Millions of independent voters like myself who are sick to death of the political machines running our country see that Obama has won the primaries. He has more delegates than his opponent. That is the definition of winning.

Now if we see that his victory is overturned by so called 'superdelegates' who owe their position to corrupt patronage of the Clintons, we are going to be rightfully pissed off.

That is called a reality-based argument. You had a contest in all 50 states and several territories. Obama won. Anything less than him being the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party will cause us to not only not vote for Clinton in the fall, but maybe vote for a thrid party or McCain, and many if not most of us will not vote for a single democrat on any ticket; local, national or state.

I'm not sure I would even ever vote for another democrat as long as I live.

If your party gives us the finger, we'll give it right back to you.

No, the 'definition of winning' would be getting the majority of the popular vote. Or do you feel Bush won both his elections fair and square? Because he sure as hell didn't win the popular vote the first time around, heh.

Can't pick and choose, either the rules count or they don't. And the rules say nothing about how super delegates have to vote. That's what makes them 'super.'

Anyone smart enough and familiar with the electoral college system wouldn't use the capricious popular vote arguement. Its a non-starter.

My argument is that Gore deserved the electoral college votes of Florida because he won the popular vote in Florida. A recount that included overvotes as well as undervotes would have ended in his favor. Sadly, the SCOTUS thought that GW's civil rights would be violated (that's ironic) by a full accounting of all votes in Florida...

You just refuse to get it. You can't bullshit the people on this. It is a very simple duck test. He won the primaries. He should be the nominee. If he is not, than why bother having the primaries at all? In fact, you can count on all the young, which is to say, the growing majority of voters in the coming years, to be totally pissed off at the Democratic Party if their candidate has the election stolen from him.

You can bullshit all you want with 'if you look at it this way' and 'redefine victory' crap, but the fact remains, the correct perception is that Obama won. If he is not the nominee, I doubt I will ever see another democratic president in my lifetime. The youth don't belong to any party like the generations before them did. Times have changed and the democratic party is about to commit suicide.

If they steal the election, I'm glad to see them die. We need a third party anyhow independent of the corrupt, double-speak party hacks such as yourself. The democratic party can either get with the program or rot away in obscurity. It's their choice.

morganja:

You just refuse to get it. You can't bullshit the people on this. It is a very simple duck test. He won the primaries. He should be the nominee. If he is not, than why bother having the primaries at all?

No 'if you look at its', no 'redefining' - Obama didn't win enough delegates to clinch (2024). Obama can't win without superdelegates, neither can Clinton. Therefore.... it's up to the superdelegates. No trickery. No 'theft'.

Since both candidates failed to win enough primary delegates, the Democratic party is forced to look at the candidates and decide which is better for the party. Feel free to argue your case, it may be compelling.... but until the superdelegates speak, there's no nominee.

Let's be clear: the superdelegates can vote however they damn well please. Those are the rules, and we live in a society of laws. Let's play by them.

Let's also accept the fact that a huge factor that the superdelegates need to take into consideration is who won the most pledged delegates. Decisions ought to be based on evidence, and in this case, if you're trying to identify the candidate who's the most electable, it might be advisable to look at the elections.

If there's a huge body of evidence that suggests Clinton would be the superior candidate (if Obama goes off the deep end and starts shouting "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton," or something), then contradict the pledged delegate count; however, the reasons put forth by the Clinton camp aren't exactly a slam dunk. If the superdelegates follow that sort of flimsy pretense, and contradict the pledged delegate count, I think it will reek of a stolen election.

This is quibbling over words. There are many definitions of what an objective "win" might be. The only one that counts is the one who gets 2025 delegates in accordance with DNC rules. It has to be that way.

The argument though is that superdelegates can't ignore reality, and I agree. A WHOLE LOT of people will be really pissed off if someone wins the most pledged delegates and loses the nomination. And the supers who override their district's choice will be the very first target of that anger.

So far, this could apply to either candidate, but I think that Obama supporters will be much more pissed off because Obama has run a much more positive and honest campaign and people will feel that an oppportunity to change the nature of political dialogue in the U.S. will have been missed.

Do you not get it yet?? Just because Gore won the popular vote doesnt automatically give him or any other canditate the delegate vote. I think there was enough time and tax dollars spent back then to prove this.

Thats not a bad idea...do it right and vote for experience. Vote McCain.

Perhaps we could start a grassroots political action committee to defeat the superdelegates. Just a mischievous thought.

I completely agree. I thought I was the only person thinking that if the Democratic Party manages to steal the nomination from Barack Obama and give it to that narcissistic power grabbing Hillary Clinton that I would retaliate by not only not voting democratic but pointedly voting for John McCain. Hell, I might even actively change parties and assist the Republicans in their bid for the white house. Just out of spite !!! I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking!

Derek Williams:

I completely agree. I thought I was the only person thinking that if the Democratic Party manages to steal the nomination from Barack Obama and give it to that narcissistic power grabbing Hillary Clinton that I would retaliate by not only not voting democratic but pointedly voting for John McCain. Hell, I might even actively change parties and assist the Republicans in their bid for the white house. Just out of spite !!! I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking!

What an irony that would be. John McCain winning an election in which the conservatives largely stay home and pissed off Dems support him to stick it to the Clintons.

It's like a sitcom, only not funny.

This won't be an issue by the time Pennyslvania votes. The sheep's clothing is coming off Slick Barry, and the wolf is being revealed. His voting record, associations, and his past are already starting to undo his "untouchable" image. Barack Obama will be out of the race by convention time. SlickBarry.com has enough info to shut him down.

Only a small minority of people fall for that kind of propaganda. I saw a report on the news today that showed that only 13% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. That's pretty close to the number who still support George Bush.

The problem is that those people also have an almost supernatural propensity to vote.

Derek Williams:

I completely agree. I thought I was the only person thinking that if the Democratic Party manages to steal the nomination from Barack Obama and give it to that narcissistic power grabbing Hillary Clinton that I would retaliate by not only not voting democratic but pointedly voting for John McCain. Hell, I might even actively change parties and assist the Republicans in their bid for the white house. Just out of spite !!! I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking!

The scariest part is that you truly are not alone in your thinking Derek. I agree that Hillary Clinton has made a career from division and toxic partisanship, and Obama represents an opportunity to change the course of this country's future, but if you are willing to cross over to McCain because you feel slighted by the process, then you should ask yourself why exactly you chose Obama in the first place?

Most likely, it was more about his inspirational (albeit ethereal) messianic brilliance than his stance on the issues. Otherwise, there is just no way you could vote for McCain who is diametrically opposed to both Obama and Hillary on every major issue. Protesting Hillary by voting for McCain is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Don't forget that this election is about everything from our struggling economy to our broken health care system to the pending appointment of supreme court justices. If you wanna throw a tantrum while McCain overturns Roe vs. Wade, be my guest, but please just stay home. Don't compound your immaturity by using your vote against the rest of us.