled racist and considered a bad person...however, that has not stopped Obama from attacking Clinton about her husband's past and his administration.
    Perhaps this contest should be battled on the floor of the convention without gloves and race to provide a level playing field. Women in America had better wake up for the roll call if they truly believe that Women-another minority, have enough intelligence to handle the job.
    Tell City, Indiana

    February 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  113. Burt

    Do Clinton or Obama run the risk of winning the nomination only to lose the general election as a result?

    If one of them goes into the convention with the lead in pledged delegates but does not become the candidate because of super delegates isn't there the possibility for a backlash?

    Could enough supporters of the 'losing' candidate choose not to vote or even vote for McCain in protest to end up allowing the Republicans to hold onto the White House?

    February 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  114. California Independent

    I'm voting Republican so I don't care.

    Pick, pick, pick at each other. The democratic party is doing it to itself again.

    February 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  115. AC Flint, MI

    This is a government for, of and by the people. The voices and wills of the people must be heard! This election should not be deciced by some backroom-smoked-filled insiders who want to keep "WE THE PEOPLE" suppressed by their non sense!

    Let the will of the people be heard, or change party!

    February 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  116. Earl

    Jack,

    I think the better question is, with huge states like Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio still in play, why is it being assumed that Hillary will need to rely on so-called "Super Delegates"?

    Obama-bots seek to already put an end to this primary when it is still a hotly contested nomination.

    Sure, Obama has the lead and the momentum, but I think part of that was due to Hillary underestimating him and trying to just win with a partisan, feel-good campaign instead of really going at Obama and exposing his weaknesses as a potential Democratic candidate.

    Questions about his lack of effective experience and reliance on speeches and catch phrases rather than substantive policy are starting to come up more and more now.

    Bottom line, this thing is far from over and at this point nobody should be worrying about Super Delegates. Hillary can still make like her husband and be the "Comeback Kid" of this primary contest.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  117. first time democrat

    Wow...

    Well, I will not be supporting McCain, this will be my first democratic vote, UNLESS Hillary gets the nomination. Then I might not even vote. But I wills ay this- if the Democratic party does not nominate the one with the most delegates, and instead allows the super delegates to push Hillary forward, wow- talk about voter disenfranchisement and and 8 years of McCain.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  118. brian

    if i'm not mistaken, superdelegates were instituted by the democratic party in order for the party to have some kind of control over who they nominate.

    so, to me, it means that senator clinton is following the rules of the party.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  119. Roy P

    It simply means that they are getting caught up in this "Yes We Can" drama. I am a 59 year old white male, a veteran of two wars and an independent voter. As much as I hate to say this, Hillary is the only candidate to this point to provide us with an economic plan which will in all probability allow her to carry out her other domestic plans. The other websites are full of economic babble that do not provide us with long range solutions. The so called super delegates better start looking for substance. This high school popularity contest must end.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
  120. mary smith

    I think Obama should ask mrs. clinton to give an acct. of just what she had done , since being in office, lol it's a joke! and as far as that health care plan that didn't work and cost the people millions. So ya I guess she is going to have to call in the clinton favors from thoes super delegates if she has a hope of winning.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  121. William Green

    At this point, I am more concerned that two States wil not be part of this process. The same democratic prinicpals that has led this Country into two wars and a economic which is slowly eliminating the middle class must be the foundation that ensures these two States have a voice in the election process. I am very concerned about this double message.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  122. Gregg in Virginia

    Jack:

    With every step Mrs. Clinton takes she turns off more people than she attracts. The arrogance implicit in her campaign's strategy to rewrite rules to which they previously agreed is not going to get any traction with the party or voters.

    The numbers of people who've said they'll support Obama – or if she gets the nomination will vote for McCain is astounding. I think her campaign gets this message and is expressing some desperation through their plans to try to rewrite the play book.

    If she will run the country as poorly as she's run her campaign – I'm not sure she'll be any better than W. OK, that's a bit of a stretch but you get my point.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  123. Janel, St. Paul, MN

    Senator Clinton should just let this issue rest, and let the voters decide.

    If the "super delegates" or the Democratic establishment becomes involved and do not listen to the voice of the people. . .and if Clinton wins this way. . .she will lose my vote and, I know, those of many other Obama supporters.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm |
  124. Karen

    It means they are waiting for their party to tell them who to support so that they can get party money for their re-election campaigns.

    They are waiting for the money to shake out NOT the will of the people.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  125. Joy from San Jose, CA

    It seems that some superdelagetes are looking in the future. They do not wish to be in a predicament where they are the deciding factor for the presidential nominee, and possibly upsetting voters within the democratic party.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  126. joe

    Means nothing. She is only stating the obvious. The role of a super delegate is to vote as he/she wishes. Period.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  127. Lisa Hollenbeck

    If the people are the ones deciding then every state should count ,including Florida.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  128. Raymond Ito

    Hillary Clinton's admonition to superdelegates to "exercise independent judgement" shows she's ready to let private will rule over popular will – then that's not democracy in the Democattic party.
    Some superdelegates still feel in bondage to the Clintons who continue to remind them of past favors. But this is a new day!
    Let the people's will prevail in the Democratic party or the Republicans remain in the White House the next 40 years.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  129. Chris J

    Jack, it amazes me how short-minded some of our politicians think the American People are. Sen. Clinton is in a critical moment in her political career. Her reliance on superdelagates to propel her to the white house shows us how she knows that superdelegates are the only way she can win. And its all about winning, by any means neccissary, if you're a Clinton. Throwing all your eggs in the "superelegate" basket is a desperate move. She knows that come convention time, Obama will have more pledged delegates, more votes, and more states. The People have spoken.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  130. ugo

    Am a registered democrate, i made it clear that i'll only vote for clinton in the general election only if she wins the majority of elected delegate otherwise go Mcain. It is a matter of principal

    February 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  131. California Voter

    Jack, obviously it's their right to question. And, according to the former DNC chair who helped institute this so called super delegate system - he called them uncommitted delegates - the idea was that each of those uncommitted delegates was to vote for whomever they wanted. They were to be uncommitted delegates to the convention. So if John Kerry and Ted Kennedy do not want to follow the choice of the people in Massachusetts, they can do so. Or by the same token if African-American super delegates want to vote for Obama, that is their choice.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  132. F Preyear

    Hillary Clinton's reliance on superdelegates demonstrates the old way of conducting business in Washington. She still has a lot of political favors to call in. It also demonstrates that she is not concerned about the congressional superdelegates and their constituency. She is only concerned with winning at all cost...never mind the fact that the members of congress have to be re-elected after they cast their superdelegate votes. They will be left to contend with betraying the will of the people who put them in office. I believe that the vail is being lifted from their eyes and they are seeinng Hillary Clinton for who she really is.

    F. Preyear
    Independent
    Mobile, Alabama

    February 18, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  133. Ben from D.C.

    It shows that the longer Obama is in the race the more supporters he gets. At this rate, he would theoretically crush McCain in a general election.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  134. Jim Stevens

    This just seems Hillary is desperate at this point and will do whatever it takes to win, depriving us of a insperational leader that comes along once in a great while Barack Obama!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  135. Rick Ferguson

    Hillary is desperate, and will do anything to win. She should care more about the will of the voters than a few select superdelegate party insiders. If Obama gets more votes, and doesn't win the nomination it will stink of backroom politics. Besides, we've already had almost eight years of the will of the people being ignored.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  136. John Hernlund

    What is important to mention, but is not being covered by the media, is that the majority of Hillary's super-delegate lead over Obama derives from unelected DNC committee members and party officials. These are not Representatives or Senators or Governors who are ultimately accountable to the voting public.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  137. Molly

    GO HILLARY !!!!
    IF these pledged superdelegates were going to Obama the media would be silent – quit the favoritism and just report the facts. Obama is also looking for support and "extra" delegates.
    The superdelegates should go to the "will of the people" – with the vote of each state. What about Kennedy (Mass) – will he give his superdelegates to Clinton??? – she did win his state.
    This race is not over – wait until all the people and all the states have voted – do not put your opinion on who you think should win.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  138. Nic

    Jack,
    Hypocrisy comes to mind when this question is presented. And the Clinton corner is showing very divisive behavior. She is going to need those delegates and knows it. The ugliness has only just begun from Hillary, she will do anything to win. She just wants the White House, our views will be secondary with her, i feel.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  139. Robert in Albuquerque

    Why should this election be any different than those of the past. We voted for Gore but got stuck with Bush. I say we trash the entire way we elect someone and start over.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  140. Usman

    It just shows that Hillary "supporters" have finally seen the light, and have realized that Obama is the way of the future. They don't want to be remembered for the wrong reasons in history books.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  141. Debra Dimick

    It is further proof that Hillary Clinton does not have the leadership qualities that this country needs when her own supporters are questioning her judgement on her strategy to "win".

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  142. ginger

    Hi Jack;

    It means the Obama train is leaving the station and those super fdelegates want to make sure they're on it. Hillary's revamped campaign is showing signs that we remember all too well...go negative, accuse your detractors of everything imaginable, and so on and so on..it's old washington but that's all the Clinton's know. It's a new day and Obama is well set to not only derail the infamous Clintons but also derail McCain's very own not-so- traight talk express.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  143. Jonathan

    It means the DEMOCRACY is working, Super Delegates should NOT dictate who the candidate is, what happened to government for the people BY the People. I agree with you Jack Let the people decide, how novel would that be???

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  144. Bob Jensen

    To me this means that Clinton's Superdelegates are getting ready to jump ship and are just using this as justification when the time comes.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  145. Vanessa Morris, Philadelphia, PA

    It means they are beginning to distrust her. If I were a superdelegate I would think that she is pressing the issue prematurely, almost in schoolyard bully-esque fashion. That would make me take another look at Obama. If Clinton were really sincere about the fact that the superdelegates' votes were their individual choice, she'd leave it as the private matter that the vote is supposed to be.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  146. Carol

    I suppose if she wants to alienate a lot of loyal Democrats she can keep up the pressure on Super Delegates. I think they should follow the lead and will of the voters and vote the way of the average voter....not the super ones!
    Carol/Oregon

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  147. Shannon Martin

    Superdelegates should be allowed to vote their conscience. At no time since superdelegates have existed has anyone called their votes into question. What we should be questioning is why Obama has "donated" more than $698,000 to superdelegates recently. That certainly doesn't sound like "change" I can believe in.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  148. Ro

    There is only one question the superdelegates should ask themselves: Can a candidate that cannot even win their own party primary without intervention from elders that won't be availabe at the general election actually win the general election? Only one answer: No.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  149. greg

    It means that perhaps the democrats got this one right and their system is working.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  150. Daniel

    Jack it's time for the Clintons to pay attention to what majority of Americans are saying in the polls. How can we even consider voting for someone who is showing the exact disregard for the general public opinion as Bush did in his administration. Is Hillary not a Bush in disguise? That really scares me a lot.

    Daniel, Denver

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  151. todd

    I hope CNN asks the candidates during the upcoming debate whether they will agree to drop out after the Puerto Rico vote if they are behind in pledged delegates and support the will of the people.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  152. James Price

    What does it mean? It means some of her allies are secretly hoping Obama will win, but they still want to keep the gift baskets they received from Hillary.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  153. Lenore Z.

    Jack, It sounds like those superdelegates are exercising their own judgement and thinking for themselves. Isn't that what Hillary wanted them to do?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  154. Steve C from Missouri

    It is becoming more and more odvious that Hillary is the most divisive, most opportunist candadate ever. Obama taks about us "YES WE CAN!" With her it's all about her. What ever it takes to win. She's rather destroy the Democratic Party and turn off a whole new generation of enthusiatic voters than lose.
    She claims experience. What experience? Failure when put in charhe of National Health Insurance under Bill's presidency, but sucessful helping to push through NAFTA. Failure to change Wal-Mart when on their Board of Directors but sucessful enriching herself with Wal-Mart stock.
    She writes off the many states Obama won as unimportant and seeks to steal the nomination through superdelegates or through seating florida and Michigan delegates chosen through violation of rules her supporters helped to push through in the first place. Sounds like same old politics of power, special interests.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  155. Janine

    It means that I think I can hear the fat lady singing.
    So long Hillary!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  156. Jim Stayton

    The term "Rats leaving a sinking ship" comes to mind.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  157. Dustin

    It means that her allies are getting tired of Clintonian ambition trumping the desire to serve, which is the primary reason why any candidate should be running in the first place.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  158. John

    What does it mean? The SS Clinton is sinking.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  159. C M

    The superdelegates have been in play since 1982 and there is a reason why they were first introduced. All the democratic candidates knew this going in, but it now seems like the politicians and pundits are flapping in the wind of public opinion. If you don't like the rules, then change them, but not in the middle of the game, to give one side or the other a competitive advantage.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  160. Walter Woloshko

    It means that the democratic party doesn't want to be hypocritical. We already had one president NOT decided by the people (Bush v Gore) and we would be foolish not to learn from that lesson.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  161. Stephen

    Simple answer to a complex question – eliminate the superdelegates and go with the popular vote of the people of america. If Hillary thinks she can bring back the days of the "boiler room nominee" of the 20's and 30's, she will aleinate the american people and the democratic party will loose to the republicans by a big margin. We want change and we want it now, not old fashion back room politics.

    Be careful Hillary, you could make the american people very angry if you rely on superdelegates.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  162. Janie

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Barack Obama wants the superdelegates and Hillary Clinton wants those who have already voted in Michigan and Florida. Sounds like a good bargain to me.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  163. Ray H

    It means her allies will not be for much longer. Hillary is just proving that she is not cut out to be our nations leader.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  164. Dale

    It simply means the superdelegates have realized that despite their affliations the will of the American people is priority. If they go against the the grain the risk throwing away the the true meaning and purpose of DEMOCRACY.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  165. Axel

    The fact that even Hillary's supporters are now condemning her reliance on her last string of support, the superdelegates, shows how even those who support Hillary are questioning if she really should win the nomination. They support her, but some of them are starting to think that perhaps Barack Obama deserves the nomination more.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  166. Lisa

    It's desperation. At this point, it's all that her allies have to hold on to, and all that they can point to as her 'winning'.

    As I see it, it's not going to be so much the superdelegates that cause an uproar, but the states of Michigan and Florida, and the challenge of whether to adhere to their punishment vs. allowing them their right to be heard.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  167. Bob Heisler

    It just shows that people, like myself, are disgusted with the convoluted manner in which we choose our president. Why should some delegates wield more power than others or go against the will of the voters to circumvent their choices? It's just like the twisted, outdated use of the electoral college to discount the value of the popular vote.

    Bob Heisler
    Cuperino, CA

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  168. Bob Harris

    Has anyone remembered that the reason for establishing super delegates in the first place was to permit the party establishment to reverse the will of the pledged delegates, just in case they ever nominate Eugene McCarthy again.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  169. Reid

    It seems beyond obvious to me that superdelegates are a trailing indicator, not a leading one. I don't know why the media doesn't seem to get this. Superdelegate estimates are worthless at this point and shouldn't even be reported.

    The ones who committed to someone early on were likely to commit to Hillary because they thought she was going to win. They might not publicly announce a change as soon as the winds shift, but it is certain that whoever has the most pledged delegates will also end up with the majority of the superdelegates.

    What I want to know is why the media isn't reporting on what a sham the system is to begin with. Every mention of the superdelegate system says that it was devised to keep a fringe candidate from winning, but that the party heads could never have envisioned a race where there are two equally popular candidates.

    Really? No, it's a bald-faced lie. If you parse the doublespeak, what they're saying is they wanted a way to reject a candidate who was popular with voters but didn't represent the views of the party elite. It should be obvious to anyone that the most likely scenario of superdelegates coming into play is a situation like this, where there are two very popular candidates. It's simply absurd to suggest that somehow a bogus candidate would end up with a much higher count of pledged delegates and the superdelegates would ride in on a white horse and save the day.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  170. Robbie

    It means that Americans should question her integrity and her intentions as we approach an election that could possibly put her in the leading role in our nation. If she is practicing the habit of ignoring the desires of the voters now, what will she do in office?

    Robbie
    Charlotte, NC

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  171. Maureen

    I remember just one thing about the super delegates. The super delegates selected Walter Mondale in 1984 over two other candidates. One question. How did that work out for the Democrats? Well, it didn't and Reagan was elected, but Mondale did get DC and his home state.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  172. Steve

    C'mon Hillary...let the people decide...don't rely on the super delegates...you are better than that!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  173. Valerie

    Jack,
    You'd think if Hillary cared as much about the people as she claims, she'd say that the superdelegates should side with the popular vote and support the person the people want, whether it's her or not. Her recent attacks on Obama for "plaigarizing" and her suggestions for the superdelegates have turned her, in my opinion, from a smart, respectable lady to a desperate, power-seeking candidate willing to do anything to win. Pretty pathetic.

    Bangor, Maine

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  174. Rachel Fair

    This seems to be a sign of a desperate candidate. Even worse, it's a sign of a candidate who does not believe in the will of the electorate.

    What a shame!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  175. Bruce Marshall

    Jack it means she knows she can't win with the people so let's steal the nomination. I sing in the shower and don't pay royalties am I in trouble? If you didn't know her campaign was through this has to be the last nail in her coffin.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  176. Lou - Florida

    Senator Clinton is desparate. She sees the writing on the wall and now she wants the superdelegate votes at ALL costs, she wants FL and MI delegates to be counted and NOW her campaign is childlishly complaining about Obama's speeches being plagarized...
    Grow up Hillary!!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  177. Abdullah Jefri

    I wonder how Hillary can claim that she's for change when she's attempting to inflict on the democratic party what the democrats have been furious about for seven years when Bush won the presidency regardless of the results of the popular vote. This is a rare opportunity for the democratic party to seize the moment when the whole country is in frustration, but if the party hands its leadership to Hillary who seems to hold dear the principle that "Ends justify the means" then the party, and the country, will regret this lost opportunity for a very long, long time.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  178. Alex, Maryland

    Jack, two words: "Old Politics".

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  179. Brad

    Jack, this is exactly why I changed my vote on Super Tuesday from Clinton to Obama. This is exactly the behavior that needs to CHANGE in American politics. I think we are begining to see Clinton's true colors.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  180. H. L. Adams

    If the supper deligates dont make indeprmdence choices and goes along with the people choice, then what are the super deligate for anyway.
    Seantor Clinton is not only running against obama she is also is running the media.
    H. L. Adams

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  181. Doug from NYC

    Hey Cafferty, if we are so concerned with "the rules", then what are "the rules" as regards superdelegates? Are we now supposed to impose what WE think should be right and proper, or should we simply go by what the DNC –who actually MAKE the rules– says on the subject?

    And what if one candidate ends up with more pledged delegates, but fewer popular votes? Remember, no candidate with less than 2025 total delegates can win the election.

    The real question is: If superdelegates are bound to vote the way their state, or district, or whatever votes, why do they even exist? It makes no sense whatsoever. But all of the sudden I see people like Cafferty wanting to impose their own belief systems. As far as I'm concerned, if the superdelegates are and have always been free to vote how they choose, then butt out and quit trying to CHANGE THE RULES!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  182. Del Young

    I just don't trust Hillary Clinton, and this just reinforces my gut feeling!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  183. sam, nyc, ny

    Clinton relying on Superdelegates makes sense for her because of her ability to influence politicians. However, it makes me want to throw up that she can get away with deals unknown to the public. If the American people indeed choose Obama by a slight majority, there is no way, repeat, NO WAY that Clinton will simply lie down. Gore et al. will need to force her to lay down her arms. I hope that she doesn't do too much damage before that day.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  184. Mary

    Hi Jack – happy Monday. Winning the popular vote should mean you win the popular vote. I do not consider caucus wins to be winning the popular vote. These caucus wins are simply nothing more than Mini delegates (party activists) getting a disproportionate say in who gets the nomination for the state. So, why not let the super delegates decide? Those were the rules imposed by the party at the onset of the race. Why change the rules now?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  185. Charlie in Nahsville

    It means the someone needs to throw Hillary a rope. She is going down for the third time. One thing that Hilllary has that Obama doesn't is a ton of friends and favors to call upon at times like these. If you remove that crutch, she probably will fall. Not to the left, not to the right, but straight down the tubes.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  186. Cathie

    This super delegate system seems to be a bit like the lobbyists both Obama and Clinton seem to be fighting so hard to eliminate. These delegates vote along the lines of special issues or personal preference rather than the American voice. I teach senior English, and it's difficult to inspire the students to get out and vote if what they are voting for could be nullified by a personal preference. Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of the super delegate crisis though, is that despite both candidates campaigning on the platform of decreasing lobbyist influence in Washington, both candidates are courting these super delegates so heavily. Shame on us for requiring them to play this twisted game.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  187. Therese

    Last time I checked, Obama was looking to get as many Superdelgate votes as possible. The reality is Superdelegates exist. The DNC felt it necessary to have them & here they are, so now each one of them just has to decide who to vote for. If they choose to go with Obama, so be it & if they choose to go with Clinton so be it.

    But to say that we shouldn't let the superdelegates choose the candidate, now that is changing the rules of the game in the middle of playing.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  188. Chris

    Could we PLEASE finish the voting process before we get into arguments about superdelegates? What Clinton is saying is that if neither of them have a CLEAR majority of votes or 2,025, then the superdelegates should exercise their independent judgement.

    If you don't want to see the voters' response overturned then count Florida.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  189. Leo

    A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. That's just a reminder of the basic definition of a democracy. I agree with Mr. Obama. The delegates should let the people decide, regardless of which candidate ends up ahead when all the dust has cleared.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  190. Ray

    Let's answer your question with a question. Why have Super Delegates at all if they are just to follow the popular vote? Obviously, the DNC in its infinite wisdom worried about a situation like the one we have today. Think of the spectacle of Kennedy, Kerry and Deval Patrick endorsing Obama but having to follow the MA mandate and vote for Hillary. Let's all grow up and play by the rules initially set out by the creation of the Super Delegates.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  191. RP

    If I were Obama, I would not worry about the superdelegates. Those people are not idiots and they can see the polls of head-to-head match-ups like everyone else. It is abundantly clear that if the democrats want to win the general election, their nominee MUST be Obama (he wins against McCain in every poll and Clinton loses against him in every poll). The superdelegates will swing the right way. So I say, let them decide.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  192. Thomas

    It Means she's losing supporters and rightfully so

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  193. James Halverson

    Hillary's reliance on super delagates means that she hasn't reaad or doesn't understand Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; the last ine of which reaads ...—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  194. MBacon06

    I think the superdelegates better be more concerned with voicing the will of the American People rather than the will of the candidates. I think it would be disenfranchisement of the highest regard if the American People gave their approval for one candidate and the super delegates went to the convention and gave their approval to the other. The American People are TIRED of business as usual when it comes to politics, and at the end of the Day we will remember.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  195. Patricia K. Frederick

    Jack, This means that even her staff is no longer sure she can pull her campaign out of the dumps. I believe that if you need to use super delegates only to win, you sure don't deserve to win. You first must have earned/elected delegates per the "Peoples" wishes.

    Her ideas are old and yesterday's news. Most of us believe that we need change and not another member of a dynasty to serve (themselves).

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  196. Joey from San Antonio, Texas

    It means, in some sense, that the system is working. The superdelegates are there to do what's in the best interest of the party, and at some level they've come to realize that if they overrule the popular outcome, it will tear the Democratic party apart and perhaps even destroy it.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  197. cynthia pope

    What it means is she is behind!! If she were ahead in popular vote and delegates she would say the opposite.
    Mrs. Clinton has run a horrible campaign. With 20 years of name recognition and a built in ground game she is behind. Obama had to start from nothing and showed he can organize and bring people together. If Mrs. Clinton runs the country like she has her campaign, we are in deep trouble.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  198. k.estes

    It doesnt matter much as it is not over yet. Hillary's comments do not compare to the amount of contributions made by Obama to super delegates.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  199. Zahava day

    It appears that everyone is happy to change only those rules that will affect Hillary negatively.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  200. Linda Gehron

    It means, as always, that Hillary Clinton wants the written rules to apply when it seems they could work in her favor, such as allowing superdelegates to vote as they please rather than respect the vote of the people, and doesn't want the rules to apply when they won't help her such as demanding that Michigan and Florida delegates be seated when they held their primaries in violation of DNC rules by which she agreed to abide, when Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballot, and when no one was allowed to campaign in those states.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  201. Jessica Fields

    What this means is that Hillary has lost all democratic morality in this race. She can't honestly believe that allowing Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people is the right way to go. I'm willing to wager that if she were in Obama's position, we would be seeing an uproar over the suppression of the people...maybe like she's creating now with Michigan and Florida.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  202. Bharat

    Jack, It means that even her supporters agree that she needs the help of a smoke filled room and rich elitists to chose the democratic party's nominee. Its bad enough she carries so much baggage coming into this. If she wins by the means of superdelegates, the independents will flock to John McCain, and we will have four more years of what we had for the past eight years.
    Bharat, New Brunswick, NJ

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  203. Jim Garza

    I believe it's way too early to decide what the voters want. Sure Obama has won more states... but it isn't over and we are looking at the larger, more democratic needed states for the general election. What we should do is have the primaries for every state on the same day. It's fair, it's sensible and we would have a winner by now... Hillary.
    It's just more of the same process that continues to split the public and the party.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  204. ozie of ct

    poor clinton's and you know I mention clintons, because it seems as if this race for the oval office has turned into a tag team match,
    hillary is always talking about the will of the people, will then let the will of the people's vote take its course and the chips fall where they may.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  205. Duane Spencer

    Jack, It seems clear to me again the will of the people is comes in second, 1st is to do or say what ever it takes to get elected. Then the candidate will do what they want, or paid to do by "big money", the people will not be heard.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  206. Chelsea from Omaha, NE

    It means the superdelegates don't feel they should have the right to take away the democratic right of the American people. In this hotly contested, emotionally-charged race, a third-party decision would only escalate tensions within the party and among the American people. Hillary's insistence that the superdelegates exercise "independent" judgement and essentially defy the American people of their choice is yet another example of her polarizing form of party politics.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  207. Tom C

    I think that some of Hillary's supporters are finally starting to see what we anti-Hillary folks have known all along. The fact that she thinks that the "Super Delegates" should over-ride the will of the voters shows that the Clintons have always been interested only in representing themselves.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  208. Barry

    John in NC wrote:
    Not all of her allies are questioning her use of super delegates. Lanny Davis was interviewed on CNN last week and defended the use of them. He said that that was the rule and that we shouldn’t change the rule in mid stream. The interviwer didn’t ask Lanny if seating the Florida and Michigan delegates was changing the rules in mid stream.

    Hmmm. Don't change the rules, except for Florida and Michigan...

    There it is, there.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  209. Robert from Houston

    What it means is that her supporters, many of whom prematurely endorsed the presumed nominee, are now realizing that their constituents support Senator Obama. They know that to anoint a nominee in contrast to the will of the voters would not only alienate the people who put them in office, but it would disgust the Democratic faithful, such as myself. Only if she gets more pledged delegates, should she be the nominee. If Obama finishes ahead of Clinton in delegates, and she is nominated by the politicians, I will, without doubt or hesitation, vote for John McCain. Robert from Houston, TX.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  210. janet

    Jack –

    Why are you always picking on Hillary Clinton? Her reliance on superdelegates doesn't come close to what the Obama camp is doing. If you go to his website you'll find that the names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of each superdelegate are posted, encouraging voters to contact these delegates. If this isn't over the top I'd like to know what is. If you'll do your research – you'll find that he's stealing pages from Hillary's script. You owe it to your viewers to be right as well as fair.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  211. KP

    Obama represents change. Clinton is becoming increasingly willing to use what ever means she deems necessary to win, is more and more negative and demonstrating her desparation to become the annoited one. The popular vote should prevail not the whim of "superdelegates" who get dressed the same way I do everyday–one leg at a time! What ever happened to of, by and for the people?????

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  212. Ali

    Jack,

    This is my first time to vote, and you can't believe how much I want to vote and how much i follow this election. However, superdelagates choose who should win, then I WILL NEVER VOTE AGAIN.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  213. David - Franklin, LA

    Jack,
    It seems as though the allies of Hillary Clinton have finally awakened and realized that if the Superdelegates override the will of the People, then the Democratic Party will be destroyed and Hillary Clinton will NOT win the General Election anyway!!! She is ruthless and unscrupulous so I am glad to see that she has some allies that have enough gumption to tell her and the other Superdelegates the TRUTH!!! She will NEVER win the Presidency if she tries to override the will of the PEOPLE!!!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  214. Renald

    Hillary is in trouble, and she knows it!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  215. Ashok from Washington D C

    How many of your respondents know the rules set by DNCC for superdelegates? Hillary is telling what the rules are. If Barack's groupies don't want to listen to the facts from Hillary, may be he needs to deliver a Politics 101 speech.
    A lot of respondents so far seem like barking dogs every time even the next possible president Hillary's name is mentioned. These are the same people who are supposedly led by Barack's call for unity across the nation.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  216. steven Tampa

    It goes down to he old way of doing business in washington. They know whats best for the people. This is a sign of power hunger. It reminds me of a kingdom mentality, tell the people whats good for them. It sounds like Musharaf in pakistan twisting peoples hands.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  217. Tarik Arram

    I think it just goes to show how transparent the Clinton campaign is in trying to shape the rules in there favor. Hillary has flip flopped on the issue of MIchigan and Florida only because she is losing now and must try whatever to win! People finally are waking up and realizing that Hillary doesnt want what is good for the country. But only what will put HER in the White house in November

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  218. Eric

    Here's the thing Jack – there were no "rules" per se on how Super Delegates are to vote as the Cinton team would like you to believe. Basically, they were set up as a sorta final check to ensure some crazy or some scandal prone nominee didn't slip through the cracks. So if theory if a candidate won the pledged delegates and popular votes, but we discovered in between the win and before the convention that he or she was a drug addict – the super delegates could step in and over turn the decision. Absent this, they should in fact follow the guidance of the democratic party and exercise their judgement in making the decision. And I might add, that judgement should be to follow the will of the people unless there is a compelling reason not to.

    The Clinton team's pressure on the super delegates to decide now is a shameful act contrived only to secure the nomination for an ambitious, power hungry, and selfish couple who believe that the presidency is their right and they alone can save America.

    Eric

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  219. Ann South Carolina

    I think it means she is desperate and will do and/or try anything to get the nomination she thought was unquestionably hers.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  220. Nick Johnston - Denver, CO

    Lets be honest, not only are Clinton's allies worried, they see the trend, and that trend is Obama. If Hillary is simply relying on her so called, political clout she will run out of time, and soon. I think it has become quite evident that Obama has a full head of steam and shows no signs of letting up. As we have seen this weekend alone, Clinton knows she is struggling and is trying to pull out all the stops. These dirty politics will get her no where and she will continue to lose allies who are looking to unify the party.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  221. Tom

    It means two of my three Congress members (Representative Charlie Rangel and Senator Schumer) are small "d" democrats as well as big "D" Democrats. Hopefully the third (Senator Clinton) will find her small "d" democrat core as well.

    Tom
    Harlem
    New York

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  222. Peggy Kruse

    It means they want the Democratic Party nominee to be selected by the Republicans and Independents who have been voting for Obama. I think all the superdelegates should wait until just before the convention and see what the siuation is then. They can change their minds anyway, why bother to declare now?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  223. CliffinWA

    In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the nomination process even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state.. Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules. The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election. Instead they let Clinton take the heat.
    No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now. But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!
    Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences. They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or the voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.
    We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote, I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact. God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality involving (not counting) Florida! I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s). Truth hurts? Grow up!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  224. David

    Superdelegates represent the 19th century model of choosing nominees. The whole point of primaries and caucuses when they were founded was to take the nomination process out of the hands of the officials of political parties and to put the power in the hands of the citizens who are members of those parties. This superdelegate phenomenon is one of the last vestiges of the anti-democratic features of our political parties. For the sake of democracy, both parties should change their bylaws, and hand the decision making process over to their members.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  225. Brent Taylor

    Hillary agreed that the delegates would not be seated but now that she is trailing she wants them back in the seats because it benefits her?? What kind of character does this show? She cannot care about the will of the people if she goes against the majority ,it's that pure and simple! Is this what we want for a commander and chief for the next 4 years another "which ever way the wind blows President" that puts their own self interest 1st before the American people? If this happens I call for all Democrats to sit home and not vote!

    Brent from NY

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  226. william fitzwater , ca

    There are in politics all sorts of ways to pervert the will of the people . A example is the years 2000 where the majority of the people voted for Gore but Bush won instead. In politics personal conscience often takes a seat to opportunists who don’t care about what is right but what their buddies want or worse what can be bought sold and packaged as fact. The web has bought about a change for the better where people ideas can be heard.
    I guess I am going to borrow some words for the prisoner television series “ By the people for the people. “ “ I guess this takes on a entirely new meaning .”
    Lastly the wineners will inherit the world . Let the wineing begin.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  227. Jason Collins

    Jack,
    I think it is a clear sign of where the country has been shifting. Clinton can try as she may to trivialize this movement, but it is real and it is bigger than she knows.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  228. carolyn

    Yes, and it is about time. Hillary is also questioning her self by going this route which shows that she is WEAK!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  229. Mike from Fairfax, VA

    Jack,

    The Clinton campaign is sinking. Pure desperation. Since around the time of the DC area primaries Clinton and her campaign have been using EVERYTHING they can to try and get back on their feet. It won't happen. Keep up the good commentary.

    Mike

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  230. Dariel

    We still have 18 more states that haven't voted. Could we possibly wait to get upset over this until all the votes are in?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  231. Nadine Price

    Jack..
    .I am beginnibng to believe that the Clinton's are the type that will do anything to win. We don't need anymore dirty polititions leading this country.

    Let's put the Bush's and the Clinton's aside and move on..

    The more I see of Hillary the more I like Obama. (I used to be a Clintonite. )

    If the super delegates go along with Clinton they are shameful!

    The peoples voice should be what counts..Nadine in Idaho

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  232. Dwayne

    Finally, democrats are waking up and seeing that the Clintons are still the same couple who will do anything for power, even go against the will of the American public. Return to the 90's, please what do we want another 8 years of divisive politics that lead to 8 years of another George Bush type. Let's hope that our leaders finally understand that our desire for change is stronger then our loyalty to them.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  233. Sandy

    It means there aren't too many people who have the courage to think independently. Unfortunately, our primary process has become more about media-driven momentum and rhetoric than substance. And apparently, large numbers of voters eat whatever their fed.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  234. Christina

    Jack...what is this democracy coming to? The only thing "super" about the Superdelegates is stupidity. We, the people, will decide who will win the Democratic nomination....thank you, very much! Yes we can!!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  235. Steve Corneliussen

    Hillary Clinton put together a great campaign, got all the right inside support, all the right endorsements, and everything was fine... until people started voting. The Superdelegates will ultimately follow the people, if the Democrats want to win in November. Being qualified to be President does not ENTITLE you to be President. You have to get actual votes, which means you have to be likable. All the insider support in the world can not help you if you don't get votes.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  236. Carol

    Dear Jack, I heard Schumer say that the Democratic candidate would need to be selected by June. That's too late. I think it's already too late. The Democrats I know, generally Obama supporters, have decided that they could have voted for EITHER candidate in the general election a month ago–not now. I suspect that many Obama supporters will not vote for Hillary. I won't. Howard Dean et al. should do something sooner rather than later.

    Where's Ralph Nader when you actually need him??

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  237. Josh in Bethlehem, PA

    It means the Democrats are petrified that the nomination will go to the convention. And so they should be! If the Democratic nominee is NOT the candidate who has the support of most of the party, it could alienate the base and really put the brakes on the energy and turn-out the Democratic primaries have thus far inspired.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  238. Jimmy T - Alaska

    Hilliarys desperate. Now relying on superdelegates JUST cause shes leading with superdelegates

    February 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  239. A Becker

    Jack, Jack, you and your other media gurus settle down.. wait for
    the primary and caucus results, before stirring the people up about
    the super delegates or some other shady back-room deal.
    It has been much worse in years past. Besides, let the party
    loyalists and hardcore pick their party choices and we the people
    who vote in November, will have our final say.

    ABecker Minnesota

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  240. Larry

    Jack,
    Hillary doesn't want change and her comments show exactly whats wrong with government. The people's will doesn't matter. There has been a Bush or Clinton in office for the last 28 years, and I want a change! If Hillary wins the nomination I will not vote. I am sick of the backdoor deals and scandal. Enough is enough!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  241. Phoebe

    Jack,

    The democratic process is to be by the people not 800 who get to vote twice once in the primaries and again at the convention. No one is entitle to two votes or two bites at the one apple.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  242. Tim

    Jack, it means that all politicians are not blithering idiots.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  243. James W. Blevins

    I expect that if it comes down to a clear majority of the primaries/caucuses, Clinton and the super-delegates will go along. The question only makes sense when the difference in normal delegates is mainly in the noise level. The real problem is the entire concept of having a check if the people decide wrong - unfortunately, there is no better check. As has been said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".

    Jim, Craig, CO

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  244. Eric Williams

    The fact that Mrs. Clinton is willing to disregard the peoples' will shows that she isn't concerned with anything other then winning. So now the people have to ask themselves is this who we want in the WhiteHouse?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  245. Delcontee

    Jack,
    Super Delegates or not, if Clinton is our democratic nominee, I will be forced to vote for McCain. Hillary will do anything to win. I am a full blooded democrat. Thanks very much for your program.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  246. James of VA

    This posistion shows that all of Clinton's talk of 'closing the delegate gap' in TX, OH, and PA is something even she doesn't really believe is really.

    I must admit, however, that there is absolutely no chance this will get to the DNC floor – most of the super delagates are elected officals who won't want to be seen overturning the will of the people. I mean, can you imagine if you Govornor or Congressman told you "I know the people voted for Obama, but you voted wrong so we're going to do what i want instead." That's what they do in Russia and China. They'd be out the next time they come up for elections in the US guarenteed.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  247. Frank Pulice

    The actions of the Clinton Campaign this past week brings to mind the image of rats fleeing a sinking ship in a desperate attempt for survival.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  248. dan

    I feel that if Obama can keep his lead of at least 100 or more pledged delegates by the very last caucus or primary, then perhaps he should get the nomination no matter happens with the superdelegates. However, if Hilary can come close by winning Texas, Ohio and Penn. and cut into Obama's lead of total pledged delegates, then the superdelegates should definitely be called upon to decide. I have no problem with letting the superdelegates decide if it comes down to Obama 1900 and Clinton 1800 pledged delegates, that is extremely close and probably has never happened before. I know Obama has the "monument" but in terms of total delegates, it's not a blow out at all. In fact if Hilary wins the next 3 big states, her argument would be that she has won ALL the big states.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  249. Maria, Texas

    Hillary and Bill will do anything to win.

    1) In Nevada, Clintons filed a lawsuit to prevent casino workers likely to support Obama from voting.
    2) She agreed at the beginning of democratic nomination process that the Florida and Michigan primaries should not count. Now she claims they should count.
    3) The argument about the Super Delegates is more of the same.

    Everywhere the Clintons go, a cloud of mistrust, scandal and legalistic arguments follow.

    The country needs to try something new.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  250. Moria Saviola

    Jack It is quite obvious why Senator Clinton wants to take this election to the superdelegates,she is desperate and power hungry and knows she is about to lose this election.The American people will go ballistic if this were to happen.So bring it on Hillary!!! We are ready for a good fight.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  251. Monis Ronald

    Well, If the democrats were to let the super delegates decide this nomination. Most democrats would be turned off and would never participate in the presidential primaries again. Clinton is the type of woman who will do anything to get elected. I am ashamed of what's going on with those superdelegates and i hope they will follow the will of the people not backroom deals.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  252. Colleen Witt

    The fact that Hillary could even suggest that an elite should override the vote of the people is unbelievable. While I am a fervent supporter of Senator Obama, I have until now considered Hillary an acceptable second choice. However, with this latest display of what must be her true colors, I cannot imagine voting for her in the event that she strong arms the democratic party and undermines the very democratic process she purports to represent. I will feel compelled to instead vote for McCain.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  253. Paul

    To me it means what we've always known, that Hillary Clinton is exactly what Barak Obama claims she is: part of the same old problem and therefore unable to bring about the change that so many Americans are desperately trying to bring and adamntly voicing their desire for.

    When George Bush was elected President, Democrats the nation over were infuriated over the results, citing that Al Gore won the popular vote. Should Hillary get the nomination solely because of her dependence on the super delegates, what does this tell the record number of young voters out there?

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  254. Dee from Texas

    I can't believe that Hilliary thinks she doesn't have to have the majority of support from the people and get the nomination. Hilliary is obsessed with the presidency. She and Bill's attitudes scare me, they are not acting like professional adults. They are taking this race too serious and they are putting their integrity on the line to get there.. Before this race is over they will be INTEGRITLESS!

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  255. Tony

    Hillary is just showing her stripes, yet again, that she doesn't care about the people. The only thing she cares about is her political future and need for greater power. For her to be calling on super delegates to vote independently instead of how the people have voted goes to show that she does not understand how a democracy works. It also shows how desperate she is for her political future. It has gotten so bad that her most ardent supporters are calling her on it. That is truly desperate when they have to put her in her place. This shows how she will govern and why she should not shame the Democratic party by being its nominee.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  256. Kathleen

    Not fair Jack.
    For days now you and other CNN media have been reporting that both sides have been courting Super Delegates. So your question, begs the question: why are you so negative against Hillary. If she were relying upon Super Delegates only to win the nomination she would have stopped campaigning-which she has'nt done. Then again, neither has Obama. Also according to John King's map-either candidate could win every single primary from here on in and still there would be a tie. So whether we like it or not, this election is going to the August Convention where Super Delegates are free to vote their conscience. It was set up that way so they are in effect the tie breakers.

    Kathleen
    NJ

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  257. Paula M.

    It means they have found a way to jump a sinking ship. It also means they have a lot more intregrity than she has and are not going to go along with her "half-brain" idea to steal the election. I am glad this problem has come up regarding superdelegates and Michigan and Florida. It shows just what kind of substance she is made of. NOT MUCH !!

    Paula CA

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  258. Sandy

    It means there aren't too many people who have the courage to think independently. Unfortunately, our primary process has become more about media-driven momentum and rhetoric than substance. And apparently, large numbers of voters eat whatever they're fed.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  259. Seth Shotwell

    Jack,

    It's politics as usual ... if you can't win fair and square, get your buddies to override the will of the people and steal the election. In my mind, this makes Hillary Clinton no different than George Bush. By hook or crook, win at all costs. Meanwhile Obama gets blasted for evoking the ideals and and thoughts of the greatest Americans in our history.
    If this was a backyard football game, Hillary would be threatening to take her ball and go home. I think it might be time for her to take her Bill and do just that. More proof that she is just the same old thing in a bright yellow pantsuit.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  260. Bill DeBoard

    Please pass along my disapproval of the super-delegate concept which implies the inferiority of us elected delegates.

    If we can’t abolish the super-delegate system, the Democratic Party at least ought to require that super-delegates apportion their votes to match the proportions of the elected delegates in caucus states, or the election results in ballot states.

    It is disappointing and very undemocratic to learn that the caucus system can be hijacked by an allegedly elite group after the people have spoken at caucuses and at state elections.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  261. Diego Torres of Dearborn, MI

    Hilary is obviously advocating the only conduct that will win her the Democratic Candidacy. It is sad to see someone who pontificates her substantial history of change, attempt to dismiss our country's wish to change from a monarchy into a country for the will of the people. by overriding votes Not to mention she hopes these people's votes that she disregarded would elect her into the White House in November. Hilary does not deserve to be President of the United States because her conduct is that of "the ends justify the means". She does not care how she gets into the White House or who she has to trample along the way.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  262. David Grelle

    Jack,
    I probably can't say anything that hasn't been said before, but i think we are watching her campaign implode. I have always maintained that with her as the nominee we would have a really ugly general election campaign. She is a lightening rod for the vicious element in the republican party. I believe America is beginning to see that inspriation is what we need right now. Obama is the light at the end of the tunnel, and I firmly believe that he is well on his way to the presidency.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  263. joslyn

    if her own supporters are questioning rather she can do important things now then they and the non-supporters will question rather she could do important things if she became president.

    February 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  264. Eric

    Hi Jack,
    Jack, are you a superdeligate? Maybe you need to be the chairman of Democratic party and replace Howard Dean so that you can bring changes in this party.

    Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

    February 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm |