Why is it the superdelegates are such a big deal? Because at this point, it "seems" they will not favor Mr. Obama. That's it. Were they advantageous to him - we would hear no out cry. (from the media- trying to stir up contention). Clearly Kerry and Kennedy are superdelegate- but seems no one happened to notice that when they gave their support to B. Obama. Why? Shouldn't they follow the will of their constituents. Are they consider defectors?

In Georgia, the "fake" Republican Obama primary supporters are killing me. Especially, the Black republican talk show hosts. Who decry liberalism - but to shut out Hillary promote Obama and even call for citizens to "not vote" for any politician who makes a decision to vote for Hillary. Smooth move.

What has happened to voting one's conscience. I find this political race quite revealing. The herd mentality of some is astounding. If you support Obama do so. If you support Hillary do so. But stop the hatemongering. I am sure that the democrats will wake up the day after the November general elections and realize that we had the dream candidates and possibly the dream team and let it all slip away. -

So let the superdelegate issue go. May the best - "person" win. And may respect and support that person. I am sure the republican will be counting the Electoral votes in the fall- we better get used to it. If we haven't already.

Just saw a 60 Minutes interview with The American Savior.... his soul "I have a set of gifts right now that I think could really move the country forward" "It's my job to offer myself... here's what I think I can do."

<link>

sounds like Tom Cruise...

Isn't "I have a set of gifts right now that I think could really move the country forward" and "It's my job to offer myself... here's what I think I can do" something that politicians are supposed to be saying anyway? I'd be worried about one who said "I don't have skills to offer this country" or "I'm not going to do anything constructive."

You mistake the baby-kissing for something less timeless and more sinister.

Have you forgotten the 2000 election?

From what I remember, we had a candidate who won the popular vote, and by any fundamental democratic standards would have been the winner based on that alone. We, however, do not live in a democracy- the United States is a Federalist Republic- and so it wasn't the people who would decide the next president but electors.

If you value the principles underlying democracy any more than you value an individual candidate, then this is a problem. Public opinion should define public policy, and accordingly we should have "one man, one vote," but superdelegates, like electors, interfere with this; the possibility that Obama could win the popular vote but Clinton the delegate count- or vice versa- means that the "best person" will not necessarily win.

This system is a threat to the ideals that are the namesake of the Democratic Party, no matter how this election plays out. To take a stand otherwise is a selfish abandonment of the high road which, in its infrequent appearances over the course of the past 8 years, has been the Democrats' only strength against a better-organized Republican Party.