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.

Obama 08!!!!

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.

Absolutely Jack!
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.

Jack,

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.

Brian
Idaho

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.

Howard
Joshua Tree

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.

Michigan

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.

Jack,

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

George Beshay

Monroe, NJ

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.

Erich Z.
Chicago, IL

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.
Patricia
Palmdale, Ca.

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!

Orlando Florida

…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…

…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?”

Brian, Cincinnati

Jack,
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?

Jack
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!

yes

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.

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.

Thank you for posting my comment despite it being negative towards CNN’s preferred candidate Barack.

Jack,

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.

Obama 08
Austin Texas

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?

Jack,

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).

OOPS!

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.

Jack,

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.
NC

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.

Brian, Cincinnati

Jack,
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!

Bryant
Detroit, Michigan

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.

Anne
Texas

. . . .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

Jack,

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.

Jack,
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!

Jack,
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.

Jack,

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…

Ken

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!

Jack,
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 judgmen