Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Super-Delegates: Do not fail the American people!
whitehouser.com — If super-delegates determine the 2008 election, the United States will never be the same.
iraq- 223 diggs
- digg it
- iraq, on 03/25/2008, -2/+27It's true, that super delegates wield so much power. The power to be deciders though is supposed to be for situations where the party might be overtaken by someone not aligned with Democratic ideals. In this case, I'd say that Barack Obama (although not perfect) is more aligned with the Democratic Party than Hillary Clinton ever was. To use super-delegate power in this situation would be an abuse of power and Americans are getting sick and tired of the abuses of government authority.
- blapierre, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5The super delegates WILL determine who wins the nomination because it is impossible for either nominee to get enough delegates to clinch the nomination with the remaining contests.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3You're right, I'm wondering why the threshold for victory hasn't been lowered given that FL and MI aren't going to count? Why didn't they just proportionally drop the threshold so that one of the candidates could cross the finish line?
- Cerialthriller, on 03/26/2008, -4/+2i cant see how obama is even electable after this is whole preacher mess came about. and yes ive seen extended videos and it doesnt make him look like any less of a nutbag.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2You're acting as if Barack Obama said that stuff. I would never pretend to know what goes through the minds of African Americans, but perhaps they do feel a lot of resentment towards whites for slavery and segregation. Maybe they do feel like "white people have never been called a *****, they could never truly understand me". The fact is, Barack Obama had a different life entirely and he lives his life not as a racist, a hater or an angry black man.. but as a proud American citizen.
- ThrstForKnwldge, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Obama didn't say America invented aids, his preacher did. Obama's preacher isn't running for president, he is. It really is a non issue.
- Cerialthriller, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2but he has been a member of this guys church for 20 years, why would you be a patron of a church you disagree with? it shows incredibly poor judgement.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3No more poor judgment than invading Iraq as a response to Osama Bin Laden. Choosing pastors are personal decisions, your point would be valid if everything that pastors do or say should be followed blindly. I'm not a sheep and something tells me Barack Obama isn't either. To suggest that he should be guilty by association is silly, Hillary Clinton is married to a horny perverted old man.. she remains married to him, should she leave? Again, completely private decisions and unless you're willing to concede that Clinton is likely to do whatever her husband says about politics, you can't even come close to arguing that Obama is going to take some pastors words and use them to implement policy.
This is a good reason to keep religion the F away from politics, because it creates irrational and emotional responses that harm the political process. - Cerialthriller, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2no but he has sat there for 2 decades enjoying this man's raging lunatic sermons. and i think the public has every right to know if the candidates are into wacky religions. Would you vote for a Scientologist regardless if he didnt impliment scientology policy. probably not, because it shows horrible judgement.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3No more poor judgment than invading Iraq as a response to Osama Bin Laden. Choosing pastors are personal decisions, your point would be valid if everything that pastors do or say should be followed blindly. I'm not a sheep and something tells me Barack Obama isn't either. To suggest that he should be guilty by association is silly, Hillary Clinton is married to a horny perverted old man.. she remains married to him, should she leave? Again, completely private decisions and unless you're willing to concede that Clinton is likely to do whatever her husband says about politics, you can't even come close to arguing that Obama is going to take some pastors words and use them to implement policy.
- elhaf, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4My pastor once said he was ok with homosexuality, but bisexuality bothers him. I disagree with this. Should I leave my church?
- blapierre, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5The super delegates WILL determine who wins the nomination because it is impossible for either nominee to get enough delegates to clinch the nomination with the remaining contests.
- bullcutter, on 03/25/2008, -1/+14And I wouldn't rule this out as a possibility. I truly believe we have yet to see Hillary's dirtiest moves.
Hawaii is not exactly "representative" of the nation, but Obama swept all 51 districts here with a total of 76% of the popular vote. We have 9 superdelegates, 2 of which are already pledged to Hillary, and that's already proportionally enough.
However, 3 of our superdelegates haven't even been named yet, and if any one of them votes for Hillary (or of the remaining 4), it will be a travesty to the democratic system and a usurpation of the will of the people.
Republicans don't have superdelegates, why the ***** should the Dems??
There's something inherently flawed in the existence of the superdelegate.- ichchappycat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Obama is FROM Hawaii. Those two should be chased out of their positions. Can you imagine what a President could do for the Hawaiian people and environment? Bush's Marine Sanctuary would pale in comparison.
- bullcutter, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Inouye and this other guy named Richard Port. I wouldn't be surprised if Akaka and possibly others end up voting for Hillary too, regardless of their previous praises for Obama.
and i dunno why but i have a bad feeling about the intentions of the 3 "unnamed" hawaii superdelegates as well... the system is shot.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?4a628cf1- ...
- bullcutter, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Inouye and this other guy named Richard Port. I wouldn't be surprised if Akaka and possibly others end up voting for Hillary too, regardless of their previous praises for Obama.
- ViperDaimao, on 03/25/2008, -4/+2So? Hilary won Mass and both Kennedy and Kerry said they're voting for Obama. Face it, this is how the system was designed. Don't like it? Change it next time.
- iraq, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4Well, I think that's the point of the uproar. You start with a dialogue and put the pressure on both the system and the leadership to make change.
- bullcutter, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2"Face it, this is how the system was designed."
Utter *****. Superdelegates didn't even exist before 1982. Do some research before you run your mouth next time.
- worldinmyeyes, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Dirtiest move yet? How about bribing pledged delegates to vote for her. That's right, she's stated they are not set in stone and don't have to follow the will of the people. I wont put it past her (and her "supporters") to try and buy her way to the nomination.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6That the Democrats have superdelegates as an 'insurance' policy against wacky candidates really says something about the way the Democratic party views its supporters.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3That's an interesting argument actually, why not trust the people more with their judgment? The system is supposed to keep situations like a "Ron Paul Revolution" from taking the party by storm, but despite the strength of the movement it wasn't able to make a dent in the Republican party. That said, even though Republicans have winner take all.. the "revolution" has left a lasting impression on some voters and that's really the only thing that should matter to movements.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4The R3V0|_ution, as it were, didn't represent the interests of the majority of Republicans. It was just a very vocal minority spamming polls and youtube...the proof of that was that they didn't translate to primary votes. Most Republicans support the War on Terror...that was the main thing that made him unelectable in the Republican primaries IMO.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3That's an interesting argument actually, why not trust the people more with their judgment? The system is supposed to keep situations like a "Ron Paul Revolution" from taking the party by storm, but despite the strength of the movement it wasn't able to make a dent in the Republican party. That said, even though Republicans have winner take all.. the "revolution" has left a lasting impression on some voters and that's really the only thing that should matter to movements.
- ichchappycat, on 03/25/2008, -0/+4That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Obama is FROM Hawaii. Those two should be chased out of their positions. Can you imagine what a President could do for the Hawaiian people and environment? Bush's Marine Sanctuary would pale in comparison.
- cashman57, on 03/25/2008, -16/+11The superdelegate system was devised by the Democrat party so they could put who they wanted in as candidate no matter what the delegates want.
This is just more proof the Democrats are not fit to lead.- neocognitism, on 03/25/2008, -10/+3So are you a Bush supporter?
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Nope, he's just a bitter Ron Paul supporter who is still under the delusion that paul can still win the nomination. (just look at his posting history)
- bullcutter, on 03/25/2008, -4/+9the republicans must be even more unfit to lead, because they're about to lose the next election.
but if hillary wins the nomination, the election is over for me anyway, as the people will have already lost. - cquinnd, on 03/25/2008, -8/+2No, the Republicans just resort to reapportionment tactics to ensure no block of potetential Democratic leaning voters ever grew large enough to challenge their party dominance.
- avengingturnip, on 03/25/2008, -0/+9Any party in power does that.
- V3n0M, on 03/26/2008, -3/+4You're absolutely right - it's just another example of Nanny State in action. The powers-that-be in the Democratic party don't trust the common person to take care of their own education or their own medical choices, so they can't be trusted with the power to vote for who they want either.
The whole superdelegate situation represents everything that is wrong with the party in a nutshell. - brainboy77, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1yeah and ron paul with his 42 delegates is perfect for the white house.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -2/+342 delagates? In his dreams maybe. He's clocked in with an astounding 21 delagates! It ain't over yet, though. He only needs 1304 delegates to catch up to McCain!!
- V3n0M, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5Why does somebody have to bring up Ron Paul on EVERY thread! We're discussing the Democratic Party and superdelegates here.
Please do try to keep up.
- solesoul, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5Ya know, not every comment thread needs Ron Paul.
Just thought you should know.- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5None of them do. He's a non-candidate now.
- V3n0M, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1You're the one who brought him up first!* cashman57's comment had nothing to do with Ron Paul. He's moved on, yet you seem unable to. It's quite sad really.
*15 hours ago - "he's just a bitter Ron Paul supporter"- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4I was simply answering neocog's question. I didn't bring him up in any way except to tell the truth.
The people who bring him up during every random politicol article though...
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4I was simply answering neocog's question. I didn't bring him up in any way except to tell the truth.
- V3n0M, on 03/26/2008, -4/+1You're the one who brought him up first!* cashman57's comment had nothing to do with Ron Paul. He's moved on, yet you seem unable to. It's quite sad really.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5None of them do. He's a non-candidate now.
- neocognitism, on 03/25/2008, -10/+3So are you a Bush supporter?
- americangoy, on 03/25/2008, -12/+6Obligatory American Goy blog spam:
What the f**k are superdelegates:
http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/02/so-what-fu ...
or
http://tinyurl.com/34bfvf- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6obligatory WTF? :P
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Obligatory bury for shameless *****-blog plug.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Wow, I just checked out your "blog", and you are seriously one racist peice of *****. I wish I could bury you twice.
- avengingturnip, on 03/25/2008, -1/+10Not that long ago the political parties caucused locally, selected delegates to send to state and national conventions and selected presidential candidates after much politicking and back-room deal making. Where did the idea come from that political parties 'owe it to America' to select their candidates based upon popular elections? They can do what ever they want and people are then allowed to cast their vote that makes no difference, only one of millions, in the sham of a national election. The bigger issues are ballot access for non-republicrats and devolving federal power to the local level where people might still have a chance of making a difference. The superdelegates will do what they think is best for their party.
- caponumen, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Why do you suppose the "democrats" put this system in place?
It was certainly not by any democratic impulse!
Time for you "democrats" to shake off the haze of denial and realize this election is nothing more than a carefully planned psychodrama...... - rzxc, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3Ask yourself the following question. If Hillary can't get Bill Richardson on her side, how on earth is she going to get enough superdelegates to vote for her? Remember, the Clintons made Bill Richardson. I doubt anyone would have heard of this guy if not for them. If you look at the comments made by Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Jimmy Carter, you should come to the conclusion that they support Obama. I even read an article that leads me to believe Harry Reid is going to support Obama.
- doctechnical, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2The best way Hillary could get the supers over to her side is to promise political favors/appointments in a little quid-pro-quo action. But could it be that given past performance people don't expect a Clinton to keep their promise? Could some political chickens be coming home to roost?
- JDenigma, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5"Democrats were supposed to be the anointed ones in 2008, they were supposed to change everything. If you’ve been paying attention to the Democratic party, it’s clear that the direction of our country isn’t going to change a whole lot. This fact leaves many people like myself wondering why we should put our faith in Democrats if we know they’re destined to continue wrecking our nation the way Republicans did under Bush."
Anyone who seriously believes that any political party or any politician is going to be their leader, their savior who will change everything for the better has got to either be completely naive or new to politics. Now maybe there are the rare exceptions to the rule such as Ron Paul, but even with him I wouldn't have expected him to be able to save the day for us. The best I deep down felt that we could have expected with him was merely opening peoples minds to the message of liberty, but even if he became president, he's a politicians working within the system and he is one man who could only do so much.
It is high time that we stop falling for this charade in thinking every election cycle there is going to be someone or some political party that will actually change things for the better instead of more of the same in increasing big government and corruption. Stop accepting your masters whether they look like a donkey or an elephant.
It is no surprise to me to realize that the democrats aren't going to change anything for the better. It amazes me that there are plenty of people who are so gullible to think otherwise. Oh yeah, we'll just repeat the worn out "get out and vote" cliche as if that is going to change things. Riiiight.
I'm seeing past the illusion and the corrupt game that we call government and politics. Politics is not the answer and government is far too gone and corrupt at this point to do anything about it by fighting the beast from within. You can try to fight it through political means and I hope you succeed. More power to you, but it's wishful thinking and doomed to failure. The very nature of voting and government is flawed and corrupt. Politicians once they get in will continue to be corrupted by the system as it is human nature and people will continue to sell their soul to the devil at the ballot box by voting for whomever promises them their pie in the sky programs or free goodies. Call me a cynical bastard. Maybe I am. I don't care. I'm just seeing the world without my rose colored glasses.
There is nothing new under the Sun and nothing different about the two parties that they haven't already done to us over the past century and a half and any of you seriously think they're going to suddenly behave and change now? I am not saying give up and I am not a defeatist, but the point to all of this is that we are fighting a futile, losing battle by trying to defeat them at their own game. It's too late to slash government from within. At this point we would just be like the Dutch boy trying in vain to plug the leaks in the dyke with our fingers. The growing size and momentum of the government at this point is overwhelming and will overcome you. You will be flooded.
It has been big government corrupt democrat controlled governments cycle after cycle going back generations before us and it is been just as well big government corrupt republican controlled government going back generations before ours. Time to have that alarm bell go off in your head and choose which pill you're going to swallow. This voting can't control the politicians and it just becomes used as a tool for people to initiate violence upon others through the proxy of government and legislate their form of morality upon others. Time to wake up people!
The real answer is going to have to come through apolitical means. We have to fight for liberty outside of government. Start thinking outside the box. Whatever it may be. Disobey their god damn laws! Free state project. Spread the word to people. Wake up your neighbors! This is the final stand. We've just gotta do something rather than the same old ***** we go through time and time and time and ***** time after time!
I have seen the light beyond my minarchist days and I realize the hope for the future of humanity lies in "anarcho-capitalism", a peaceful, voluntary futuristic free market world with no government. That is the ONLY way human beings and human nature are going to evolve.
Enough of this talk about McCain, Obama, or Clinton are going to change things or cause gridlock whatever. Call me crazy for being way outside the box here. I don't care. We need to change our thought processes. Nothing will change with the next election cycle. Get used to it! - Yamoth, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2Seriously? Are you people really serious about this crap? Since when did picking presidential candidate for a bloody party mean the end of democracy?
- herkimer65, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Since picking the candidate is done by a small "super" group of people who may decide against the will of the majority.
- Yamoth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1So what? Let say theoretically that Obama happen to loose, what stop him from running as an independent? It just shocked me how so many people view this like it is the end of the world and blowing it totally out of proportion. Wouldn't it make more sense if we just scrap the party all together and simply have anyone who can get a million signature or more the ability to run for president. If people think there is a corruption within a system party, why not simply leave that party and form a new one. The problem isn't that the party system is corruption, the problem is that there are only two party system and thus bound to have corruption.
Further more, get a grip people. The "American People" consist more than just that democrat or the republican.
- mooseontheloose, on 03/26/2008, -5/+4Oh no, if this happens a bunch of 18 year old Diggers won't vote Democrat in 2008? THE DEMS ARE DOOMED FOREVER!!!!!!!!
- oldhick, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3There seems to be an over whelming amount of ignorance about the history of US elections in the comment section here today...
The general population has NEVER had much of a voice in the Democratic primary process. Until the 80s, nearly all of the control rested in the hands of the super delegates.
People are becoming outraged today when they should be happier. If anything, the Democratic party is gradually becoming more open to the voice of the people.- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Eh, valid point but at the same time it's like saying in the 60s that black people should be content sitting in the back of the bus, after all they weren't allowed to associate with whites at all before the powers that be let them. Injustice is injustice is injustice, if the system is broke people should bitch and moan until it is fixed.
- oldhick, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4I agree with that, but many of the comments imply that people don't understand the history and thought this was new. In fact the description underneath the title reads "If super-delegates determine the 2008 election, the United States will never be the same."
Thats *****. Super-delegates have been determining primary elections for a long time.- moolaismyfriend, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1That and rednecks in fly over states.
- oldhick, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4I agree with that, but many of the comments imply that people don't understand the history and thought this was new. In fact the description underneath the title reads "If super-delegates determine the 2008 election, the United States will never be the same."
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4Eh, valid point but at the same time it's like saying in the 60s that black people should be content sitting in the back of the bus, after all they weren't allowed to associate with whites at all before the powers that be let them. Injustice is injustice is injustice, if the system is broke people should bitch and moan until it is fixed.
- galeninjapan, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7The democrats are free to run their party and primary however the wish. Maybe you should ask yourself why you support the party that supports the super delegate system.
- familynight, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4if clinton wins the nomination, it's going to take a lot to get me to vote for any democratic candidate for a long time. maybe, we can actually get a multi-party system going if enough people feel similarly.
- tgrk35, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Talk of Obama running as an Independent has been floating around, but I don't think it'll happen :(.
- iraq, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Not necessary, only thing that can lose the election for Obama is Obama at this point.
- tgrk35, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Talk of Obama running as an Independent has been floating around, but I don't think it'll happen :(.
- KevinRWright, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6I would just like to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with the democrats or republican nomination system. The founding fathers never envisioned or planned this stupid party primary process. So don't try to put it on the constitution when your party fails you.
- Stevanoski, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2This system is so corrupt only the Democrats could have invented it.
- moolaismyfriend, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1ha ha ha. You are like a little stuffed doll that has a string coming out of its ass. Every time you pull it you spout sophomoric naive Republican talking points.
- swrostmore, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3An elite minority deciding elections contrary to the votes of the majority? That would never happen *cough* 2000 *cough*
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by