The Democratic Party, especially after 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election, should stand up for the rights of voters. The caucus system, which is largely responsible for Obama's pledged delegate lead, is unrepresentative and it disenfranchises voters, as would not seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Not representing voters (caucus states), disenfranchising them (FL & MI), calling them racist (?!), and ignoring them (choosing Obama) will lead to massive negative repercussions for the Democratic Party. This is why Hillary must fight on, and why she must win the nomination.

I support Hillary's continued fight for the nomination in this late stage, with only three more primaries to go, because I think she is the more qualified candidate. She has served longer in the U.S. Senate, sitting and chairing important committees such as the Arms Services Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health. She has sponsored over 350 bills—everything from added protection for children in vehicles to protection of a watershed, to added benefits for public safety officers. Hillary also helped create the SCHIP health insurance program that now covers over six million hildren. Additionally, Hillary Clinton has been a diplomat for over a decade who has traveled to over 80 countries representing the United States with dignity and courage, which has included speaking forcibly on Chinese soil about human rights and women's rights.

I also support Hillary because I think she can win in the general election against John McCain.

"About 80 percent of Obama's lead -- between 130 and 140 delegates -- came in caucuses,"
"http://www.realclearpolitics.­com/articles/2008/05/an_unconv­entional_2008_electio.html
Michael Barone, RealClearPolitics, 5/17/2008
which are not only undemocratic as they discriminate against those who cannot afford to spend the hours needed to participate in them, such as working class voters, shift workers, mothers, and the elderly, but caucuses are also undemocratic because they result in these types of numbers:

Clinton wins Ohio by 203,851 votes and
wins 9 more delegates than Obama

Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 214,115 votes and
wins 12 more delegates than Obama

Clinton wins Texas by 100,000 votes and
wins 5 LESS delegates than Obama

Obama wins Kansas by 17,710 votes and
wins 9 more delegates than Clinton

Obama wins Hawaii by 19,512 votes and
wins 8 more delegates than Clinton

Obama wins Minnesota by 73,115 votes and
wins 24 more delegates than Clinton

Source:
<link>
New York Times and
<link>
RealClearPolitics

Obama won far more delegates than correspond to the votes he won by. This is not only unfair representation, it strongly suggests that Obama is the weaker general election candidate. Exit poll data from states like West Virginia and Kentucky also reveal that large blocks of Hillary's supporters <link> will not vote for Obama if he is chosen as the nominee.

Furthermore, Hillary's right to take her case to the convention is not unusual, indeed it is supposed to be part of the process. What has been unusual is the vile chorus from the Obama campaign, and his media enablers, that Hillary should drop out of the race, and that she has no chance of winning the nomination so her only motivation to continue the race must be a sinister one.

She does have a chance to win the nomination if the superdelegates, who were created in the 1980s to counterbalance the enthusiasm of left-wing caucus-goers, follow the rules and choose independently, which suggests that they should not just ratify the results of the caucuses and the paper-thin delegate edge Obama won in the primary states, or to choose Obama for the sake of "party unity," or the "need" to have a nominee now rather than later. Obama will not win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination without the superdelegates, this means his support is not a majority or a plurality. The superdelegates are free to choose based on their assessment of who is the most electable candidate, the one with the most support from core Democrats, in the fall election. That candidate is Hillary Clinton, and this is the reason she continues to fight for the nomination.

Indeed, Democratic nominees have emerged from bitter convention floor fights and have succeeded in becoming President:

Woodrow Wilson was nominated in 1912 on the 146 ballot and went on to become President

Franklin D. Roosevelt was nominated in 1932 in a contentious convention after 4 ballots and went on to become President.

Hence, I pose the same question that
<link>
Daniel A. Cirucci asks,

"In 1980, Kennedy came into the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City with 1,225 delegates to President Carter's 1,981, with 122 delegates uncommitted.

Kennedy stood on principle and people admired him for fighting the good fight.

If Kennedy could take it to the convention when he trailed by 756 delegates, why can't Hillary go to the convention trailing by far less?"

My answer is <link> sexism and this will not stand. We supporters of Hillary will not accept the superdelegates undermining her candidacy with bogus claims that they are following the "will of the people" when we know how unrepresentative the caucus states are. If Hillary additionally wins the popular vote, which should count Florida and Michigan because real people voted for her in these states, but the superdelegates still move to crown Obama, then we will have no choice but to reject Obama as the nominee.

On that point I would also add the rationale for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates:

Florida was a fair election. Both candidates had their names on the ballot and Hillary did not campaign in Florida while Obama bought national cable advertisements that effectively allowed him to campaign there in violation of the pledge all candidates took to not campaign in Florida. Obama behaved in an unprincipled manner.

Obama's new ad is a "clear and blatant violation"
<link>

In Michigan Senator Obama worked to prevent a new Democratic primary from occurring, again acting in an unprincipled manner. To allow Obama to be rewarded for his role in what is, in essence, voter suppression would be wrong. Hence, the Michigan delegates must be seated because having been given the chance to put his name on the ballot, Obama chose to prevent a vote from occurring. To allow this to stand and therefore stymy Senator Clinton's bid for the nomination is patently unfair to her and completely unacceptable. A compromise would be to give Obama one third of the "uncommitted" votes, since both he and Edwards urged his supporters to vote "uncommitted."

"The Obama people are blocking it in the Legislature"
<link>

The superdelegates should do the job they were given, which was NOT to rubber stamp the pledged delegates, but to choose the stronger candidate when it is a close race: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Wow, what a well thought-out, substantive post with excellent referencing. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

I agree that the caucus system is an undemocratic way to allocate delegates. It has definite biases with respect to the demographics it represents. We're stuck with it this time around, but one can hope for reform in the future.

Question: Does it bother you that Hillary originally agreed with the DNC decision to NOT seat Florida and Michigan, and that she only changed her mind after she started losing? I mean there's commitment and there's commitment when you're grasping at straws because you realize that if you abide by all the rules agreed to at the beginning of the race (no Fl and Mi seating, delegates not polpular vote...etc.) you're going to lose.

All of these new values about respecting the popular vote are just that...new...to Clinton. Doesn't it bother you that she is, to put it mildly, a kind of fair weather friend to these values you so strongly advocate for? Do you really think that if she was ahead in delegates and behind in the popular vote that this would still be her position?

Would it be yours? Or are you just as fair weather. I'm really wondering this, not just of you but of Hillary supporters in general: If the Hillary/Obama roles were reversed would you still be as crazy about all of this popular vote business and this delegates get to choose business if all of that meant that Clinton might lose. Because, honestly, this whole "oh my god we need to repect the popular vote" thing just strikes me as the justification de jour, something you'd change your mind about in a heartbeat if things were different.

So...which would you stick with if we flipped the tallies, your democratic values or your candidate of choice?

If Florida and Michigan did not matter, then there would be no point in opposing the seating of their delegates. If the nomination was won outright by one candidate with pledged delegates early on, then there would be no point in arguing to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. No matter what the media says, seating Florida and Michigan would bolster Hillary's argument that she should be the Democratic nominee.

If the tallies were reversed, no I would not fight to seat the delegates, but I would respect the argument that punishing the voters is not the right thing to do.

What Hillary stands for is: universal health care; rebuilding our infrastructure, including roads and bridges; added funding for science and research; leaving Iraq early and responsibly; defending Israel; investment in renewable energy; ending No Child Left Behind; balancing the budget and protecting our pharmaceutical and food supply from contamination.

Hillary Clinton is a good, honorable, person who has been a public servant for over 35 years. She would be one of our country's greatest Presidents. Her breadth and depth of knowledge, her commitment, her love for our country and its people, is evident every single day that she fights on in spite of formidable challenges. Strength, Fortitude, Resiliency, Diplomacy, Experience, Intelligence, Dignity, Courage: These are the qualities I want in a President. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated them all clearly.

I am impressed and awed by her tenacity and grit. She is a true representation of what is best about the promise of America: that through hard work and determination great things can be accomplished. Hillary Clinton has produced real results that help many people: she helped create the SCHIP Children's Health Insurance, which now covers over six million children; she fought for the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, and she helped pass the Renewal Communities program to encourage investment in struggling communities.

I'm sorry to say this , and I realize that it's a gross generalization but I think...

A lot of people out there care INFINITELY MORE about Hillary personally than about the democratic party, or democracy, or any form of rules whatsoever.

First off, you have to have loyalty only to the specific candidate not the party or the process in order to buy any of Hillary's last dozen mobile goalpost arguments. They're at best illogical, and in the worst light they're downright propaganda aimed solely at benefitting Hillary Clinton.

Talk about seeing no evil...63% of Americans find her completely untrustworthy..and anyone thinks she's going to WIN in the general election???

People think she'd be an awesome addition to Obama's ticket? With only 37 % of people even thinking she's honest?

<link>

And do you suppose that comparing the DNC committee, that Harold Ickes (her campaign advisor) was a part of, to Robert Mugabe was exactly in the party's best interest?!!

Oh Yeah, that's sure to help the party don't you think? I mean if the committee is SO CORRUPT in her opinion, what do you think her next opinion on the nominee's legitimacy is likely to be? Unless, of course, it happens to be her, in which case, what?? This argument goes quietly away?

And personally, I'm sure they'll say it's another "misspeak" but comparing the democratic party which is in the process of nominating the first black candidate to the completely evil administration of Mugabe in Zimbabwe is certainly sailing a little close to the wind in racial insult land don't you think?

I mean, I'm sure it never occurred to you that comparing them, and Obama, to the tyrannical dictator who stripped the legitimately earned lands of thousands of white farmers to enrich himself and other selected black leaders meant absolutely nothing. Complete coincidence, right.

<link>

And why should she get out of the race in June? The good of the party is not her real goal in my opinion. I mean, as long as she stays in and shouts "I'm fighting", Clinton's personal loyalists will continue to send her money and her personal show goes on.

Instead of being an also ran, she gets to be the brave populist, feminist candidate fighting her little heart out for them. Sweet.

And a GREAT WAY TO LOSE TO McCAIN IN NOV.

But this isn't about democrats is it, not if they're threatening to vote for McCain?

And it isn't about party unity is it, not if they're willing to badmouth the party and change the rules in the middle of the game, which really would de-legitemize the results wouldn't it?

I don't care if she stays in the primary..but she really has got to stop being so crazy out loud.

Facts that support Hillary's point, which was that she is being asked to drop out early when nomination fights have gone all the way to the convention in August:

Woodrow Wilson was nominated on the 146 ballot and went on to become President

Franklin D. Roosevelt was nominated in 1932 in a contentious convention after 4 ballots and went on to become President.

"In 1980, Kennedy came into the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City with 1,225 delegates to President Carter's 1,981, with 122 delegates uncommitted.

Kennedy stood on principle and people admired him for fighting the good fight.

If Kennedy could take it to the convention when he trailed by 756 delegates, why can't Hillary go to the convention trailing by far less?" —Daniel A. Cirucci

I fight for Hillary because she is the better qualified candidate; she still has a chance to win the nomination, that is why they keep trying to get to quit before the convention. Party unity means nothing if an individual is viciously maligned and no one in the "party" defends her.

How does dismissing the caucus states (who don't keep popular vote tallies) reconcile with "making every vote count"?

Why should the votes that are cast - well within the rules by caucusing to choose delegates - be devalued and tossed?

Whey is there no compromise available to HRC or her supporters?

Why is there no recognition of a poorly run campaign that has lost her the Primary?

Why should America keep following Hillary and her supporters around as they keep moving the metrics and changing the rules?

I'm from Florida - we knew the votes weren't going to count. We were there, we dealt with it -- many people opted out of the Primary. Hillary is full of crap when she says that the Florida primary represents the true will of the voters.

iLE, more than 60% of Americans don't trust her, almost as many as don't trust Bush.

All the talking heads of FAUX news support her fight, WHY??

Because they understand that McSame will be buried by Obama.

Spend ypur talents writing her OBITCHUARY, (Stolen from Doodahman)

Leo Harold

"If the tallies were reversed, no I would not fight to seat the delegates, but I would respect the argument that punishing the voters is not the right thing to do."

So why should I, as a non-Hillary supporter, buy into the popular vote/FL and MI argument you are giving if you are willing to admit that it's not something you actually believe yourself but some handy justification you're only using because it makes Hillary look better? This is my problem with Hillary and her supporters. You shout til you are blue in the face about how much the popular vote matters, how important Fl and Mi are, how the caucuses don't matter. Yet everyone already knows that very few, if any, of you actually believe anything you're saying. We know you don't really care about anything except getting her elected. We know your beliefs about fairness are merely instrumental.

Do you realize how increadibly unprincipled that makes you look? To use something some people do actually care a great deal about as your mere means to your end, And how hypocritical it is to be simultaneously doing that while talking about how corrupt and dishonest Obama is?

This is why people want Hillary out of the race. It's not that Hillary supporters can't come up with reasons for keeping her in. Obviously they can. It's that no one believe that they actually believe much of anything they are saying because we know they would say exactly the opposite if the roles were reversed.

I am really beginning to believe that she is tearing down the DNC and the party so she can run as an independent when she loses the nomination. I mean really, she is so certain that only she can do the job, and she is such a fighter, why quit then?

In September 2007 Hillary Clinton, Barack, Obama, and John Edwards as well as the other participating Democratic candidates at the time, signed the following pledge not to campaign in states with primaries or caucuses scheduled before Feb 5 (except for Iowa, NH, NV, and SC):

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a

2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic

diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the

nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our

presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and

the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the

nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge

I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential

election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,

Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by

rules and regulations of the DNC.

___________________________ __________

John/Jane Doe, Doe for President DATE

<link>

Hillary Clinton knowingly violeted this pledge. She (and I think Chris Dodd) were the only candidates to break that promise to adhere to party rules.

As for the supposed unfairness of the caucuses, I have two questions:

Did you think they were unfair before this election?

How were the caucuses unfair to Hillary?

Did you think they were unfair before this election?

You mean when Bll Clinton won them in 1992? :)

"Spend ypur talents writing her OBITCHUARY, (Stolen from Doodahman)"

Yeah, there's no misogyny in this campaign coming from Obama supporters, nope not a bit.

Find me a post where anyone on here has said there is no mysoginy amongst Obama supporters.

iLE, your post is very good. I endorse your points. I hope all those uncommitted superdelegates will read your post.

Hillary ' 08.