FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A group of high-profile Hillary Clinton supporters is going after Nancy Pelosi.
Nearly 20 Clinton donors sent a letter to the House Speaker, criticizing her for her recent suggestion that the Democratic superdelegates should not overturn the election results. Pelosi has said it would hurt the Democratic Party if the superdelegates did not support the candidate who ends the race with the most pledged delegates. The Clinton donors want Pelosi to "clarify" her position.
The letter says Pelosi's take is at odds with the party's original intent on the role of superdelegates, those nearly 800 party insiders and elected officials who will likely decide the outcome of this race. The Clinton donors insist the superdelegates should look at a whole range of factors to help them decide who will be the party's strongest nominee in November.
Pelosi hasn't endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Her office responded to this letter saying, "As chair of the convention, she is neutral and her position has remained the same throughout the primary season." She also repeated her position that the superdelegates should not "overturn the will of the voters."
The Obama campaign says the letter from Clinton donors is "inappropriate” and calls on the Clinton campaign to "reject the insinuation contained in it."
Here’s my question to you: Do you agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Yes, they should. That's the will of the people and if they get to overturn what voters decide, why bother with the process of primaries and caucuses at all? If the Democratic Party chooses to ignore democracy, many of us Democrats will choose to become independents and ignore the party.
Brian from Los Angeles writes:
Normally I would say yes. But this year, where the rules have been set unreasonably by the DNC in disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, I would say a resounding no… The superdelegates should take all factors into account in deciding who should be their nominee. Right now, Hillary looks to be the more capable nominee in November than Barack.
Bob from Traverse City, Michigan writes:
After the fine job Ms. Pelosi has done of fulfilling those campaign promises since becoming Speaker of the House, I'm amazed she has the gall to speak in public about anything. Both she and Senator Reid would serve their party well by staying out of sight and out of mind until the election is done!
No. If the superdelegates are supposed to just mirror the pledged delegates, why not just have more pledged delegates, or lower the number of pledged delegates needed to get the nomination to 50% plus 1? Although the concept seems fatally flawed, it appears that the superdelegates were created to save the party from itself by preventing the nomination of a popular, but essentially unelectable/unqualified candidate.
Lisa from Jackson, Tennessee writes:
Of course the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most delegates. It's only fair. If Hillary Clinton had more delegates and popular votes than Obama, this question wouldn't be asked.
I am not sure if I agree with the House Speaker, but if it helps Obama win, then I am for it.
Yes, since the voters should determine the nomination, not the 'party bosses'. Also, in terms of stopping the bloodletting in the party, her stance is not only in the best interests of democracy, but in the best interests of the party. The only person that has a gripe with her stance is Hillary, only because Hillary is on the losing end of the pledged delegate count. If she was in the lead, she would be in complete agreement with her and kissing Pelosi's feet.
No Jack, that is changing the rules to suit the candidate.
No !! Why should the superdelegates collectively "run off the cliff"?
and I wouldn't agree with much that Nancy Pelosi recommends.
She has been a great disappointment to me as well as a lot of other people.
You know, these superdelegates are given total control over who they choose to vote for in the convention. Please, just let them DO it !!
Its tough coming up with new questions for us every day, isn't it Jack?
Absolutely. If the superdelegates nominate the candidate with the lower number of delegates, this year's Democratic convention might as well be in Chicago in 1968.
SUPERDELAGATES SHOULD TAKE A HIKE!!!! THE ENTIRE
ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A JOKE! IF WE WERE SERIOUS
ABOUT TRUE REPRESENTATION WE WOULD ABIDE BY THE
ONE MAN ONE VOTE PROCESS.
Do you agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates?
I think Superdelegates should be done away with, and then the people's voice would rule anyway. Just a thought.
No, they should not.
Superdelegates need to evaluate the candidates on which can bring overall success to the party. This does not translate to merely the Presidential race but to state houses, governships and congress.
While Clinton focuses on just the "important" states, Obama considers all states as "important". Clinton could win in November, but the makeup of congress, et al, remains virtually the same. Obama could lose in November, but the democrats actually gain statehouses, congresspersons, etc.
One final note.... Clinton will NOT win in November.
Yes. It would be a disaster to overturn the popular vote, pledged delegates and enormous fundraising by small donors to a clique of party insiders. Contrary to the wishes of the Hillary extortion team of 20 large donors, this election is not for sale. It is NOT business as usual. One thing that should be obvious is that the Democrats have a well deserved reputation as the gang who can't seem to shoot straight.
Not this time!
Yes, I agree that the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. I also think Hillary should get out and pledge to help the frontrunner, Barack Obama, before the legacy of the Clintons leaves them with the same legacy of Baby Bush–the title of destroyer of truths.
The super delegates should not simply serve as validators of the presidential preference primary. They can and should show independent judgment. If the popular choice is not someone they feel is able to serve as President or serves the interests of the Democratic Party then they should not be compelled to vote for him or her.
That being said, there is no reason any truly 'undecided' superdelgate should not vote for Barack Obama should he still maintain a significant lead after the final contest. He has shown that he can be a capable and effective President no matter what Hillary says about him. Certainly he isn't the dark horse candidate feared by those who established the superdelegates nearly 30 years ago.
Not that there are many true 'undecideds' left I. Most of the remaining SDs are leaders like Dean, Reed, Pelosi, Gore and Edwards who because of their position of authority and influence cannot be seen as favoring either candidate even though in their heart of hearts, they do.
Jack; Nancy Pelosi has no control over who the superdelegates ultimately vote for after all the people have had their "say" in the primaries. Just because she is the current Speaker of the House gives her no authority other them.
I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves here. Why should these superdelegates virtually "run off the edge of the cliff" when their sole purpose is to bring the whole mess to a reasonable conclusion in Aug in Denver. What's the rush? Just because you folks in the media can't actually control the outcome. ?? You sure could have fooled me.
Most of you folks in the media bend so far back its amazing you can see anything straight up. Mary from Sarasota, FL
Yes, the superdelegates should cast their votes with the majority of elected delegates, but not because that should be any Democratic policy. They should do so to give any credence at all to the primary elections and to respect the voters who participated.
Jack, yes they should because it is the will of the people who cast their vote and are electing the next president of the United States.
The superdelegates should vote their conscience as intended by the Democratic Party. Nobody cares what Nancy Pelosi has to say anyway. Last I checked her ratings were about 25% favorable. This is the most we have heard out of her since before she became House Speaker.
If Hillary were in the lead would anyone even ask this question? What happened to fair and balanced? Former San Francisco mayor Brown has said it quite eloquently many times, this is the process that has been used and working since the 80's." Obama is fond of stating he has played by the rules, at least the ones that benefit his campaign. The rules are that superdelegates vote their conscience and are not beholden to any vote. By the way Jack, the same rules apply to delegates, the are not beholden to the voters. In asking this question would the expectation be that Kerry and the Kennedys would then switch to voting for Clinton since she won their state handily?
Absolutely not.They were not created for that purpose.They should go to the most electable and that would be Sen. Clinton.She is smarter than Obama and McCain put together.If you want to give the election to Obama why have an election. Joe Muscle shoals, Alabama
The superdelegates have a duty to wrap this up and soon! And overturning the will of the peoples is probably the most stupid way the Democrat party could scuttle the November race. Now if you are Hillary Clinton and are playing for a second chance in 2012 that fine with you but the rest of us might have a problem with that. If the Clintons don't know the meaning of the words "Graceful exit" it time somebody explain it to them.
Of course they should. Why else have an election. If Clinton had her way the nomination would simply be conducted by Democratic Party insiders.
That means they are doing what the American people want. It would be a sad thing if they switched to Clinton and go against what the people choice was. Obama will by far have more Supers than her so yes indeed they should support the peoples choice. Hillary should do the right thing and step aside so that the Democrats can unite.
Yes I do agree with her. The ideal outcome would have been if one of the candidates recieved the required amount of superdelegates to win but since neither of them can do this mathematically, the next step should be for the superdelegates to back up whomever has the most pledged delegates and the most states. This thing about only counting big states is discrimination. Smaller states count too. Hasn't this every happened in our history of running for the presidency? If so what was done then. I don't think that changing the entire nomination process to suit Hillary is the answer. If she had the most delegates she would be ok with this process.
Technically the superdelegates should NOT choose sides based solely on the popular vote or pledged delegates because that was not the reason the superdelegates were created. However if they are smart, they will realize that violating the voters' choice will literally rip the party in half, especially in the wake of the 2000 Florida fiasco. This is a very sore spot for Democrats these days and after the superdelegates take the wise choice and back the candidate with the most votes and delegates, they should promptly be done away with.
Only if it is Barack Obama. If Hillary won the most pledged delegates by some strange horror, then they should break ranks and elect Obama. The last thing we need is a President with delusions of Sniper Fire dancing in her head.
First of all,there so be no such thing as "Superdelegates". Next delegates should be doled out according to the vote in each state. Finally,delegates should have the right to change their minds and vote for whomever they want. Remember,this is supposed to be a democracy where one person,one vote is supreme and no one can tell you how to vote.
Well, that would defeat the purpose of having super-delegates, wouldn't it? If the situation was reversed and Obama was behind in pledged delegates would you be asking the same question?
Has Senator Obama offered you the position of press secretary?? You are a shoo-in.
No, the super delegates should vote for the one who they think can do the job not for who they think will win. This is not high school popular people get other to do their work, this is the Presidency to qualified capable people need to face each other in November.
Yes, during the time that this rule of super delegates was developed, information was not as easily accessible as it is now and the party couldn't rely on the people to make the "right" decision. People who vote today have enough information to decide on their own who will best represent them. Committee members who are suppose to represent the people of their party should trust them enough to do so.
Yes, that's why we voted...we ALL voted. Now we want those votes to mean something.
We played by the rules, we embraced the grass roots movement, we are fired up and ready to go. We are sooooo ready to go.
Can we just get on with it?
Patricia in Idaho
I agree with her totally. The voters have spoken, and to deny the will of the voters is to create a government of absolute majority instead of the Government of the people. To ignore the will of the voters for their own selfish political purposes or advancements, hampers, oppresses, or debars the voters from equal privileges and equal rights - and if the political delegates don't support the candidate with the most pledged delegates, it will mark the beginning of the failure of our constitutional system.
No one can dictate what the superdelegates should or shouldn't do it is their responsibility to do their job according to the Party rules without any intervention from any one period
I agree with Barack when he said that the superdelegates should vote the way the voters of their states did.
And then Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson would have to vote for Clinton.
Jack, we are not talking about two old white men. We are talking about the first African American or woman President. The superdelegates have to back the person with the most pleged delegates, states won, and popular vote, anything else would look dirty and would destroy the democratic party. Hillary has to step down, she is only hurting her party now. Maybe next time she will plan for the states after Feb. 5th, which is where Obama ran up the delegate score on her.
No definitely not. The popular vote should determine our president.
First of all,there should be no such thing as "Superdelegates". Next,delegates should be doled out according to the percentage of the vote in each state. Finally,delegates should have the right to change their minds and vote for whomever they want. Remember,this is supposed to be a democracy where one person,one vote reigns supreme and no one can tell you how to vote.
There shouldn't be "superdelegates" Jack. It's as if their votes are counted 2 or 3 times more than a pledged delegate's vote counts. I'm glad Donna Brazil doesn't want to be used by either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton. She's got the right idea, let the pledge delegates deal with this at the convention.
I think they should for the reason that hillary thinks that she should be the nominee because of her name I think that is wrong and the super (people) can send her a strong message when they recomend Obama
I think the headlines and the articles got mixed up and lost....
Normally I would say yes. This year, where the rules have been set unreasonably by the DNC in disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, I would say resounding no. Now that we know a lot more about Barack and his associations with Rezko, Rev. Wright, his intention of leaving a bloodbath in Iraq, and his equal determination to nearly double Capital Gains taxes to 28%, I am sure many reasonable minded democrats that once voted for the candidate that currently has the most delegates, regret their choice and would rather vote for Hillary or McCain.
The superdelegates should take all factors into account in deciding who should be their nominee, right now Hillary looks to be the more capable nominee in November then Barack.
I don't care. I am sick of the bickering and keep it up and we will have 4 more years of the Bush policies with Old McCain and his running mate, Liberman. They need to change the whole enchilida and just have the names on the ballot in Nov and we go vote and whoever comes out ahead is the new leader. Over and done with and not have all this mess going on.
Superdelegates need to follow and ethical or moral tradition that is seemingly missing in Politics these days – do the right thing – a catch phrase and title of a Spike Lee movie.
If Obama has the popular vote, and has the regular delegates derived from caucuses and primaries, then it should be an easy matter. Clearly any Superdelegate who is uncommitted now has the right, as Richardson did, to say that they are siding with Obama, and likewise for Clinton, and they will have to explain themselves to their statewide organizations.
But the idea that somehow either candidate should try to "fix" things before the convention, without any sort of a "rules committee" mandate, is scary in a democratic republic as ours, where "openness" is said to keep us between the countries like Pakistan, Russia, and North Korea. I'm sure its scary for Ms. Clinton to be on the ropes like this in the 10th round of a 10 round fight with no knockout in sight, but she needs to do what is honorable – what both her and her Husband have always claimed was honorable, and let the DNC rules dictate how all of this comes down.
If Speaker Pelosi would bother to clean out her email in box, she may find out exactly what the American people think about this election (and her, too). As to the superdelegates, I think they should vote according to the popular vote in their respective states. If elections are going to be decided by the politicians and not the voters, then why did I bother to get up so early to stand in line to register my opinion via the ballot box? Next time I'll just sleep in.
Yes, though I would add the most pledged delegates by their constituency (if applicable).
But this is the wrong question, Jack. The superdelegates should be abolished and the primary and general election system changed. After all, our founding fathers created the Electoral College as a sort of American version of the House of Lords. Perhaps they thought "the masses are asses," I don't know. But today things are quite different.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, is dead on in proposing an overhaul of America's presidential election laws, saying the current dispute over delegates in Florida and Michigan has exposed a flawed nominating system in need of reform. His proposal of six rotating interregional primaries that "will give large and small states a fair say in the nomination process" is exactly what we need. The regional primaries would be conducted on dates ranging from March to June. The dates would initially be set by a lottery system for the 2012 election and would rotate positions in successive elections. He also seeks to award the presidency based on the popular vote result, instead of via the Electoral College – a reform that will require a stand-alone bill since it would require an amendment to he Constitution.
It is the smartest thing I have heard out of Florida for a long, long time!
House Speaker Pelosi is a democrat. Of course she's going to say that. If she were a monarchist, an elitist, or a fascist she would have other options. I think democracy suits her. She's pretty cute and she wears it well.
No let Hillary have it and watch the Democratic party go down in Flames. Since we don't have anyone worth voting for we the people should get some fun out of this.
Absolutely! And the Clinton campaign donors letter to Speaker Pelosi on the Superdelegate issue is a blatent threat and an attempt to force their position by insuating they are owed a cheat in this campaign because of their donations to the National party. Shameful!
...It isn't going to matter. Hillary is going down too many people don't like her. Also, she's doing her best to take Barak down with her. Didn't you hear Jack, Sen Obama's pastor said some "wacko" things he can't possibly be a good President now. Too bad for America George Bush's pastor kept his mouth shut...
I guess that depends on the super delegates' answer to this question:
"Would you like to be re-elected?"
What the hell ever happened to counting votes in this country? Obama's lead in the popular vote is huge yet he only has a hundred or so more delegates. If delegates are so important then why not use the same delegate process when electing our congressmen and senators. Let them know how it feels when you win the popular vote and still lose the election. America's election slogan should be, America, where your vote counts.......or does it?
Absolutely, this superdelegate issue is getting way out of hand. Why do we have primaries ? If were going to let the superdelegates determine who the canidate is ? The way we select the canidates to run for president has to change.
I agree completely..
Yes, They should back the candidates with most delegates. That is the whole purpose of having delegates concept.Superdelegates are supposed to support the party and make it stronger versus the opposite party. They need to bypass all their personal preferances and go with whoever wins the most delegates.
It is hard to agree with much Nancy Pelosi says but she might actually be right this time. If the popular vote (of the people) and the pledged delegates choose one canidate the Superdelegates should too!!
"Should we chose the candidate that the most people voted for?"
What sort of democracy do we live in where that is a valid question?
This is yet another example to show how broken our system is. These two parties are not serving any of the people. Of course there should not be any "superdelegates" at all. This is supposed to be a government "by the people" not a bunch of corrupt self-serving bums that are working at keeping their little club in power
Jack, you darn toot'n I agree with Ms. Pelosi. Bob Johnson and 19 other Clinton Hooligan's sent a letter to her to do what? I'm sorry; did we have a “Solutions for the American economy” sign up sheet passed around? Instead of trying to give reminders to Ms. Pelosi, they should remind themselves that their candidate is losing and is not the popular choice! Shame on you Bob and your gang for trying to use your wealth to pressure the Honorable Speaker of the House to change her point of view!
I agree wtih Pelosi. If Obama has most of the delegates, he has the faith of the people. He can bring us back to the intentions of the Founding Father's and The Constitution.
Hillary has shown us that she is willing to do anything or say anything, even openly lie to be president. If she steals the nimination I will leave the Democratic Party.
I believe the process should hold course. I believe Nancy Pelosi turned to the dark side when she took "Impeachment" off the table! I don't believe Nancy Pelosi has done any good for women seeking equality in politics! And she damn sure shouldn't be interfering with the process. There is to much time left and when Obama implodes, the delegates can vote for the best at the convention! Be careful what you ask for!
Can we please change the term from 'super-delegate' to 'super-wimp'. Seriously, if these cry-babies such as Pelosi wanted to end this campaign, they'd vote NOW for Obama and end it immediately. Why don't they do that? They have the power and ability after all. I'll tell you why they don't, its the same reason they ALL continue to support the war, because they are poor leaders without the backbone of an 18-yr old Private in the US military. Hey, super-delegates...you super-suck!
Considering delegates from MI and FL are not being counted, what real weight do pledge delegates hold? Sen Obama's campaign and his prominent supporters worked very hard to quash any re-do of primaries in MI and FL, and will not accept the official results from earlier primaries in these states. Kind of reminds me of Karl Rove and Jeb Bush in 2000. If the Obama campaign is willing to deny the individual rights of those in Mi and FL to win by a flawed election process, why should super-delegates be limited by pledge delegates?
Why not? The Superdelegates should respect the position of the Pledged delegates, and I think Nancy Pelosi is right.
In fact, I don't see any value-adds in the existense of the superdelegates.
All the bickering about who is worthy of the Dem nomination must stop now. Obama is leading in three categories. namely: number of states won, pledged delegates, and popular vote.
If Clinton wants it so bad, then let her have it because she would lose to McSame. In 2012, Obama will have the nomination and win the presdidency.
Jack, mark my word! This is what will happen if Hillary steals the nomination.
SORRY, TAMPA, FL
Normally I would say yes. This year, where the rules have been set unreasonably by the DNC in disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters, I would say a resounding no. Now that we know a lot more about Barack and his associations with Rezko, Rev. Wright, his intention of leaving a bloodbath in Iraq, and his equal determination to nearly double Capital Gains taxes to 28%, I am sure many reasonable minded democrats that once voted for the candidate that currently has the most delegates, regret their choice and would rather vote for Hillary or McCain.
Thank you for posting my comment despite it being negative towards CNN's preferred candidate Barack.
Why doesn't anyone report the obvious, which is trying to make Obama unelectable automatically makes Clinton unelectable? Do they not see that angering the most people who have ever voted for a primary candidate in AMERICAN HISTORY is probably not a good idea? I would absolutely love to see Billary walk out of the convention having stolen the nomination from Obama and then try to wiggle their way to the Presidency.
No. If the superdelegates are supposed to just mirror the pledged delegates, why not just have more pledged delegates, or lower the number of pledged delegates needed to get the nomination to 50% plus 1? Although the concept seems fatally flawed, it appears that the superdelegates were created to save the party from itself by preventing the nomination of a popular, but essentially unelectable/unqualified candidtate. Of course, at the rate they are self-destructing, there may soon be 2 unelectable/unqualified candidates for them to choose from.
Yes, they should. That's the will of the people and if they get to overturn what voters decide, why bother with the process of primaries and caucuses at all. If the democratic party chooses to ignore democracy many of us democrats will choose to become independents and ignore the party.
Well Jack, that would depend on whether or not they plan on remaining in office themselves. Since most of them are elected officials, they should consider that acts of betrayal burn deep in the memories of the "victims"! Perhaps the superdelegates might have to function differently in another election, another year, in different circumstances. But THIS ELECTION YEAR, I think it wise if they reflect the will of the voters and avoid flights of fancy, illusions of omnipotence or "favor-trading"...unless they are retiring from politics and American residency immediately following the Convention.
YES, Jack, I do beleive The Superdelegates should support the Candidate with the most Pledges, I think the Dems. made a big mistake when at the beginning they would not count Fl. and Michigan because they upped the voteing date. They should be counted at all but we all know Clinton and some way she beleives they will change the ruleing and she will win.
As you have noticed, when the negative remarks are made they all start with the Clintons! I hope OBAMA gets in because he is for CHANGE and he can speak to those people over there and help to bring PEACE to this COUNTRY once more! I am from Sebring, Florida.
Jack please ask her whether she is afraid of Hilary not to endores Obama and play this hint game over and over. No. I do not agree with her. If she is right, why the hell Democrats created superdelegates in the first place ? It does not make sense. The duty of the superdelegates is to select the best candidate for the party to win in November. Nancy Pelosi needs to know more about this process within her party.
Nuwan from Houston, Texas
Yes. Enough of the voice(s) of the people has been lost-make that eviscerated-by this Bush-wacky administration, beginning with his Supreme Court selection when so many voters had their votes cast to the four winds in order for this lying Long War idiot-president to nearly destroy everything that's good about America. Yes, don't let those super-delegates trump the voices of the people.
The rules are . . . .
Jack, the race for the Democratic candidate for President is too close, both in terms of elected delegates as well as the popular vote.
If either Clinton or Obama was far in front (as was the case in the GOP race), then I would feel super-delegates should back the Candidate closest to victory. However, in a tight race as we are seeing, I feel super-delegates should use their judgement when choosing the candidate they feel is most electable.
If you are going to let all your votes count then what about Florida and Michigan. Only Dean and the DNC would disenfranchise two of the largest states in this country. Just a tip of the iceberg of what they would do if they had the keys to this country. Good luck business surviving with the Democrats in power, or should I say goodbye business if the taxes go up as must as the Democrats would like.
No. If that's what superdelegates are supposed to do, then why have them at all? We can just do away with them as they are not needed. I also don't see why the rules are going to be changed and have the superdelegates vote in June. The DNC doesn't want to bend the rules when it comes to Michigan and Florida but is willing to break their own rules to control and sway the election of a nominee.
Considering Nancy Pelosi's clout in the Democratic Party, her opinion will likely be given due consideration and is a well-informed opinion. I have a problem with the use of the word "should" when talking about the actions of someone other than oneself. It seems that it would be to the advantage of the superdelegates to go along with the wishes of voters. The bigger question for the superdelegates is which candidate would be best for our country, and there just doesn't seem to be much agreement on that score. We all tend to see the candidates from our own personal perception and it is hard sometimes to understand that the other side may have credibility.
Yes i do, because at this point in the race i think it is clear that we should come to such a respectable conclusion.Especially since the race has turned from speaking on issues affecting the Americans people to one candidate having to address comments made not by himself personally but by his pastor, and the other candidate not clearly saying that you caught me in a lie but i mispoke and as for my tax returns well the are stil in the process of be posted. The people have spoke thus that should be the road the so called super delagates should follow.
After the fine job Ms Pelosi has done of fulfilling those campaign promises since becoming speaker of the house, I'm amazed she has the gall to speak in public about anything. Both her and Senator Reid would serve their party well by staying out of sight and out of mind until the election is done!
I do believe the super delegates have the right to choose the candidate they feel is most fit to lead. That's what they were put in place for. However, because of the way this campaign has played out, it would be damaging to the party if they were to go against the popular vote. With there being no way for Clinton to actually gain the votes needed by the populace, it would be catastrophic if six months from now, after Obama has won in all categories, the public were to feel that back room dealing handed Clinton the nomination. You would see devision all the campaigning on both sides couldn't heal.
Not entirely, Jack. I disagree with the notion that anyone should vote one way or another just because Nancy Pelosi says so.
There are so many factors to figure in. The biggest one being is what the American voter wants. The delegates and superdelegates should keep this in mind when they hold their convention.
Balony – If they offered a decent living wage, without slave hours they might be able to find plenty of workers. That's just alot of propanda. I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of other unflattering reasons why they can't fill those positions. Whatever happened to on the job training? Are they telling us the people in India didn't require training? Why not hire immigrants? So what if they don't speak english, neither can the people they hired in India. Now that the economy is in the tank, I'll bet that will change.
Nancy Pelosi (of California), Ted Kennedy( of Massachusetts), John Kerry(of Massachusetts), Deval Patrick (of Massachusetts), Bill Richardson(of New Mexico), and Harry Reid(of Nevada) are going go against their constituencies?Hillary won Massachusetts, California, Nevada, and New Mexico.Will of the people, remember? Oh wait I forgot the double standard.
YES... this seems to go with the majority rule and if they were to go against that they will have more issues than the Florida Michigan debacle with changing rules mid game so to speak.
What will happened to the 15,000 Iraqis that was finding along side the US slodiers? are they going to turn their guns on the US soldiers? What is their status now?
I think superdelegates should vote how their constituency wants them to vote. This view is politically motivated. If you don't cast the vote your constituency wants, you can find yourself voted out of office (especially the vote the people will actually pay attention to).
No more than the pledged delegates should back the canidate with the most superdelgates. Most superdelegates were selected on a more rational basis than caucases or primary dominated by big money.
How about them all supporting the winner of most of the remaining primaries which will reflect current popularity as opposed to months ago.
The key word here is donors, the same people who take our government from us. What are the democrats thinking? The answer is YES they should support the delegate winner. And to think so-called democrats have been crying about Bush. We never learn do we?
If the superdelegates merely vote with the majority of their constituency, then they become un-needed. What's the point? Just make it a majority-take-all election and dump the super delegates.
Where the superdelegates actually may add value to the election is in the case where a state they represent has voted, and "now" in the convention, dynamics have changed to the point that more weight should be given to another candidate's chance at nomination. For instance, Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. Obama won the caucus there. Obama actually, by deligate count, won Texas. Who should the superdelegates in Texas vote for? Seems like Obama, to me...
Of course, the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most delegates. It's only fair. If Hillary Clinton had more delegates and popular votes than Obama, this question wouldn't be asked.
This election season has shown how dumb the leaders of the Democratic party are. They obviously don't ever want the race to go past Super Tuesday, yet schedule primaries after Super Tuesday. They don't want the superdelegates to vote however they want, yet give them the power to vote however they want. They don't want to wait until the convention to find out who the nominee is, yet schedule the convention more than 8 months after the first primaries. If you don't like the system, then change it! It's not like the leaders of the DNC can't change the rules of the DNC. Anyone with a grade-school level education can recognize how stupid the current process is, yet every 4 years, here we are again.
The superdelegates should make sure they back the best qualified candidate and do so only after the Michigan and Florida issues have been fairly decided. The background of one candidate still remains less investigated than the other. Treat them fairly or let's just say this year the democrats support the dear Senator from Arizona.
Yes I do. The purpose of the superdelegates should be to do what's best for the country and therefore the people. If the superdelegates elect Hilary Clinton, they had better have some pretty darn good reasons. Otherwise the people are going to wonder if they voted for her simply for personal gain. This is NOT going to be good for the country or the party. It will totally derail the election process because people(including myself) will wonder "Why Vote?"
No. Superdelegates should exercise their own independent judgment. Otherwise, superdelegates would be superfluous and that was not the intent when they were created.
Nancy Pelosi (of California), Ted Kennedy( of Massachusetts), John Kerry(of Massachusetts), Deval Patrick (of Massachusetts), Bill Richardson(of New Mexico), and Harry Reid(of Nevada) are going go against their constituencies?Hillary won Massachusetts, California, Nevada, and New Mexico.Will of the people, remember? Oh wait I forgot the double standard.How can they go with the popular vote? Michigan and Florida are not represented. "Obama's CRUTCHED road to the NOMINATION"
She should stick to her guns. This is supposed to be a democracy. Should be obvious by the name of the party, but apparently some people do not grasp reality very well, especially around the Clinton campaign.
Speaker Pelosi should tell those donors to take a hike. If the DNC needs the money, and Barack Obama is the nominee, I'm sure the million plus small donors to the Obama campaign could easily take the place of those fat cats.
Up until now the superdelegates, have all selected in the way they are supposed to. The reason about 300 haven't is because they are waiting to the end, so that they do not end up overturning what the voters have said. When the clouds and the fog roll back, and everyone sees that it is impossible for Hillary to win, they will all get on Obama's side so that they can be part of the winning team.
Obama Richardson 08!!
Hopefully, the super delegates will all show the courage that Gov. Richardson did. Of course if they do, they must be ready to be called Judas by the Clinton camp, or any other names they come up with. Just because the words not come from Hillary's mouth does not mean she doesn't endorse them, her silents speaks volumes
Barb from Florida
YES!! Why do we even bother to vote if we are subject to be overruled by the Superdelegates. This is just common sense. The letter from donors to the Speaker of the House just highlight how people with money think the rules to do apply to them.
Lets move on and united to beat John McCain
As one of the leader of the Dems, Nancy Pelosi has the right to express her opinion on this hot topic.You know what, she is absolutely right! How could anyone justify choosen a candidate that is in second place in all of the major catagories over the leader who was chosen by the American People? This notion of choosing HRC based solely on her supreme "electability" is pure garbage. It is time that pres. Clintons vision of having "two candidates that love America" (and not just themselves) finaly becomes reality. Congratulations Sen. Obama!
Why even bother with primaries? Why bother with what the public thinks? Just get several hundred professional politicians together and have them decide what's best for us poor demented citizens who clearly don't understand how to vote.
And now Clinton says that even the delegates we elected in our state primaries and caucuses shouldn't vote the way we intended.
I used to be a Clinton supporter. I gave up on her and her manipulations weeks ago. She obviously doesn't believe in democracy.
. . . .Yes.
Jack, This only makes sense, if we didnt have state by state delegates. The facts here are that each state makes a decision, not overall. For superdelegates to vote with those they represent, in California, Hillary won. In Mass (where Kerry and Kennedy back Obama), Hillary won. Seems this logic only applies to Clinton supporters and not Obama supporters. And on the other hand, Pelosi's opinion is pointless, as she has failed to do anything with the Congress she is Speaker of. She has failed, and i honestly believe she doesnt want to see another woman go further than she did.
These people are said to be long-time financial backbone of the party. This is a brazen distortion of democracy and the latest episode of the ANYTHING-TO-WIN strategy of the Clinton's camp.
As clever as Clintons are said to be, I'm wondering how is she not seeing why her unfavorably is record high? Kitchen-sink has backfired.
Unless there is a specific, serious problem with the outcome of the popular vote and final pledged delegate count, then yes, the superdelegates should obviously honor the will of the voters and support the candidate who has won more support. Pelosi is clearly right that if the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, the Democratic party will suffer badly for it, regardless of who the final nominee is.
And incidentally, I'm extremely bothered by this letter that the Clinton donors have sent to Pelosi. Reminding her that they're rich people who give a lot of money to Democrats, so she should therefore change her tune to suit their desires is a disgusting, arrogant, inexcusable thing to do on their part. They don't get to have everything they want simply because they're rich. I applaud Pelosi for putting the will of the voters before the will of this tiny, arrogant, selfish group of bullies.
I do agree with Nancy Pelosi. And it is not because I do not like Sen. Clinton, I think that she is a good candidate. However we have to accept the voice of the voters. If people do not believe that their votes count for anything, they will be less inclined to vote in future primaries and worse of all the general election. Many fought and lost their lives for the right to vote, it should not be snatched away by the party's elite.
I totally agree with her. The nominee should be elected by the people not the super delegates. If they super delegates overturn what the American people vote for there will be chaos and the democrats will have no chance of winning.
Tiffany Independence, Iowa
Yes!!! Unless and otherwise the third world is going to lecture us how democracy works. Talk about democracy, by House of Lords. Believe me the entire world dictators will have a field day. Who is going to tell to who about democracy!!! Yes the numbers should matter.
Is this a real question, Jack? Then here's a real answer... YES!
I doubt that I am the only person who will never ever register as a Democrat again if the superdelagtes overrule the voice of the voters.
Jack I think the super delegates have a obegation to vote the will of the people and if they do not it going to get nasty out there. I am also tired of listen to this crap about disenfranchising Florida they new what the ruler were and did not follow them, the same goes for Michigan. Where I come from rules are rules.
The super delegates will vote however they vote. You must be really bored today or you are just wanting another thing to attack Hillary on. I am bored with this question, your station has asked it over and over again...Though Obama wants it both ways...he started out by saying every super delegate should vote the way of their state....and then when Hillary started winning his supporters states.....then his position changed to the super delegates should vote by who has the MOST delegates nationwide and popular vote....then when it became evident that she might win the popular vote Obama wants it to be who has the most delegates....You Know I really don't care how they vote. Just so they vote in the way that they think they should vote. It is their personal vote. Go find another question to attack Hillary on....You are really good at that Jack. Go Hillary Go!!!!!!!!!
Super del. must consider who is ahead of race. Obama leads clinton nearly 200 delegate. So they must support Obama.
Yes. If the superdelegates go against the majority of voters, then they are foolishly turning their backs on a whole new generation of Democrats, as well as the most consistent Democratic voting bloc in the last 50 years, African Americans. The results of which would be dire for the party.
As much as Hillary's supporters threaten to vote for John McCain, if she comes out and supports Obama while asking her supporters to do the same, it's a non-issue.
Jack, Divine Right is royal turf, so let's keep it simple: bring back the monarchy, before Magna Carta, and things should go swimmingly.
The superdelegates should respect the will of the voting population (in its entirety, not state-by-state) and support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. After all, when it was expected that it would be a Clintion landslide, the only measure that mattered was the delegate count. Don't change the measures now. And don't treat me as if I am a misinformed, blindly loyal idiot because I'm not an elected official. The superdelegates should respect the will of the voting majority, not use their "power" as an opportunity to correct me.
As for the strong arm tactics of these fundraisers, this is just a reflection of old politics at work. Talk about disenfranchisement. If you are one of the many middle & lower class voters, you're influence should not be viewed as important as those with more money to spread around. That is precisely what this letter implicates. It bothers me to no end that there are people who call themselves patriotic yet act is if America is for sale.
Well, according to Sen. Clinton, even the "Pledged" delegates are free to overturn the will of the people. I wonder why she doesn't have her cronies write a letter to founding fathers asking them to rethink their whole crazy "democracy" concept.
In response to your question, I agree that the Super Delegates should not overturn the will of the people, except in exigent circumstances where the frontrunner is truly unelectable or turns out to be a criminal, etc., which is NOT the case here.
I totally agree with Madam speaker.
If the will of the people is overturned by the party insiders, it will show nothing short of the former Soviet Union. That is as scary as hell!. Needless to say, the credibility of democracy will tremendously be damaged.
Diing in Washington
Reading these posts has to make you wonder. Most of these people haven't a clue of how the nomination process works. First off they have no right to have a vote. They did get the chance however and could not decide on a winner. Now it is the Supers turn and unlike some think, many are not in an elected-seat, they are higher ups in the party.
The superdelegates are a safeguard for just this situation. They job is to toil over everything, the will of the party voters, electablility, experience, the outside influance by independants and republicans in the parties (which by the way should have no voice because they are not party members, do I get to go to their community and vote on issues that affect me, no but then this isn't a community it's an organization) and a host of other things. The will of the people has been heard and it will end being undecided or in other words a tie.
They didn't tell us how to vote and we shouldn't tell them how to vote, period.
No I do not agree with Nacy Pelosi. As new facts that the American people may find unacceptable emerge about the two candidates (such as the rev. Wright affair), the elected or super delegates may want to change their mind and switch to the candidate they thing has the most chance to win in November. After all, the name of the game is winning the Presidency, and it is stupid to expect the delegates to commit political suicide.
Hillary is killing the democratic party. She is being selfish, tricky, and cheap with all of her lies about snipers shooting over her head. She should concede the race and allow the democratic party to began strategizing against no reading, illiterate McCain who reads like a fifth grader. Hey McCain- Are you smarter than a fifth grader?
I agree with the speaker on this one. With all the acrimony of this campaign, no matter who gets the nomination a large percentage of democrats will be left disappointed and even angry. It will be a much much easier task to convince these people to vote democratic in the general election if the nomination was a result of the primary elections, no matter how slim the margin.
I am surprised that no one in the media has pointed out the irony that on one hand Hillary is telling the voters in Florida and Michigan that she will fight to make sure their votes are counted and on the other hand lobbying to see that the only votes that really count are the superdelegates. And just in case, she can't twist enough arms to get the super delegate count she needs, she is now saying that all delegates can really vote for who ever they want. If that's the case, why would the people of Florida and Michigan care if they get to vote? Why did any of us go out and vote?
In a close race like this one, yes the super delegates should decide. The race between Hillary and Obama is too close. I also keep in mind, one person one vote and the popular vote.
What disturbs me most about this story is the (mostly glossed over) fact that the people arguing with Pelosi are DONORS. As in, I have lots of money, so my say should matter more, and I'm going to threaten anyone until I have my way. Obama is the candidate of the people, both in finances and in vote count, and we want to get beyond the old politics where money is all that matters!
Yes. Bottom line...Obama is ahead on pledged delegates and the popular vote. It's "We the People", not we the superdelegates and it's certainly not me the president. Hasn't the country had enough of this kind of attitude? Hillary and her supporters seem to be calling plays out of Karl Rove's playbook. 'nuff said.
(Sorry this is the last edition)
It depends on what the superdelegate decides.
The rule is: >=2024 then you are the Nominee; or, go to superdelegetes.
The rule is NOT: >=2024 then you are the Nominee; or, candidate with more votes is the Nominee.
Because when =2024 and <2024 should be treated the same way, or it should be called “breaking rule” and offense voters` will.
It is not true.
Actually no matter Pelosi or Obama, what they are opposing and afraid is not “SuperDelegates” itself, but the result of the “SuperDelegates” ;
The same thing, what they are are opposing and afraid is not the MN and FL `s re-elections, but the result of them.
Then the problem will be: what if the results are confirmed to be totally different?
Will they still oppose them?
Bristol, CT Sunny Sun
No. That is why you have bosses. They know what's best for the Party & the Country.
Not completely... I strongly prefer BHO to HRC, but I believe that superdelegates should not vote for him for any reason other than they believe that he is the best candidate in this presidential race. There are a great many factors – that may or may not include a pledged delegate advantage – that could lead an individual superdelegate to prefer one to the other. It would be nice to see the superdelegates do the 'right thing' for the right reason... As opposed to making a choice for political motives, favors owed, etc.
For the good of their party the superdelgates should declare themselves ASAP to try to end this bitter campaign . If the sniping keeps up until the convention John McCaine will be a shoo-in in the general election.
With all the fradulent votes cast here in Texas during the Primaries where the Republicans were crossing over to vote Democratic for Hillary (some voting twice – Republican and Democratic) to damage Obama's possibility of winning, I do believe that it is very important that if this party is going to heal, it will have to be handled as Ms Pelosi is suggesting. Superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates.
Otherwise, we are doomed as a party.
May God help us find a way to Heal this Chaos where mean spiritedness has come alive with help from the Strongest Advocates– The Media – Not All but the Majority.
yes . because if the democratic primary is viewed as stolen, and overturned by the superdelegates they will almost certainly lose in the general election. this will create a huge rift in the party and voters will feel that their choices were ignored and irrelevant and will turn to McCain. the only grey area would be if there was a split, and one candidate had the popular vote and the other had more delegate. this could be more of a toss up. i think if the democrats want to win in November the superdelegates must support the candidate who is ahead and decide this in june to unite the party behind the winner over the summer.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sees that our Golden year of 08 is quickly turning to a nightmare. However, she sees the big picture which is the future of the Democratic Party now hangs in the balance.
1) Florida & Michigan to their own folly are not happy with the Democrats.
2) Senator Clinton scorched earth approach to the nomination; which is to ensure that if she can't win the Nomination is to make sure McCain wins the Presidency so she can Challenge him in the 2012.
If you add to this Senator Obama going to Denver with more 1) States won 2) pledge delegates and 3) popular votes. And some how Senator Clinton wins with out monumental reasons. No matter how much healing both Senators do that would be the final nail in the coffin.
I support Senator Obama and nothing short of God coming from the mountain and telling me to vote for Senator Clinton would make me do so.
The Democratic party will not spilt in half it will be torn a part. Most likely going the way of the Whig Party.
I am a republican, and as such don't even understand the concept of the "Super Delegate"...What's so Super about a group of Democratic insiders that are now very "uneasy in their super overstuffed leather chairs" about making a decision on Clinton or Obama. In my book, delegates elect the nominee, and the delegates are directed to vote per the primary/caucus vote in their state. How should a Super Delegate vote? According to the will of the people, not some hodge-podge way based upon a quick dinner and bottle of champagne from some candidate.
I agree that the delegates (super and pledged) should vote the will of the people.
The Clinton Machine keeps harping about disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan (repeating it enough must make it true?), but have no problem overturning the voters preferences that the other 48 states and 2 territories will have been made by June.
Of the 2 million combined votes in Florida and Michigan, how many voters stayed home because they were told the elections were not going to count?
Clinton's path is certain destruction of the Democratic opportunity to hold all 3 houses and re-balance the Supreme Court with less conservative judges.
Hillary's sights must be firmly fixed on 2012, so she can swoop down and save the people after a third term of Bush administration style politics.
I agree with Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates should not overturn the decision of the voters. Whoever is ahead in delegates should get the nomination. Obama has a healthy lead over Clinton, so the superdelegates should be going to him. Or else what was the point in the elections? What was the point in me standing in line to vote if my voice wont count in the end? That is not a democracy.
Once again, I am disgusted by Hillary Clinton and her manipulative ways to get people to write letters for her benefit. This just shows that she doesn't care about what the American people want, she only cares about winning. The American people have spoken, we want Obama.
Unless the DNC seats the Florida delegates and Michigan delegates we will enter a brokered convention and no one will be happy with those results. I suggest seating Hillary with the proportion of delegates that she won, no matter how unfair that seems. Then assign the remaining delegates to Obama. That would bring this battle to an end and allow us to get to that magic number. If we do that the Superdelegate issue is a moot point!
Jack of course I agree with her. We will lose if they overturn the will of the people. Its funny how they Clinton camp flip flops over this issue. They chastise Obama about Florida and Mich. from disenfranchising voters but then want to ask the super delegates to virtually do the same just so she can win!! Its ridiculous. And another thing that whole Bosnia trip story was absurd. If thats how she answers when sleep deprived, I for one, wouldn't want her answering the phone at 3am, 3pm, 8pm or any other AM or PM. My knew phrase for LYING is "I misspoke!" Thank you Sen. Clinton for educating our children!!!
Nancy Pelosi is absolutely correct. To defy the will of the people would not only cost the Democratic party the election in November, but would set the party back for decades to come. The super delegates should, as soon as Puerto Rico has voted, (or preferably before), pledge their support to Sen. Obama, encourage reconcilliation between the two candidates, and get on to the business at hand of prevailing in the November election. A third Bush term is the last thing this country needs!
It makes sense that the will of the people be mirrored by the superdelegates. The strength of the democrats lies in a match between the peoples' votes and the superdelegates. There has been enough devisiveness among democrats and republicans these last two elections. Lets all get together as democrats.
YES! And if they don't everyone should stay home for all future primaries and let them make the decision. Why stand in line to vote if your vote is not going to be considered? If that's the case, then we should by pass the primary and ask the 800 or so super delegates to make the decision. That would save the candidates a whole lot of money and time!!!!!
superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates – hillary only cares about women – i want a president that cares about my entire family
Jack, I think thatif you"re going to have super delegates then they should be backing the regular delegates for the sake of the party or at least to show unity of some sort to the country if they don"t then we will experience another four years of Bushism!!!
This is not rocket science! Obama is in the lead. Let's be done with it. I don't know if the Dems can wait until June. She may destroy the party in the long run, slash and burn.
Yes, they should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Can you imagine if there were superdelagates for the general election in November who picked the President no matter who received the most votes. Wait a minute, is that how Bush won over Gore?
What about the voices of the people? Why should people actually go bother to vote if it really doesnt' matter what the people want? If Clinton was in the lead, her stance on this matter would be totally different!
absolutely Ms. Pelosi is correct those were the rules and intentions right from the beginning. HRC is intent on pulling off this nomination any which way she can – lies – moving the goal posts – having her fund raisers attempt to extort the speaker – more lies. Perhaps the SD's should end this debacle before the Democratic party is left in ruin – and since every pundit not wearing rose colored glasses can see that HRC cannot win the nomination fair and square at this point.
Speaker Pelosi has got it right. If the will of the voters is overturned by the superdelegates there will be a price to pay, for the Demecrats, come November.
Hillary Clinton is the most disingenuous person, and likewise, it seems her supporters are following suit. How can we allow her to say that she is so concerned about voters and that every vote must be counted, and then turn around and say that the delegates can rightfully ignore the voters? The hypocrisy is mind boggling!
It is obvious that the Clinton supporters are willing to do whatever it takes to steal this nomination – just like Clinton – even if it means diminishing the uniformity of the party.
I think Pelosi is right... a supper delegate should be able to reflect the voice of the majority in his or her constituency; and in situation were the race is really close – 1-2% difference – it is up to the supper delegate to chose which direction to go...
The super delegates had sure better affirm the people's choice. If they don't, all those lovely new democrats and lots of old ones are going home and shutting the door.
Lets see Jack; if they do support pledged delegates, then it looks, feels, and smells like a democracy, a party OF the people. If they don't, the democratic party is virtually a republic, a small group who decides FOR the people; and this independent voter may just vote Republican for the first time! What a shame...politics...
Of course Jack, Isn’t this the reason for primaries to see who is in the lead with pledged delegates, popular votes and who has won the most states, so why change the rules or have this discussion now? Could it be that Bill Clinton with his brillant mind and his courage under fire in Bosnia wife says so. I am a Dem and it looks like we are looking pretty stupid and petty at this point. This is all getting very ridiculous and I am beginning to think that the press is the reason for all of this dysfunctional foolishness going on in politics. Rules are RULES and they should be abided by in our democracy.
I agree with Nancy Pelosi. It would be a disaster to overturn the popular vote just to please La Clinton. Every week she's trying to change the rules. Ironically, if Obama were in her shoes, he would've been given the boot a long time ago. Superdelegates, Pennyslvania, Indiana, Oregon, North Carolina, ANYBODY: Please send the LIAR packing, so we can move forward!
This is the way this lopsided democratic system was set up from the beginning. Ordinarily, I would say that the superdelegates should vote the way of the people, meaning pledge delegates. However, according to the rules, superdelegates should vote using their independent judgment. Both candidates agreed to this in the beginning, just like both candidates agreed to not seating the pledged delegates of Michigan and Florida. The rules are the rules, like it or not. Nancy Pelosi and anyone who was responsible for making these undemocratic rules up should know better.
Better question... is there a reason why the superdelegates shouldn't back the candidate with the most pledged delegates, popular vote, and states won?
The answer "Because it gives Hillary the nomination" isn't a valid response here.
I don't agree with superdelegates deciding this race, but I am from Florida so who cares what we think...not Obama!!!
I believe that superdelegates were created for good reason, but should be used only "in case of emergency." They would be useful in an election of low voter participation, high misinformation, and a clearly inept candidate. This is not that election.
Wow, Hillary really needs to respond here and stick up for Pelosi. If you are running on the platform of Feminism (which she has made a point of), why would you let your people attack the currently highest ranking female Democrat for her support of the will of the people. She truly wants to at least win the nomination (no way she wins the general with this tactic) at all costs.
YES!! Superdelegates should vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates because this is the will of the people who took the time to vote.
...also....looking through the other comments....look at how many of us...good honest Democrats have suddenly decided that "end justifies the means". Can they honestly say, with pride about themselves, that if Obama is ahead as he has been for several months now, when June comes around, can they honestly say that the that fat cats on the hill should overturn the American voice..... tell me that is not a democrate saying that sort of thing is ok.
Super delegates should pick who they think best represents America moving forward. That would be the youngest and most in-tune candidate, Barack Obama.
Why should super delegates favor the rich? That's what Clinton's supporters are asking Pelosi to do. It will further destroy our wonderful meritocracy.
With out any doubt the superdelegates should go with the candidate with the most pledged delegates.
Lets get on with rebuilding the Democratic party, we can't keep this up all summer.
If the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters then we can stop the charades we call fair elections and just have those people tell us who will be our nominee! A democracy gone down the tubes.
Maybe we should ask some of the Iraqi army over here to supervise our elections!
If Obama has the most delegates and the popular vote, the superdelegates should not give the nomination to Hillary. If that happens, I will not vote for McCain, I just will not vote at all.
Obama, Kentucky 08
Yes Jack, of course superdelegates should back the candidate with the most pledge delegates. And that person is Barack Obama. Hillary shoul get out of the race and support the winning team.
The DEMs have done this to themselfs .They are the one would created the monster of superdelgates now they must live with it. If the supers vote for Hillary its bad but the democratic party has done this by creating the supers in the first place the cutting out Michigan and Florida . hope it all comes out in the wash so to speak but it sure makes McCain feel good at night when he goes to bed.
OF COURSE, it is the duty of political representatives to advocate for the will of Americans.
another day, another question with no imagination.
wild guess: obama supporters will say that the superdelegates should back up the pledged delegates and hillary's supporters will say the superdelgates should ignore the pledged delgates (unless hillary magically winds up with more- then hillary fans will say the superdelgates should abide by the pledged ones.)
who exactly is it, that probably makes way more money than I do, coming up with these simplistic, obvious, practically rhetorical questions?
Superdelegates should follow the will of the voters in their district. If the Superdelegates are going to be the deciding factor and they do not vote the wishes of the people, then why are we finishing the Primaries ?? Why not just let the SD call it now and put us all out of our misery?
Nancy Pelosi's concern is what is going to happen to the Democratic Party if the superdelegates overturn the will of the people. Hillary Clinton's concern is getting into the White House at all costs....including possibly destroying the Democratic Party's chances of a victory. This is pure intimidation on the part of the Clinton campaign. Nominate Hillary or else! The superdelegates would be wise to remember that the next election may be theirs and if they choose to ignore the will of the people who elected them...they may very well not get re-elected.
David, Paducah, KY
If she is willing to allow the deligates from Florida, and Michigan be seated, and counted then I would say that probably a good idea, but that is not going to happen because this is not the part of the process that she doesn't like because it would allow Hillary to catch up to Barrack, and Nancy doesn't want that. So Nancy dream on, if we are going to follow the rules as they have been set fourth, then you have no say in how the process takes place with the exception of your one vote.
We now have discussions of how to count the vote in MI, & FL. This in itself is bringing serious questions as to the dedication of democracy that the democratic party touts to represent. If the supers overturn the will of the voters this will only re-emphasize that the democratic party does not represent a democratic process. While the party may overcome the MI/FL debacle, there's no way it will survive disenfranchising the multitude of voters who chose to participate and have their voice heard. Just as the democratic party knew they would loose the vote of the south for their promotion of equality in the 1960's, if they choose to overturn the vote AND voice of the people in 2008, they will forego the vote of the youth for another generation.
No Democracy! I thought this country is where the people decide what we want, not what the wealthy and connected want for us. Why vote at all if it is not going to count? Basically everyone standing in line to vote was just for show to Clinton and her crew. This is scary!
The nominee should be picked by the voters pure and simple. I mean, why even bother having primaries and voting if "mommy and daddy" super delegate can come in and say "Sorry, you have it all wrong" and choose who they want? That philosophy just begs for corruption and offering of favors for support. At the end of this process there will clearly be somone who is ahead. That person should get the nomination.
If the superdelagates vote the same as the pledged delegates, then what is the purpose of superdelegates? Would they really count for anything? I don't know why there are superdelegates but seeing as they exist........ wouldn't their job be to vote as they deem necessary for the good of the party and this country??
Maybe I'm just a hick from upstate NY that doesn't know anything?
I believe the superdelegates have the right to choose who they personally feel would be best run the White House. I believe they should not be forced to vote a certain way just cause the people feel or think they should. They are individuals such as ourselves and should have the same rights as we do to vote for whom they please regardless of who is winning or losing. To tell them who to vote for would be taking away their rights as a person and it would be totally wrong to do so. I vote no. They should not vote for the person with the popular votes.
A black man and Obama voter from Orlando Fl,
This is something we have no business "asking" but rather, we should be DEMANDING!
WE are the American people.
WE decide who runs OUR country.
We must sign petitions, write Senators or whoever and demand that a bill be passed to banish delegates. The people should get what they want (and that could be positive or negative).
It is a slick trick to let all these citizens think they have a say in the political process when they all go out to vote in droves in one state but that state only has 5 delagates. As a whole, that state will never be a match up to California or Pennsylvania.
And all the democrats in one state that go out to vote won't matter if more republicans go out to vote. The republicans win the state and VOID all those democrat votes. This is unfair. So everyone's vote really does NOT count.
We must act TODAY and push an agenda to have the delegates banished from the election process.
And any politician that dares stands in our way, we will REMOVE him/her from office. They are in Washington to do OUR bidding NOT their own!
Even more so now that we see what kind of shamelessly public threats that HRC Inc. is using to twist arms in its attempt to distort the people's choice. In many societies it's called blackmail.
What an insight into the kind of people who are backing (and supposedly buying) the Democratic Party!
Stand up to them, smoke them out, and check how they get their funding.
Yes, these superdelegates need to respect the will of the people.
We follow the rules, it is the Clinton machine that keeps trying to bend them for their own advantage, not for the good of the country.
After virtually endorsing McCain as commander-in-chief over her fellow Democrat, Obama, I don't understand how anyone could give Clinton their vote.
It is very unfortunate for Clinton supporters to go after anyone who says anything against their will. Ironically, these so-called Democratic donors assert the need for superdelegates to speeak their minds. Why can't Pelosi speak her mind? Is she not a superdelegate? Well, superdelegates can't speak their minds in as much as they are not clinton supporters. That is rediculous
The biggest problem here is that the superdelegates' vote is worth too much. If their vote was like everybody else's then fine let them think long and hard about who they want to elect, but since their vote is worth like 100,000 regular votes then I say that they have to go along with the sentiment of the people because then the real question would be why have normal people vote
Listen, this is and always has been a race for pledged delegates. Having a greater number of delegates is the single most important asset for the Democratic nominee. The super delegates should remember that. I would support either Hillary or Obama and the only reason I could possibly agree if these so-called “Super Delegates” overturn the pledge delegate result is if the gap is very close and the other candidate has a higher number in the popular vote and is leading in the general election polls.
So far, Obama has the upper hand and unless things change… They should (for now) support him.
New York City
You darn right I agree with Nancy Pelosi for speaking up in support of the voters. The DNC has allowed this mess to continue on and has proven to be very damaging to the democrat party. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and is a true democrat speaking in the best interest of the party.
well first ask Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson and the rest to switch back to Hillary, and then talk about following the rules...as that will not happen Pelosi should just shut up
Yes of course Jack. This is a delegate race and superdelegates should definitely give priority to the candidate who has the most pledge delegates. I believe if they fail to do that, the party will be a laughing stuck and will surely fails to win the general election. I am willing to bet some of my Canadian dollars on this. Who is in?
Sounds like EXTORTION to me Jack. I am glad that the speaker of the house Pelosi held her ground and made the statement she did. This situation sounds an awful lot like corporate big wigs being miffed when they made the wrong investment to me. Sorry my goverment is no longer for sale. When I researched this request made by Clinton supports, I donated another $20 to the Barack Obama.
Well i think.. Oh I forgot...no one cares what we think down here!
Let the superdelegates decide. That's why they were created –so that the party wouldn't be subject to the will of the people unless it suited them.
It would be simpler to revert to the old days and let the party bosses decide in smoke filled rooms and spare us all the ugly spectacle that this campaign is becoming.
Only if the Democrats want to win the election. Otherwise, they can stand outside and whine as they discuss who gets what and why while the Republicans continue to run the show.
Enough is enough. Let the people speak for once. If the super delegates override the voice of the people, then the people have the right to kick them all out.
Super delegates should not let the work 'super' fog their decision. The Clinton's are not entitled to the White House again. They need to step down and get out of the way. They are fulfilling the Democratic tradition of a circular firing squad. They don't care about the people...just their power grabbing. Enough!
The supers should do as Nancy suggests. At least voters will understand the rationale and feel that there is fairness behind the process. What they will not accept is sometthing they perceive as a "corrupt bargain." Hillary said last night on Fox that she plans to go to the convention and fight. It will be all cat claws and feathers flying. If we arrive at the nominee under those circumstances, what will it profit Hillary to gain the nomination and lose the presidency?
If a candidate is ahead in the number of states won, popular votes and pledged delegates then the superdelegates should not vote against them. In a democracy, the popular vote should be the deciding factor not superdelegates making deals in a backroom. What is happening to our country?
The letter from Clinton's fat cats was a pittiful attempt to buy the domination for her, I'm glad Nancy Pelosi wasn't fooled by these deperate tactics for one moment
The super-delegates should collectively do what is in the best interest of the party. That's why they exist. They are not obligated to follow their constituents, however, in this case, backing the candidate with the most popular votes, the most states, and the most pledged delegates, no matter how you slice and dice it, is what is in the party's best interest.
clinton people would do anything to win the nomination.They don't care for anything,anybody,not even their own party.I'm a registered Republican.But I'm supporting Obama and voting for him too.He has high moral values,he knows what he talks,does what he says.He is going to unite everybody,every race ,every color and the whole nation
I think the Canidate that has the most popular vote should be the nominee. I hope that most democrats will realize that church and state should be kept separate. I am a white male Christian Obama supporter. I have to admit that the Church issue really made me do some serious thinking. I wouldn't want anyone judgeing me on my church affiliation. I am comfortable with Senater Obama even though I don't agree with the spirit of his pastors strong political message. I hope all democrats can put the race card behind them and support Senater Obama whom I think right now is the best of all three.
I think it would be hilarious if the party that complained so much about the outcome of the 2000 election didn't give the nomination to the candidate who has the lead in the popular vote AND the number of pledged delegates. Democratic party my foot. Oligarchic party's more like it.
Jack, if a critical mass of SDs waits until the final pledged delegate count is in and then make a move that goes against that particular metric, then we'll be throwing out the will of the voters and there will be hell to pay.
If SDs don't want to go against the will of the voters, they better vote today. Then can duck and hide later, claiming to be ignorant of the voters' will.
The super-delegates should weigh all of the factors involved in selecting an nominee, however no consideration should be more important than the will (vote) of the people...someone please explain to Ms. Clinton that she really needs to give the American public more credit...disenfranchising voters is disenfranchising voters – whether it is Michigan & Florida or the elected delegates who represent their States...if she keeps it up her negatives will be lower than President Bush's..and she's not even the nominee..let alone the President!
As a registered Democrat I want my vote to count. That means the candidate with the most pledged delegates/votes should be our nominee. The superdelegates should follow what the people want, not what Hillary Clinton wants. She is trying to "scheme her way " into being the nominee while Barack Obama is actually working hard and winning as a result of that work. Clinton needs to stop playing so dirty and telling lies. I think she really wants McCain to win since she's doing all she can against Obama for the Republicans in the fall. She has absolutely no loyalty to the Democratic party. Her "wealthy" supporters have a nerve "threatening" Nancy Pelosi in any way, shape or form. They're the ones who finance her in return for "favors" later on. and that's who will run our government if she is elected.
Nancy Pelosi has it right. If the intention of the superdelegates was to nominate the party 's candidate. then there would be no need for the primaries. Then would we be no better than a socialist country. I believe the one the people want as a majority should receive the nomination.
Jack...if the super delegates over turn the will of the millions of Democrates that have and will vote in the state primaries, the damage to the party will be enormus. This would be the greates failour of any political party in my lifetime.
The superdelegates have to back the person with the most pleged delegates, states won, and popular vote, anything else would look bad and would destroy the democratic party. Hillary has to step down and let Obama move forward so we can work on McCain. Hillarys try is over and the longer she stays, the worse it will get for Dem looking to beat McCain.
If that were the case, then why have superdelegates? There is a reason the democratic party decided years ago to have superdelegates.
Why hold the damn primaries and caucuses in the first place if the voters don't really count. Nancy Pelosi is correct and the Clinton's need to end their policy of destruction. Do away with the superdelegates after this convention and have the voters decide who the delegates vote for like it should be.
The Clinton's should shut their mouth's and go home.
Why is Hillary still in the race? She did not win Texas but keeps claiming to have. If Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, a few weeks ago, she would have called for him to concede the contest for the nomination. She would not have cared if the voters of the upcoming primaries and caucuses did not get to vote. Now she cares about North Carolina and the rest of the states? I am tired of this mess. I am tired of the Clintons.
Absolutely! Vote for the person with the most pledged delegates and popular vote. Isn't it nice to know that Hillary will attack anybody, even members of her own party. I would love to see Pennsylvania go for Obama. Then, this would all be over!!!!!!!!!!11
The democratic party is at a crutial turning point – does it represent the will of the of the people within the party or is it truly run only by those with the power to overturn the votes cast? Hillary Clinton mentioned the legitimacy of candicacy recently – Hillary can not over come Barak Obama's lead in states won, delegates or popular vote -we are continuosly told it is not mathimatically possible – so she is counting on the super delegates to tell the democratic voters within the democratic party that only the votes for Hillary Clinton count. The letter sent to Pelosi should show that the will of ordinary democratic voters pulls no weight within the democractic party – only the wealthy and those in power voices count. and are ultimately heard and acted on. Where is the democracy within the democratic party? Why should people even vote? We can critize Putin for what he did in Russia, however, we can't really judge him now can we? How is the power the super delegates have in telling the voters within the democratic party who the nominee will be any different than Putin putting someone in power in Russia?
Give me a break, Nancy should get off her high horse and let the Super delegates decide who will be the best candidate. The whole reason for these delegates is to help the voters come to the right conclusion. And Barrack, he should just simmer down. He doesnt care about anybody unless it helps him get the nomination. I am so over him.
The superdelegates were created to do what is best for the Democratic Party. Right now that means to stop the bitterness that threatens to hand the November election over to the Republicans. As the numbers strongly support an Obama nomination, not a Clinton one, it would seem to me that the superdelegates' job is to endorse Obama as soon as possible.
The letter sent to Pelosi is just another trick up Hillary's sleeve to try and wrestle this election from the hands of the American voter. I for one would be very turned off as a Democrat if the vote by the people for Obama is overturned by a group of people who are trying to tell the American people that we don't know how to choose the best candidate for president. Isn't why we vote in the first place? Apparently Senator Clinton believes that the voice of the people should be heard only if they voted for her.
There is no way you can convince me that the "intent" of the Superdelegates was to thwart the pledged delegate count and discount the popular vote count. There is no conceivable reason to discount the system that was set up (primaries, caucuses, pledged delegates).....and running all this time. I have issue with the whole idea of Superdelgates that issue should be addressed seperately. I find it fascinating that Hillary Clinton is so willing to discount rules, change processes and discredit the system to justify her desire to be the nominee. I find it extremely disquieting that there are so many people that eat up the nonsense she spits out.
There are three simple responsibilities for a superdelegate: 1) don't lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, 2) don't lie about bringing peace to Northern Ireland, and 3) whatever you do, don't overturn the will of the voters.
I'd suggest the same responsibilities apply to the candidates!
She is smart and understands that going against the will of the people would be suicide to the party and may ensue a riot. Personally the people have already spoken. I don't think the Clinton machine should mess with Pelosi. She really should make a stand and endorse Obama.
Jack, Let's face it. Obama is the candidate of Air America, the Huffington Post and and all the other far lefties like Nancy Pelosi (although its not expedient for her to spew the 24/7 anti-Clinton diatribe) so changing the rules mid stream on what the Super Delagates can and can't do is just an expedient way to ensure their candidate wins and is perfectly acceptable to Pelosi and her ilk, unless you are referring to the rule that disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan, but I guess for Pelosi that rule makes sense.
Jack, it's pretty simple.
Obama is and has been following the rules of this primary election, and based on the rules as they are stated, he is in the lead in all the ways that matter.
If Clinton ends up being the Democratic nominee because of the will of the superdelegates – and not the will of the people – it won't be necessary to even have primary elections the next time around, because people like myself won't bother to participate. Why would I, if in the end my vote doesn't matter? But maybe that's what the superdelegates want – ultimate control of the party.
I have but one word for Hillary Clinton – "Stop."
And three words for Howard Dean – "Get a backbone."
Only if the person also has the highest number of voters between the two contestants. The Super Delagates MUST vote the will of the people; therefore, whichever person received the MOST VOTES is the person to win the candidacy.
Really now Jack;
As much as it pains me to agree with Ms Hiuse Speaker, I must agree. After all if Hilbilly ios allowed to "Steal" the nomination aren;t they just doing the same thing that they acused "W" of doing in 2000? After all "we" knowiong Americans really know that the Democrates have been pissed since 2000 and now it susposed to be "OK" for Hillbilly to pull a similar theft?
Of course you have to assume that I agree that "W" stole the election in 2000, but please don't cause you'll piss me off worse that the democrats do!
Pelosi is Speaker of the House! How can she not back the popular vote? How can she not put her stance behind what the majority of American's know and believe to be just? For her to behave independently of the will of the American public would be unconstitutional.
I agree that there is a wide range of factors that should be considered by the super delegates.The most states,the most popular votes,the most pledged delegates.The most negativity or the most tears should not influence their decision.The super delegates should not change the will of a majority vote.
i think there should not be any kinda superdelegates like superman!! still if they they should support the mass population. and house speaker has the right to express her opinionz.
I absolutely agree with Nancy Pelosi's unbiased advice. If the trailing candidiate is selected by the superdelegates, many Democratic voters are going to feel slighted and more divided than they are now. Both candidates still have an opportunity to lead the delegate count, so let's not discount the hard work of American voters.
Im all for it I agree with nancy, yet if clinton was leading would her surrporters be sending in this mail? Clinton just needs to suck it up or throw in the towel or she could just get back on the stump and make more cahaos that tears the party and makes it looks just plain out ugly its over and she knows it.
I think the superdelegates should support the candidate that wins the popular vote. The only reason Sen Clinton is objecting is because it is highly unlikely that she will get the popular vote or the momentum to support the census that she would have gotten the popular vote if people would have known "all of this stuff" about Sen Obama earlier. The Obama campaign is correct in stating that the Clinton campaign is insinuating that the she would be the candidate of choice – "if only we knew..." Pres Clinton calls this "argument in a campaign" and casually dismisses this mudslinging as normalcy. Well, I suppose it is, that is why I support Sen Obama. He is for change. He fights back, but it is obvious that Sen Clinton starts this mess and plans to continue it until she finally looses.
Yes. Otherwise, if the party poobahs who owe the Clintons decide the election - in direct contradiction to the popular vote, pledged votes and majority of States - you will see a huge migration of disenfranchised former Democrats making paths away from the "party for ordinary Americans".
Super delegates can technically pick whoever they want. Having said that I am sure even they are not so dumb to not realize that picking Hillary over Obama with a high probability of backlash from Obama supporters is a stupid idea.
In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton spoke about going all the way to the convention if there is no revote in Florida and Michigan and dares the DNC to not seat those delegates in the convention. Well wouldn't seating those delegates to help her be the nominee essentially alienate a majority of Obama supporters? Also, how come she wasnt concerned about the Michigan and Florida delegates before the primary season started.
absolutely! it will be highly ridiculous to overturn the votes of millions who have voiced their choice. Only the Clintons can cause such heart burn for people they claim they're fighting for.l wonder how people can line up behind such characters as the Clintons. They're bunch of liars and liars!!!!!
If voters should determine who win's then I feel that the citiizen's (voters) of Michigan and Florida should count.
I absolutely agree with Nancy Pelosi’s unbiased advice. If the trailing candidiate is selected by the superdelegates, many Democratic voters are going to feel slighted and more divided than they are now. Both candidates still have an opportunity to lead the delegate count, so let’s not discount the hard work of American voters.
I disagree with Nancy Pelosi. Each super delegate should choose base on who they think would be the best president for the country. Who would they like to represent America to the world. They should NOT choose base on "Payback" or a "I scratch your back now scratch mine" or even electability, whatever that means.
I don't think that it is right for the super delegate to choose one over the other only to be called "Traitor" or "Judas". That is harrasment and is wrong.
I pity Bill Richardson and I think that the Clintons owe him an apology because they did not treat him right. I don't see him as Judas but as the tax collector going to Jesus. There that will give James something to talk about. He is the tax collector who saw the err of his ways. Ha! Gotcha!
I do agree with Speaker Pelosi- she does seem to be attempting to put at least a semblance of fairness into the process. As the time for any type of superficial neutrality has, in my mind, long passed, I would also like to see the Speaker endorse Barack Obama. Fairness in the process should now be the essential- the American public deserves that much.. Irrespective of Bill Clinton's elevated standing within the democratic party, the American public has at this point seen enough of raw-power-politics in 2008- it's time to put that primer to bed. – Bob D. , Warren, RI
The superdelegates are expected to exercise their GOOD judgement. This should mean a vote for the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates and overall votes; the candidate who has and can bring the most new voters into the process and the party, the candidate who can attract independents and crossover Republicans in the general election, the candidate who will best help "down-ballot" candidates, and the candidate with the temperament to play nicely with others and get positive changes accomplished both at home and abroad. I won't name names, but this should be a no-brainer.
This is as phony as a $3 bill. Why doesn't she come out and say "Vote Obama"?The Democrats need Clinton and her supporters to win the Presidency.And they probably won't get it in November because of the big-shot Democrats open anti-Clinton bias.
All this talk about rules misses the point...Speaker Pelosi has this right, the only thing the Superdelegates can do is back the will of the people. Anything else will rip the Democratic party apart and create in this country a divide not seen since the Civil War.
I doubt this even needs to be said because the majority of the Superdelegates are elected officials and care about the party and their political future...they are not about to disenfranchise the majority of the party.
Keith – Texas
I agree with Pelosi, the candidate with the most pledged delegates should get the nomination. The question is does Pelosi agree with it. If she had any backbone, she would immediately announce her support for Obama.
I thought the role of the superdelegate was to think independently and not to follow the lemmings off the cliff.
The whole American election system is bizzare. So many peple have posted today that the popular vote is what matters, yet the November election will be carried by electoral votes. If you look at the electoral votes for the states won by Obama and Clinton, then Clinton is actually ahead, making more sense for her to be the nominee.
If superdelegates should vote according to their states then Richardson, Kerry and Edwards should also have to follow suit. Nancy Pelosi is in California, so should have to vote Clinton.
Of course not ! What would be the point otherwise.
Already we have the so called "Superdelegates " clearly making choices against the will of their states and the people.
See Richardson for example and others that have endoresed Obama despite the fact that Clinton won their represantitive states.
It would be senseless and useless to go through the process.\Obama is all too happy to snatch up endorsments that he did not earn via majority and states will,so let the rest of the superdelegates vote according to their will and best choice of qualifications for this country .
What's the point of having had a year of elections, with all its costs and suspense, if the results are going to be overturned in return? What message does that send to the people? We are going to reject your choice even you have helped the Democratic Party reach record fundraising amounts, vote registrations? i'll be the first delete my name from the democratic party because after all thats not democracy. The saddest thing is that Clinton would do anything to win doesnt matter how unfair she can be. Amy Fall, DC, Washington.
If they don't go with the leader on June 10, the will of the people will not have been heard, and I believe our fore fathers would say the same. The problem here is Clinton thinks we the peole exise only
to make he president. If that was to happen I WILL NOT VOTE PERIOD.
The way i would word it is "should the democratic party superdelegates be forced to support someone they don't want to because they are being pressured to do so?" Why do we even have superdelegates if they can't even pick the person they think is best for the position. I didn't know that the superdelegates free will was taken away from them.
Maybe after all the "hoopla" the real sincerity of the woman is finally showing through. Afterall, it seems the Clinton's, Hillary and Bill, are a rather dubious bunch. Sincerity comes from the eyes not from the teeth. Hillary smiles with her teeth and not her eyes. I'm not so sure she can really be trusted with the future of the United States and we know Bill can't!
As Hillary Clinton pointed out early in this election, it is about pledged delegates. The voters have spoken. Obama has won more states, more votes, and more pledged delegates. Even after the next 10 primaries, he will still be in the lead in all three areas. If superdelegates overturn the will of the people, the democratic party will fracture. New voters, as well as established voters who are reenergized, will be disenfranchized and either stay at home or vote for McCain in the general election.
Pledged delegates should and will be the criteria that most of the remaining undecided superdelegates will use to make a final decision. It will not be decided by popular vote, because some states that have caucuses did not report a popular vote. Since Hillary is unlikely to catch up in pledged delegates means GAME OVER !
Believing that she is trying to avoid a riff in the party, I thought at the time it was a good idea. But now, bringing the idea into the modern age, why don't we just do a national primary day, then a national election day? There is no need any more to saddle my horse and ride from NH to Philadelphia to cast my vote.
We could scrap the electorate, they're kind of like an appendix – no real need for them anymore.
Let's try to look beyond etching this thing cycle after cycle the way it was in Colonial America. The modern age could trim out a lot of useless BS!
They don't have to, but it'd be a pretty dumb move to overturn the will of the people. Weren't they the ones complaining that Gore should have been president...?
I find it very Funny that the same candidate, Hillary Clinton, who wanted the people voices heard in Michigan and Florida, now doesn't care about the votes that were counted fairly up until now. Yesterday she was trying to get the already Pledged deligates from the states who have voted properly to go against the people and today she wants the Super deligates. When will all this end. She doesn't care ... WIN AT ALL COST.
Nancy Pelosi is right. How can the super delegates over rule the will and vote of the people.
The primary election is about delegates. Whoever has the most elected delegates wins. Thats the rule, regardless of how much Clinton wants to change it.
Clinton should pack it in for the good of the party. Enough is enough.
These high profile supporters need to understand something. The days of a select few having priveleged access to the president and control of the agneda is over.
Obama has proven massive capabilities of raising funds with now close to 2 million donators.
Power to the people, Jack
The superdelegates should phone up Hillary at 3AM and say "something's happening in the world. A grassroots movement is successfully winning the hearts, minds, and votes of the American majority. Senator Clinton, we respect your desire to usurp the nomination, but we're just not sure how to sell it to the public. How should we proceed?"
Jack there should never have been any super delegates in the first place. The founding fathers put a pervision in the US Constitution that pervents this from happening in a presidential election. Why should 800 insiders (think insider trading Wall Street) be able to over ride the will of the people what makes them any more speciel than the rest of us. If they are going to get together in a back room some where and vote who they think is best why have the people go to the polls in the first place. This is just the have telling the have nots they don't know any better. It would be wrong for a super delegate that was elected in and area to vote against the people that he or she is suppose to be representing. If you were a member of a party wouldn't you want to know that your vote counted and if hunderds of peoples vote can be over turned by one super delegate why bother voting. Can't you guys see this is why so many people are voting now because they see some hope. The super delegates are only looking out for themselves and what they think they can get by voting for the candidate that is going to do right by them and not the people they are suppose to rep.
In case you don't know Jack, Super Delegates were put in place to make a choice of the person that they think is most qualified and the person that can win in the General Election. If not that, then why have super delegates. I know you think that if obama is ahead by one delegate or one popular vote that he should get the votes of the super delegates. They are suppose to be intelligent and able to make an intelligent decision based on their knowledge and their thoughts on what is best for this country and for the Democratic party and they don't need you or any of the media to tell them what to do. Or Nancy Pelosi ... what a disappointment she has turned out to be...My vote will be for Hillary wether she is on the ballot or not. I can always write her in and even if she doesn't win at least I can vote my choice and my conscience.,
What's the point of even voting if the delegates just vote for whomever they heck they want? But I also agree with other folks' comments here that we need to go to a direct vote and tally system.
Yes, I completely agree with Speaker Pelosi. Let us be sure to have a (small-d) democratic vote decide the (big-D) Democratic nomination.
Why should it be OK for the Clinton campaign to argue on one hand that the Florida and Michigan voters are being disenfranchised because their delegates were stripped by the party due to knowingly breaking the rules and moving up their dates? When, on the other hand, the Clinton campaign would like to disenfranchise the entire country's primaries and caucuses by letting the superdelegates overturn whomever has the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season?
what the hell is this super delegates thing about anyway? why don't republicans have that too.
That CNN photograph of Pelosi is priceless. You can almost hear Pelosi say, "Hillary said the fish was this big, when it was really only a minnow."
What do I know? I'm just a mere 1 vote among many millions of votes. What do the "rules" dictate, since we are so hung up on "play by the rules"? Don't take into consideration the rights afforded us under the Constitution with regards to every vote counting – ask the DNC to explain the Superdelgates – since their rules seem to supersede the Constitution, I'm sure they'll have an answer. Of course they should check with the Obama Camp to make they agree with the explanation before they make it public.
Speaker Pelosi's stance is in variance with the will of the party when they devisewd the role of the super delegates. Why do we even need them if they must follow the will of the voters. If it was lop-sided then we wouldn't need them and someone would already have 2024 delegates. I'm not saying that I agree with the super delegate premise but we have them then they must be used as originally intended – i.e. – they cast their vote for whomever they deem to be the best candidate for November.
Yeah, the superdelegates should go with the person with the most pledged delegates. Uh, or actually I mean they should go with whoever has the most popular votes. No .... make that the candidate who wins the most "big" states. Or how 'bout this; maybe go with the person whose primary wins would add up to the most electoral votes if this were the general election. Hillary must be getting AWFULLY tired by now, considering how often she's been moving those heavy goalposts around. But you know what? I think the best criteria might be to just go with the candidate who won the most states with the word "New" in their name. Hillary wins!
Absolutely Jack! The candidate that is leading at the end of the race should get the support of the superdelegates. I happen to be an Obama supporter and if the superdelegates overthrow his lead and hand it to Hillary, who does not have the pleged delegate lead, I will not vote in November. My mother who is also a loyal democrat has said the same, and she loves Bill Clinton I might add. Just ask any race fan in the US. If a race is rained out and at least half the race has been completed, the person in the lead wins the day. Just because they didn't get accross the finish line, doesn't mean you hand it to the guy in second because he lead the "more important laps", or in this case, the "bigger states". Give me a break!
I understand that in the past there have been situations where the candidate w/ less pledged delegates and popular votes was chosen to be the democratic nominee because of the perception that they were belived to be more electable in the general election.
However, I strongly believe that in today's political climate, there would be a huge backlash that would result in a democratic loss to John McCain.
Many will boycott, riot, demonstrate, and some will just stay home and probably be disenchanted with the American political process for the rest of their lives.
Hillary's supporters need a little cheese with that whine. The superdelegates should ask themselves this question – which candidate is handling the dirty tactics better? They should keep in mind that the nominee will face even dirtier tactics from the Republicans. It will be youth versus old age and Hillary is the one who has undergone accelerated aging during the past few weeks.
DIVISIVE. Definition: disruptive.
Hillary Clinton is known best for being divisive This is her REAL experience.
Her campaign has pitted blacks in one corner, white men in another corner, older white women in another corner, blue collar workers in another corner, men hating lesbians in another corner and religious independents in another corner.
OBAMA has worked to unite us and won in at least 5 categories:
1. The larges amount of money donated to a primary campaign
2. The larges number of young people inspired to register and vote
3. The larges number of people to come out and vote for a primary.
4. The most states
5. The most pledged delegates
6. The larges number of people who are ready to unite and work together across
Hillary Clinton said that she will be find regardless of the outcome. This is true. But, the Democratic party will be in a shamble.
I appeal to the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania to vote for the oblivious leader and stop this bleed letting and destruction of the democratic party. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for 4 more years of the Republican’s mindset.
I am a software developer, baby boomer, 1.5 years out of work and no health insurance. The Bill Gates of the world wants to bring in more foreign workers to replace me.
This primary is not the Super Bowl. This is serious. Stop the media and the destruction of the Democratic party.
PLEASE vote overwhelmingly for the leader, OBAM
Eugene in Florida
Since it is pretty much clear that the superdelegates will decide the nominee, it stands to reason that they should vote for the candidate with the majority of pledged delegates. That would of course be Barack Obama. It would be patently unfair, grossly stupid and a slap in the face of many ordinary democrats who have supported the party over the years. If the party allows the superdelegates to steal this election I suspect it will mean the end of the democratic party. Pelosi is acting in the best interest of the party and the country.
Of course they should go with the person that has the most Delegates. Otherwise, what are "We the People" voting for?
Of course they should and I believe they will. Need someone like John Edwwards to come forth with his support for Obama and I think others will follow. It is getting late in the game and someone needs to cry "Uncle"
No, they shouldn't. If they do, then they have no purpose, and should be eliminated. But in the current rules they are there, and they should be able to choose the nominee they want. This does not make the will of regular voters meaningless, as some have suggested. If the voters spoke out with a clear, unified voice, then the superdelagates would have no say. But in a close race the people who have contributed to the party, and have a working knowledge of the party, have a right to say what's best for the party.
I am an Obama supporter, and I know this suggestion hurts his campaign, but it is what is fair. And he should be saying the same thing. He should be focusing on sticking to his ideals and convincing the superdelagates to choose him because he is the best candidate, which he is, and because he can beat McCain, which he can, instead of participating in these ridiculous campaign fights. The gap between him and Hillary is not closing because of Jeramiah Wright, it is closing because his campaign is starting to look more like hers. Get back to what got you in front in the first place, Barack, and you cannot lose.
absolutely!unless you want to see the lowest voter turnout ,in the fall,by disenfranchising the huge number of new voters ,obama has brought out ,from their bomb shelters.
Iam a Clinton supporter ,If it is Clinton who was the front runner ,i will be more happy to say it ,but ,I agree with Nancy Pelosi that the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates regradless who is the front runner ?.
Yes, by all means the superdelegates should back the candidate with the most votes! I whole heartedly agree with Nancy Peloski, who is stepping up to the plate and pleaing for a decision to be made. Anyway, isn't that how all elections work anyway......the person with the most votes win?
If the person with the most votes doesn't win, the American people will not value their right vote any longer. The American people will say, "Why even vote because the superdelegates are going to choose who they want to anyway?"
Yes, I actually agree with her on something. I think the popular vote should rule. After all, are we not the people? And did the people not speak? If our vote can be trumped by the superdelegates then I guess it means we wasted our time voting in the first place.
Again, Clinton will do and say anything to win. It just doesn't matter about the will of the people for her. She's only concern about "her will."
Nancy Pelosi is absolutely correct, this is a delegate race. So whomever has the most delegates, wins the most States, and has the most popular vote, wins the nomination. Currently this is Senator Obama. He is the most electible and the strongest candidate, and she knows it.
It's time for REAL change in Washington, it's time for Barack Obama for president !
Jack, personally I just wish Hillary would just drop out of the race. That way we don't have to worry about super delegates. She is such a burden on the democratic party. But I don't see how the super delegates couldn't go with the candidate with the most pledge delegates. That just wouldn't make sense. DROP OUT HILLARY PLEASE!!!IF YOU LOVE THIS COUNTRY
All I know is that if Barack Obama has the most pledged delegates, which he will, and Hillary Clinton gets the nomination because of Super Delegates, the young people who believe they have a voice in this government and have supported Barack Obama will never participate in another election. Except maybe the one where they vote all the Super Delegates out of office...
II do agree with Pelosi. She makes a very clear case that it is the job of the super delegates to keep the party united and vote according to what we, the voters ultimately want. When a candidate has a big lead in pledged delegates, has the popular votes on his or her side, then I think it is clear what the democratic side of the nation wants and the super delegates should accept that and stand behind that candidate. If the the difference between popular vote and pledged delegates is very small then I would say that the super delegates should vote according to what their state voted. And whoever ends up to be the nominee of the democratic party everybody, even the people saying they will vote McCain if their candidate is not the nominee, should stand like a rock behind that nominee. We can't afford another 4 or 8 years of a Bush-type president.
poor hillary, she says let the voters have their say on the one hand and on the other hand the superdelegates should decide which one is it hillary..............Tony from Jonesboro, Ga.
The days of "smoke-filled" rooms should be over. The Democratic Party needs to be as transparent as possible in this "20-20" vision- world. Superdelegates who do not vote in accord with the majority of elected delegates should lose their capes, belts and boots.
Its just another another desperate attempt of the Clinton camp to steal the democratic nomination. They have no respect to the Speaker of the House and in extension to the party leaders. goes to show that the Clinton camp is willing to do anything to get the nomination at the expense of the Democratic party. . .
I think superdelegates should be abolished.. it is the most undemocratic thing..and here we are trying to export democracy to other countries.. I say we try and fix it here at home first.
Given that they do exist, I think they need to reflect the will of the people.. within that, I think there is some flexibilty. They should vote how their district, state or the nation as a whole voted... let's hope it does not come to the SD vote and that Hillary realizes the damage she is doing and quits before the convention – this will be a huge joke if there is bickering about SDs and PDs at the convention ...
Yes. This is the only solution that makes any kind of sense. To do otherwise would be to open the floodgates to all kinds of ridiculous options.
If you listen to Hillary Clinton then super delegates should exercise their own judgment and recently she said that even pledged delegates are not legally bound and should vote for whoever they personally choose... Why we even hold elections?... Let's just get all those delegates in the back room, have Clintons twist their arms and get Hillary nominated... I am just really surprised how anyone would have a dash of trust left for Hillary and vote for her, the recent "sniper fire" incident I think very well describes in a nutshell who Hillary is...
Pelosi and Dean ar both big Obama supporters, that is obvious! So tell me how you can take them seriously? Bottom line is...If you revote Michigan and Florida and Hillary wins big in PA, it's a dead heat. We have elections for a reason, Let the American voices be heard!!!
Hillary is really starting to look desperate. I think she's still a little burnt from her pants being on fire a few days ago. All Nancy is trying to do is see democracy prevail. Step aside Hillary. Or win it fair and square.
I disagree with both Clinton and Pelosi.
Since there are superdeligates – what stupidity – since most of them are elected officials – should pledge and vote with the will of their voters.
In the case of senators, since they represent an entire state population, they should pledge and vote for whomever won the state.
In the case of Representatives – since they serve a certain district, they should pledge and vote for whomever won their district.
the entire Democratic party is impolding this election and it won't make a difference this election. The Democratic nominee in 08 is toast anyway. Clinton has been so dirty in her attacks on Obama that if he is chosen all the Republicans have to do is a few ads showing her attacks and no moderate will vote for him. If she wins the new people registered will stay away from the voting booth and she doesn't have a chance.
What needs to happen is for moderate democrats and republicans to have the guts to break away and form a third party.
There is no neede debating this issue because Hillary will give us a solution soon. She is not only destructive to the Democrative party, she is also SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.
Just leave Hillary alone, she will say and do things that will turn every superdelegate off before we complete the primary in Pennsylvania or thereabout!
Hillary will self-destruct sooner or later!
The fascinating thing about the letter is that it was from 20 big time Dem fundraisers. Pelosi's response – essentially "stuff it" – says that in this card game Obama's 1 million plus donors, with so much of their funding capacity yet untapped, trumps the old time "deep pockets". Or, putting it another way, turns out their hole card is a deuce of clubs.
The superdelegates should be done away with for the next election. They are an offensive idea. The people – and not some group of elites – should choose the people who govern us.
Since they exist for this election cycle, they should heed the voice of the people. The majority of superdelegates are elected officials, so they will be looking to the impact on their own political futures in deciding. As a practical matter, that means that most will follow the votes of the majority of Dems who live in their districts.
Either way, they should be abolished before the next election.
Do you know what is funny about all this "Super Delegate" garbage?
Somehow, these individuals and their VOTE are supposed to be so much superior in standing than mine, yours and everyone elses. Why? They should have a vote that counts, but in a Primary or Caucus like everyone else. While it is true we pick politicians to be our voice in government, an election is not one that we need someone to speak for me, us or anyone else. WE CAN DO THAT FOR OURSELVES.
It has been a long time coming. A candidate should win based on the total number of people (popular vote) who wish to support that candidate. Gore should have been president and as of current Obama should run the course and be the Democratic select.
Stop feeding people delegates, superdelegates, electoral college. We tell kids and adults alike, ALL PEOPLE ARE EQUAL in the eyes of AMERICA. But then hypocritically decide city is better than country, rural is better suburb, big state is better than small state.
It tiring the way politics is run.
"Sherrie – New Jersey said. 'The superdelegates should vote their conscience as intended by the Democratic Party. Nobody cares what Nancy Pelosi has to say anyway. Last I checked her ratings were about 25% favorable. This is the most we have heard out of her since before she became House Speaker.'
Hey look! that's the same as Hillary's approval rating!
Who came up with this superdelagate stuff anyway? Why should their vote count more than a regular delagate? So they can make sure the candidate they have the most pull with wins? What a stupid idea. The candidate that gets the majority of the votes should win.
What possible benefit could there be to overturning the will of the voters for HILLARY?!!!
Yes. The super delegates should do their job choose based on what is good for the party. It would be a disaster if the votes of all the states were overturned by a disproportionate number of super delegates voting for the candidate with the fewest or even no elected delegates. It is not changing the rules to suggest that responsible super delegates should avoid this disaster except under exceptional circumstances (i.e. the candidate with the most elected delegates is totally unacceptable not just slightly less acceptable).
Jack i looked through some of the blogs to this question and have to agree with the one that said if Sen clinton was ahead would the super delegates really matter that much, or would her view on the criteria for the super delegates decision be as ambigous if Sen Obama was trailing her by the same margins. What ever happened to adhering to the rules the DNC has set forth.i'm tired of the Michigan and florida debacle. Sen Clinton has twisted everything in this primary from michigan to florida re -votes, super delegates responsibilities racial issues, her role in Nafta or her lying about sniper fire. Is this the Person we want to lead / unite America. The Clintons have distorted with half truths and bold lies. Now their willing to destroy the will of the voters to win the nomination, Most amazing of all is it could Happen
YES!!! Obama leads in pledged delegates, number of states won and the popular vote. If Obama was trailing in all three of those categories, they would have stopped this fight a long time ago. Jack, only you can talk some sense into these idiots. It's time to stop this thing.
David, New York
What have the Clinton donors been promised? The Clintons have no right to threaten or brand anyone who disagrees with them. Billary should move on with their lives and accept defeat. The people have spoken. The Clintons just don't want to listen. Why do we always refer to "Clintons"?
No, they should vote how they see fit. Look, they are consider super status for a reason; they are considered the leaders within the national Democratic party. So, it's time to put on the "Big Boy" pants and step up to the plate! These superdelegates should be leaders in the selection process. Hey, if they can't lead the nominating process for a Presidential candidate within their own party, how can we, the American voter, select their Democratic candidate to be the President and leader of our own country?
YES! To overturn the will of the people would be disastrous for the Democratic party! This is from a past Hillary supporter.
IT APPEARS that this the "right" thing too do!
If the superdelegates are supposed to vote in step with the rank and file voters, there would be no point in having superdelegates. Maybe all delegates should be selected by primaries (not caucuses). However, since superdelegates do exist, Speaker Pelosi is not on sold ground to say they should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates. I know she is trying to avert a bloodbath at the convention but her reasoning doesn't fool anyone. What would be useful is to use her influence to be sure all the votes case are actually counted, e.g. Michigan and Florida.
YES, YES and YES!!!!
Thats what they are there for to settle these types of situations and reflect
the will of the people. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out and those who say other wise is because their candidate is behind in the overall votes (popular and delegates).
If the Super delegates go against the will of the people then they will find themselves out of work and replaced by those who will listen to the will of the people because it is and always has been "We the people, by the people and for the people!!!!
Jack, of course Speaker Pelosi is correct. It is to bad that the Clinton supporters see this as an attack on her instead of what it really is as protection of the party. We have to win in November Jack and to many Democrats seem all to eager to drive the bus in to the ditch.
What is it a democracy or an oligarchy? The will of the people should always prevail, otherwise we are saying: "they are not wise enough, we have people better qualified to decide who should be the nominee." That's not what America is about.
Whether I agree or disagree will not make a difference. This Democratic primary has become a major disaster that may cost the Democrats the White House after all, largely due to the mainstream media's continued favorible coverage of one candidate over another.
In any case, I can not believe that I am saying this, but if there is anything we can learn and copy from the Republicans (forgive me for wanting to puke now for saying this), it is to apply the winner-take-all format. It is concise, practical and fair. If that were the case, Hillary would have been well on her way to becoming the President of the United States of America. And who knows, we may have had a very civil campaign that would possibly have resulted in the ultimate dream team ticket, which in return would give Obama the opportunity to expand on his resume to be able to run in 2016.
I know it is wishful thinking, but you can't fault an optimist for dreaming of what might have been.
I want to congratulate John McCain on his luck of the draw.
By the way, everyone should stop insinuating that, if the Dems loose in November, the Clintons are to blame. A contest is a contest. May the best (wo)man win.
If pledged delegates decide the nomination, then why even have superdelegates. I would like to know the purpose. From next time let voters decide the nominee, which is probably the right way of doing it. While Democrats are in the process of changing the rules let them be consistent with general election, and let the winner take all be the new rule.
What purpose do superdelegates serve other than reserving the right to overturn the elected delegate winner in a close race?
With that said, the voters have spoken in favor of Obama whether you like it or not. Clinton has almost no shot of catching up. If that is overturned then it will hit the democratic party so hard that it will be feeling it for several elections to come.
I feel that the race is so tight that they should just vote for whoever they want to. I mean, we're just now finding out things on Obama that would have made Hillary in the lead if we found out about them sooner.
No, Pelosi is wrong. There are 185 delegates at stake in PA. Does this mean there are 185 voters. I think now. How do these pledged delegates represent the will of the people. The popular vote DOES represent the will of the people. In addition, the role of the super delegates is to chose the candidate THEY believe best will represent the Democratic party. Why else would have super delegates?
What is the point of super delegates if they can't vote as they deem fit. The DNC created super delegates and those delegates should should fulfil the role they were cast into. If the party no longer wishes to have super delegates play this role - then, after the candidate for the upcoming presidential election is determined (via delegates and super delegates) - the party should evicerate super delegates from the nomination process.
So let me get this straight: The Clinton campaign wants to continue the primary season because they don't want to disenfranchise the voters in the remaining states. But in the end, because Hillary's only chance at securing the nomination depends on superdelegates, the Clinton campaign is perfectly comfortable with disenfranchising voters by overturning the will of the voters.
The Clinton campaign cannot have it both ways.
I do not believe they should overturn the will of the people that have voted. Hillary is so desperate, it is sad to see how low she has stooped just to get what she wants. We do not need another liar and manipulator in the White House. With her and Bill, it would just be "more of the same" and I do not think the public wants that. She has had her 15 monutes of fame, as had Bill. Let them rest on their "laurels." We really need fresh blood and young blood for a change. She should stop trying to ruin people's lives to get her own way. I cannot believe people do not see what a piece of work she has become. She can not run this election, no matter how much she tries. It is time for her and Bill to crawl back into the hole they crept out of and let the system work as it is meant to do.
The idea that somehow super delegates will have the best judgement as to who can win the election just doesn't take into account the habit of the party big wigs to pick people who couldn't even beat Bush. What kind of losers couldn't beat GW? It is time to let the rest of us decide.
My understanding is the "super" delegates were created to be a firewall against a candidate that won the primary contest, but an 11th hour revelation made them un-electable. That is not the case here (we hope). I think that the fairest thing to do would be to have the "super" delegates follow the wishes of their constituents, for those that have constituencies. This means, for example, that Bill Richardson could endorse and campaign for Obama, but should vote the way his state did, for Hillary. All other "supers" should go with the popular vote. Either way, the outcome is the same. I would be deeply offended if the power brokers simply overturned the will of the people. We have enough of that going on now.
What would be the point of them if they voted the same way? The point is the party need to elect who will win.. That's Hillary!
Superdelgates are fair game. To be honest, unless we have a national, single day primary, there's nothing democratic about the way presidential primaries are run anyway. Unless everyone can vote for who they want to at the same time, I think the "will of the people" is nothing but pie in the sky.
The super delegates should reflect the will of the voters! It would be a terrible blow to the democratic party if they rejected the choice of the voters. People I have talked to said they would vote Replican if their candidate was not nominated . I hope this primary season will have a clear winner before Denver, because the longer this thing drags out, the better it is,unfortunately , republicans.
As far as I learned, superdelegares don't have to back the candiate with the most pledged delegates otherwise there is no reason to have superdelegateds. If rules have to be changed, it should not be in the middle of the game. Superdelegates should be allowed to exercies their own independence and judgement for the good of the party. However, their votes should not be affected by donors either. Maybe the most fair and transparent means to confirm democracy is to hold a superdelegate primary and let every single one has a minute to explain why and cast their vote. Their voice would be heard and they would be held accountable for their own responsible decisions. No flip flop and misstatement.
Let's look at some actual experience based on real numbers and not opinions.
1) According to the Feb. FEC report HRC is almost out of money and drowning in debt.
2) McCain has only a little money and about half the debt of HRC
3) Obama has cash on hand and no debt
Do you want a President who picks advisors that practice good money management or one who claims they will and fails in real life?
Redondo Beach, CA
The will of the people should prevail...OBAMA '08
If the expectation was that suprdelegates would simply rubberstamp how the pledged delegates voted, they would be superfluous. I can imagine a situation wherein the superdelegates should break an impasse in favor of a non-frontrunner; I don't think it would be prudent this time around.
Nancy Pelosi is right. Too overturn the will of the American people goes against the democratic values that Sen. Clinton claims to advocate for. If she succeeds in this, forget the red phone – the electoral map will be filled with red states.
It is important to note that what Pelosi is saying is that the superdelegates should do what is best for the party, just like Clinton wants them to do.
It is in the best interest of the party, both overall and in November to not "disenfranchise" millions of voters and almost 2/3 of the states and nominate the person in second place.
If Clinton thinks it is a bad idea to ignore the will of Michigan and Florida, she should think it would be a bad idea to ignore Iowa, Vermont, Mississippi, Wyoming, and the list goes on and on.
Voting for the person in first place IS what is best for the party and best for their chances to win in November.
Clinton backers may vote for Obama if he wins fair and square, but if she wins by appointing her the winner, the millions and millions of voters who's decision was ignored will stay home. I will and Clinton won my state.
It is only fair for the superdelegates to follow the pledged delegates. If they don't, what is the point of all of this? Why have Americans given so much of their time and money to support their candidate when, at the end of the day, their opinions don't matter. This doesn't sounds very democratic at all.
Jack, I think you ask a question that political leaders themselves can't find an answer for. Either way you go...you step on some major toes. One way, you undermine the votes that citizens of the United States have made. On the other, you upset a group of delegates (who make the party money) who think that they can smell the roses better than everyone else. Either way there will be a lot of complaining...and before long this absurdity that the Democratic candidates are floating on will lead to a Presidential election that is as boring and hopeless as 2004.
P.S. As crazy as Ron Paul might seem, he looks pretty good right now.
Pelosi is correct. It's called democracy.
Jack, superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience. Look at Kenney, Kerry, and Patrick - superdelegates who are supporting Obama. Apparently, they can vote their conscience and not how the state voted.
Who is counting the voices of the people in Florida and Michigan? Do they not count? If the final delegate number does not included Florida and Michigan it doesnt represent the will of the people. Get REAL!!! If there is no solution to seating those delegates then the Superdelegates have to take that in to account when considering the delegate numbers that represent the people. They also have to take into account how many of the states Obama won would actually be useful in a general election, and the fact that the total number of delegates alotted to the states that Obama has won is less than the total number delegates for the states that Hillary has won, which makes her stronger going in to a general election. So, which numbers are they supposed to be looking at?
OK Obama's people want to abide by party rules in Michigan and Florida and not have their votes count, but want to bend the rules and get rid of superdelegates? You can't have it both ways.
Superdelegates were designed to tip the balance towards electable candidates. If for any reason Obama becomes unviable, then they have to swing towards Clinton. The same works for Obama. Party first.
The reason why 1 vote 1 person doesn't work and why we have a representative government is to give regional groups of people identity and power. Suppose we had a 1 person 1 vote for nominee today for the entire nation. Clinton would probably win. Those percent advantages in the big states like California and New York translate to huge amounts of power. Even a 1% difference would be huge. To simplify take 1% of 10 million for a large state, and then compare it to 1% of 1million for a small state.
The Super delegates need to yield to the will of the people. This is measured by the number of pledged delegates. Not honoring this is not only detrimental to the Democratic Party; it is a threat to democracy itself! The fact that the Clinton campaign is so causally suggesting otherwise is extremely alarming and has pushed me to the Obama camp.
Clinton has let out the Fat Cats! Will how cares? I do not think it was a smart idea to threat Nancy Pelosi in a letter! Millions of American is so tired of being threatened by people using their money as power over use letter guys! She should not win the ticket by scaring Nancy Pelosi....we will start a grassroots to help deal our party, Yes we can! I am tired of the nasty race....Hillary go out like the strong fighter you are, running from things in your imagination.
I agree with Nancy Jack, but she better watch her knees and back!!
I think if the Super delagates determine the election and it is against the will of the people it will divide the party and possibly create great racial tention. I think the electorial college should be thrown out. What good does it do to vote if your vote is going to be over turned in the end.
Obama should win. Obama is briliant and he has the ability to bring people together nationaly and internationaly. He is the best!
If they care about the people at all, then they should. I know that they might be indebted to the Clintons, but if Obama has the higher pledged delegate count and they overturn this, they better start looking for another job, because it will be almost impossible for them to be reelected.
Superdelegates are a joke. Whats the point of voting if our votes wont count due to the superdelegates over turning the will of the people?
If superdelegates are so powerful, you don't need to ask the populace for their vote, just let the superdelegates vote.
Americans call this democracy, overturning the results of the winner and giving it to someone else? What is the difference between this and the elections held in most developing countries. Why even bothers having the primaries, why not have the rich and powerful elect the nominee and then have the general elections.
yes i do clinton cant seem to get it let the people chose not her and her husband
Superdelegates are the best of the best, the smartest politicians around, and they know who can lead this country better. I trust them not to be deceived by pretty talk, unlike the average citizen who is only shown what the biased media wants them to see.
Jack, Pelosi is right. The Super-delegates should support someone with the most delegates. I think it was a mistake for a bunch of rich guys to try and bully her. Like her or not Nancy actually HAS 25 plus years of experience.
I find it very interesting that the Clinton campaign is robo-calling pledged delegates. A practice she first said she wouldn't do. But, wait, I don't know why I'm surprised. Clinton is good at changing the rules when she's down and with three seconds left in the game.
There's only one thing that the super delegates should do: Publically vote their conscience.
They should vote however they want. BUT, their vote should be done publically. There should be no secret tabulations as on American Idol
and other reality shows that leave one yelling, "Foul!" Let the uncommitted super delegates vote yea or nay during a roll call in June, after the last state's votes have been counted.
this is yet another rendition of what governor b. richardson called the feeling of entitlement to the presidency.
the facts are that hillary CLINTON has already passed her usefulness and turned to a liability to the party.
if you ask me: she knows it and her SPOUSE knows it.
what is left to convince is the delusional fans who are grasping all sorts of things to wish away Obama.
I would like to ask them, what they would do when McCain beats them in November.
Next to seeing the most responsible of the three runners-up standing (Barack Obama), i would love to see her get clobbered by the veteran.
They should pick the one who can win.....whether that be Hillary or Obama...NONE of the delegates have to have thier votes set in stone ...even the pledged delegates can pick who they want, they can switch..Those are the rules.
I really don't see the point of having "superdelegates". I personally find it offensive that there's a group of people considered as "superdelegates" which sounds like their opinions are more worthy than us non- superdelegate/ voters... Just because some of them are/ were in office as governors/ mayors/ senators etc, doesn't mean they understand the situation any better than us non- superdelegates voters... They could've voted just like any of us and counted as a percentage to the delegates instead of an actual delegate point!? If there's anything that they know but we don't know, please let us know and PLEASE SHARE!!!
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the DEMOCRATIC party to nullify the expressed will of the voters of the Democratic party by making backroom deals to pick a candidate when the people have elected the candidate for their party. The entire primary system was developed to eliminate such secret dirty dealings. If Superdelegates can negate or supercede the will of the voter, what is the point of voting? Instead of long months of campaigning the party should just call the superdelegates in pick a candidate and then save the campaign money for the general election where they would need to convince Republican and Democrat alike of their candidate.
There is a big difference between your question stating that "the superdelegates should support the candidate with the most pledged delegates"
and Pelosi's statement that
"That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses."
I don't think any of the Superdelegates are going to ignore the results of the primaries and caucuses – even if they choose to vote against them. So both sides are right.
Where's the argument?
Not neccessairly. If the superdelegates are just going to support whatever candidate has the most pledged delegates, than what is the point of having superdelegates at all?
Yes, Yes, Yes, I agree completely with Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House on her stance concerning the super delegates. She has decided not be held hostage to those who believe they can buy the election, even thought it's been done in the past. Miss Pelosi is third in line after the Vice President, she does not have to bow just because Clinton supporters say she must.
Jack Cafferty sounds off hourly on the Situation Room on the stories crossing his radar. Now, you can check in with Jack online to see what he's thinking and weigh in with your own comments online and on TV.
About Jack Cafferty
Subscribe | Send Feedback