If the Democrats were so worried about an indecisive primary election results, why not have run off votes in the primaries that were close to decide it rather then dubious undemocratic delegates?
The one caveat would be to have these run offs in states that had more then 2 candidates who roughly equally divided the membership votes between all them to (hopefully) avoid states where polarization in the membership would make a majority unlikely.

I really hope you are right. After the last eight years I find it kind of hard to trust reason and sanity to hold it's ground in these political situations.

Everyone misses the point of the "super" delegates. In 1972, on the strength of his success in the primaries, George McGovern won the Democratic nomination. This was the first time in US history that primaries played THE signifcant role in choosing a nominee. McGovern went on to lose in a landslide to a petty, corrupt fearmonger named RIchard Nixon.

The DNC decided at that point that leaving the nominating process in the hands of individual voters could prove to be a recipe for disaster. As a private organization, and keep in mind that political parties have no official sanction, the DNC is free to make whatever rules they like for choosing their nominee. They are well aware that a weak presidential candidate can be a detriment to other races: congressional, gubernatorial and other state level votes.

The "super" delegate idea is to provide a sanity check on the presidential nominating process. It is designed to give party leaders a chance to put the brakes on a popular yet unelectable candidate and spare the party the embarassment of another McGovern.

With the latest revelations on Obama's pastor and friend of 20 years raising questions of his real political and social beliefs the Democrats are facing the possibility of another 1972 - a weak economy, unpopular war and a White House embroiled in scandal SHOULD result in an easy win; but nominating a candidate that the majority of voters view as a radical can lose it all for them.

Believe me, I do not want to see Hillary Clinton nominated. I'm not sure I want to see Obama nominated either. The best hope for the Democrats might well be a brokered convention that results in someone else being chosen. I can think of half a dozen prominent Democrats who are much better presidential material than either of them.

Poor Senator Clinton. She moved to New York so she could run for Congress. She ran for Congress as the first step to being President. Now all of a sudden, she's no longer the chosen one. I wonder if she ever gave a damn about the people from New York.

What? The best hope would be to alienate 25 million voters? That sounds like a fantastic plan.

Barack Obama is The Donkey Whisperer.

Corrupt, petty, fearmonger who created the DEA, the EPA, made lasting peace with China in the shadow of the Cold War, who nearly passed a healthcare plan very similar to the one that Hilary Clinton proposed in 2007, and oversaw the greatest desegregation of Southern Schools?

The corrupt and petty fearmonger who appointed the Justice who wrote 'Roe vs. Wade'?

That guy.

The corrupt and petty fearmonger who pursued detente with the Soviet Union, signed into law the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and SALT? That fucking guy?

Why does everyone bash fucking Nixon? Aside from carrying on the failed policy of Vietnam given to him by LBJ and Kennedy! And Watergate?

He was a fucking amazing President!

For liberals.

if she bans math, i am going to be pissed. i love math.

Not to mention OSHA, affirmative Action, and indexing Social Security for inflation!

. double post

The top one didn't say anything over here, I assume you were agreeing with me.

I'm not even going to touch Nixon here, but I will say GUESS WHAT?

There is NO NEED for a re-vote or run-off if you read the very clear article. The states had their elections as agreed upon by candidates and states, and the resulting tally is that Obama leads by nearly a million votes, not to mention delegates.

End of story. No need for more.

"How about if one of the leading Democratic canidates doesn't attempt to pull a bullshit move that remind's every voter of Bush's tactics? Does that sound good?"

Yeah, that sounds very good... more and more HRC is coming off as Dubya in drag. Only she's more intelligent that Bush... but so's a goldfish.


But I don't agree that Obama has the nomination clinched. HRC's campaign is showing signs of unraveling. But intrigues and diabolical power plays may still win the day, as it has in many past elections. In this regard, Obama has to prove that not only is he a fighter, but what kind of fighter he is. This is a test of his metal, The next president has to be strong enough to take the on the "powers that be" and reverse the econmic policies of this administration, as well as find a quick and strong resolution of this ill conceived and ineptly waged war in Iraq... and re-secure our constitutional rights.

I'll admit... at first I wasn't really that much behind Obama. Don't get me wrong, I like him. He seems a truly good and honorable man. He is articulate, diplomatic and his voting record suggests he actually does care about the people he represents.

I just wasn't convinced that he had the grit to fix what Bush and Cheney have broken.

I'm now re-thinking that. He has handled every assault on his character with grace, dignity and strength. He has refused to give in to pettiness and seems to consistanty take the moral high-ground. He has refused to play the "race card" even when others have done so. He seems to understand that race should not be an issue here... only character and ability.

Navigating HRC's power plays will take back-bone as well as intelligence and show us if he has the "chutzpa" to defeat Bitchzilla and take on McPain.