Hillary Wins Democrat Nomination

A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision.

The claims no doubt will escalate the war of words between the campaigns, as Obama continues to argue superdelegates should vote the way of their districts. But the special class of delegates, which make up about 20 percent of the total delegate haul, are not bound to vote the way of their states and districts, as pledged delegates are.

Obama leads handily in the pledged delegate count and has won more states but trails Clinton in superdelegates, making them potential and controversial deadlock-breakers if the race ends up a dead heat come convention time

Ickes said superdelegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

In essence, he argued the party’s 795 superdelegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman recently was stripped of his superdelegate status) were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates.

He also said Michigan and Florida, which voted for Clinton, should have delegates seated at the convention, even though he originally voted with the national party last year to strip the delegates because the states violated party rules by holding early primaries.

Ickes explained that his different position is due to the different hats he wears as both a Democratic National Committee member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/16/top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant/

Well Sam the political parties are pretty much free to choose their candidates any way they want.

They are not required to even have primaries if they don't want to.

Or even caucuses for that matter.

Just look right here in wv at what the republicans did a couple weeks ago.

There was certainly nothing democratic about that.

With the Dems having 20% of their delegates made up of so-called super delegates, it should come as no surprise that their votes could be decisive.

Especially with two of the biggest states being in limbo and possibly having their delegates not able to vote.

Another thing that keeps it close is the Dems did away with the winner take all primaries so if a candidate gets 45% of the Primary popular vote they get 45% of the delegates.

The republicans on the other hand still have many winner-take-all states.

But if they want to the Parties could just go back to the smoke-filled room and make their choice in secret.

Kinda like they pick the new Pope when the old Pope dies.

Shermangeneral, are you saying that you would approve a president winning by selection--and not election by the popular vote?

Well Terri I would point out that the President is not now and has never been elected by the popular vote.

The President is chosen by "electors" representing the various states apportioned according to their total number of Senators and Representatives.

It is certainly not a democratic process.

And the two major Parties are pretty much free to pick their candidates about any way they want.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Terri I would point out that the President is not now and has never been elected by the popular vote.

The President is chosen by "electors" representing the various states apportioned according to their total number of Senators and Representatives.

It is certainly not a democratic process.

And the two major Parties are pretty much free to pick their candidates about any way they want.

I know that the Electoral College is in the COTUS? Can you show me where "Super Delegates" is in the COTUS? (Shermangeneral, wasn't Super Delegates a racist reaction to "prevent activists" from winning an election?

Well Terri that is a good question.

You will not find anything in the Constitution governing political parties and how they pick their nominees.

Indeed, George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, warned us about the perils of political parties and cautioned the people not to let them develop.

But we did anyway.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=15

shermangeneral wrote:Indeed, George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, warned us about the perils of political parties and cautioned the people not to let them develop.

And the founding fathers at the constitutional convention, which GW presided over, specifically states that partisan politics is the best way to ensure the survival or or constitutional republic and prevent a majority rules mentality that would surely destroy this country.

As for the subject of this conversation, what would the pledged votes and states look like if only democrats were allowed to vote in these primaries?

Well that is a good question Aaron.

I think it is clear that Obama would not fare as well.

Hillary would be doing much better, and Edwards might still be in.

Lots of republicans and independents have been muddying the Democrat waters.

So then how are the democrats doing so much better of a job at picking a candidate then Republicans are. McCain is there nominee for the same reason Obama is supposedly leading the democrats.

Well aaron I never said the Dems are doing a better job at picking their candidate.

If I had to choose I would have to say the republicans have done better up to now.

But I am not a big supporter of these publicly funded primary elections.

I think if Parties want to nominate candidates they should just have a convention at their own expense.

You want it run solely by democratic contributors. Ziggy wants all the money out unless it's going to someone he supports. Where do you meet?

Well Aaron I don't know if we do necessarily meet on all issues ziggy and myself.

He is more idealistic than I am.

I just try to do the best I can with what I've got.

Seems to me every time we try to improve our political system we create about as many problems as we solve.

I do believe in striving to do better, but my expectations are probably not as high as his are.

We will always have some people more interested than others and some will be more equal than others.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Aaron I don't know if we do necessarily meet on all issues ziggy and myself.

He is more idealistic than I am.

I just try to do the best I can with what I've got.

Seems to me every time we try to improve our political system we create about as many problems as we solve.

I do believe in striving to do better, but my expectations are probably not as high as his are.

We will always have some people more interested than others and some will be more equal than others.

Sherm, for all your faults (and there are many with partisanship being a biggie) you're a pretty sincere guy with a fair amount of common sense and street smarts about you.

There are those in our history that only wish to create as much havoc as possible. They are the type that would allow a habitual child rapist and murderer be set free because the search warrent said 'blue' house instead of 'teal' house. They believe that ALL government and corporation is bad and that no one knows more then what they do and we would all be better off if we abscribed to their theories.

At least you are not like that Sherm for America IS NOT better off with that type of person.

Aaron wrote: Ziggy wants all the money out unless it's going to someone he supports.

That's another of your lies, Aaron. Put up or shut up.

shermangeneral wrote:Well that is a good question Aaron.

I think it is clear that Obama would not fare as well.

Hillary would be doing much better, and Edwards might still be in.

Lots of republicans and independents have been muddying the Democrat waters.

I'll ask you the same as I did over on the other thread, Sherm. In that about half the states do not even register voters by political party affiliation, how do we define these "Democratic waters"? There's a lot of political independence and democracy out there that the political bosses, especially the Democratic DLC and/or DNC bosses, seem determined to circumvent.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote: Ziggy wants all the money out unless it's going to someone he supports.

That's another of your lies, Aaron. Put up or shut up.

So are you now saying that you've never said campaing finance needs reformed and that campaign contributions should be discontinued? Because the 'proof' is on the old gazette thread but I don't need it. I know what you've said in the past and I know what you said on the McGraw thread and they contridict each other.

I'm not saying your a liar dude but you are one hell of a hypocrite!!!!!

Aaron wrote:So are you now saying that you've never said campaing finance needs reformed and that campaign contributions should be discontinued?

For years I have said, here and elsewhere, and including on the old gazette forums, that campaign financing needs reformed, and along with that government financing of campaigns in lieu of private campaign contributions, yes, absoultely. And I said it again here on another thread this afternoon. When or where are you suggesting that I have ever said otherwise?

Because the 'proof' is on the old gazette thread but I don't need it. I know what you've said in the past and I know what you said on the McGraw thread and they contridict each other.

As relates to campaign financing, what did I say on "the old gazette thread" that is any different from what I have said anywhere on this current forum?

I'm not saying your a liar dude but you are one hell of a hypocrite!!!!

When you've painted yourself into a corner, that usually your last resort, then you start the circle all over again. Show us that I am either a liar or a hypocrite. Most everyone here was on the old gazette forum. Can you find even one ally here that will say that I said anything on the old Gazette forums contradicting that I favor changes in campaign finance laws allowing qualified public financing of election campaigns in conjunction with disallowing further private campaign contributions?

Dude, you have said numerous times that candidates shouldn't take funds from citizens because when they do, they are selling their votes. Jimmy showed you exactly how McGraw sold his office for campaign donations and you said "If".

He did exactly what you've said shouldn't happen but instead of lambasting his underhanded, possible criminal activities, you're stated that since the laws are what they are, it's all good.

And I'm the one that's supposedly in the corner.

Yeah, right.

Hypocrite.

Your suggestion that the campaign laws as they are- warts and all-should be applied to some but not to others does not meet the rationality test. Why should either a McGraw or anyone else be exempted from the existing campaign finance laws?

You'll have to show me where I said that dude.

All I've done since you made the statement that it was ok for McGraw to do business with campaign contributors is point out your double speak, of which you are certainly the master.