Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

[Kodiak]

Okay, the woman is going round the bend. She needs to withdraw to 'devote herself to her constituents', regroup, and maybe try again in 8 years.

She's done this go-round, we just have to wait until she figures it out.

Except in 8 years she'll be 68 years old and look even more like an old-lady, and she'll probably be a grandma by then. It's an unfair standard in our society, but men are generally seen as MORE capable as they age and women seen as LESS capable.

[Nephtys]

McCain is a different story. He has a backbone and character, something Hillary would be proving she lacked if she were to steal the nomination. We already have a President who lacks a backbone, character, or intelligence - do we really need another President who wants power that badly and is completely amoral?

...Character and backbone? McFlipFlopCain?

John Kerry was criticized for changing his views on something after DECADES. McCain changes his mind after MINUTES. Like his overt play for the lock-step religious voter's votes by speaking at Bob Jones University? Or his very recent voting AGAINST the waterboarding ban, because he 'does not support torture?'

I mean, how weak, gutless and morally bankrupt can you be, if you publically state that you hate and denounce torture, yet overtly support it when it comes to your vote?

What's wrong with changing your position? It may not speak to your consistency, but are you seriously pissed off at McCain for changing his mind and now being opposed to torture? What's he supposed to do, ride the torture train into oblivion just so he can claim consistency?

Nothing's wrong with changing your position over time or given good reason. Changing it every few days however, is not okay. It's open hypocrisy.

He has constantly stated that he is against torture, after being tortured in vietnam. He says stuff like this monthly.

THEN he votes to UPHOLD Torture.

Afterwards, when asked why he voted that way, he says that he is still against torture.

See the issue? It's not 'now and then'. It's that he publically holds one opinion, yet acts when it matters completely opposite of it. This is not a trait you want for any leader, or anyone of responsibility.

[Glocksman]

He has constantly stated that he is against torture, after being tortured in vietnam. He says stuff like this monthly.

THEN he votes to UPHOLD Torture.

As if we needed any more proof that his 'maverick' image is bullshit, here it is.
McCain is a walking advertisement for Obama.

[SirNitram]

Just one or two notes for people to chew on as they imagine conspiracies where Clinton seizes the Presidency without the majority.

1) Since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up 13 Superdelegates. Clinton has lost three.

2) A number of SuperDels were told to go with the popular vote. Since the person saying that was Pelosi, Speaker of the House, there's a noticable stick and carrot for a number of them there, yes?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think Pelosi means to save her own ass over the whole 'Impeachment [of Bush/Cheney] is off the table' shit that royally pissed off everyone in the country but Bush's deadenders. She's doing it by dogwhistling the superdels to vote Obama because Obama is what the people want.

[Big Phil]

snip

You're the one labeling McCain a flip-flopper and mentioning how that label got applied to Kerry. I have no problem with either McCain or Kerry's changes of position, regardless of how long they'd previously held them. I might hold my nose to vote for McCain, but I'd rather vote for him (who won the nomination properly) than Hillary (if she were to steal it away).

Now if Hillary miraculously beats Obama in the popular vote and wins the nomination fair and square, then I'll happily vote for her, although I fully expect and hope to cast my vote for Obama in November.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think McCain is flip-flopping. McCain is simultaneously saying one thing while doing another; that's not flip-flopping. It's lying.

[Big Phil]

I think Pelosi means to save her own ass over the whole 'Impeachment [of Bush/Cheney] is off the table' shit that royally pissed off everyone in the country but Bush's deadenders. She's doing it by dogwhistling the superdels to vote Obama because Obama is what the people want.

You got a reputable source for this tidbit, or is this just your own opinion?

[Adrian Laguna]

I don't think McCain is flip-flopping. McCain is simultaneously saying one thing while doing another; that's not flip-flopping. It's lying.

It could be double-think, though I find it unlikely. He could also be morally opposed to torture and politically in favour. In that case he wouldn't technically be lying, though he's still being deceptive.

[Nephtys]

snip

You're the one labeling McCain a flip-flopper and mentioning how that label got applied to Kerry. I have no problem with either McCain or Kerry's changes of position, regardless of how long they'd previously held them. I might hold my nose to vote for McCain, but I'd rather vote for him (who won the nomination properly) than Hillary (if she were to steal it away).

Now if Hillary miraculously beats Obama in the popular vote and wins the nomination fair and square, then I'll happily vote for her, although I fully expect and hope to cast my vote for Obama in November.

Kerry was called a flip-flopper because he changed his mind over a decade's worth of time. Once. On one issue.

McCain says he's against torture, votes for torture, then says he's against torture. Can't you see how this is actual plain dishonesty, instead of 'changing one's mind'? It's a cynical bid to get him as much support as possible from his party.

It could be double-think, though I find it unlikely. He could also be morally opposed to torture and politically in favour. In that case he wouldn't technically be lying, though he's still being deceptive.

Same thing. In either case, he's a complete hypocrite who's playing up the 'I'm a nice guy who hates torture' and simultaneously advocating for the CIA to commit the same acts the US sent Japanese officers to decades of prison for.

[Darth Wong]

The sad thing is that McCain is still a "maverick" by the standards of the Republican Party, because half-assed reactions are still better than the transparent glee with which grinning reptiles like Romney and Giuliani greet the idea of torturing people.

[Flagg]

The sad thing is that McCain is still a "maverick" by the standards of the Republican Party, because half-assed reactions are still better than the transparent glee with which grinning reptiles like Romney and Giuliani greet the idea of torturing people.

He also doesn;t immediately fall in line behind the President. He waits for a day or 2, then falls in line. If they could, they'd kill people for that.

[Darth Wong]

The sad thing is that McCain is still a "maverick" by the standards of the Republican Party, because half-assed reactions are still better than the transparent glee with which grinning reptiles like Romney and Giuliani greet the idea of torturing people.

He also doesn;t immediately fall in line behind the President. He waits for a day or 2, then falls in line. If they could, they'd kill people for that.

It's actually quite consistent with their religious orientation. In the Book of Exodus, God angrily kills people who obey his instructions but complain while doing so.

[Adrian Laguna]

Kerry was called a flip-flopper because he changed his mind over a decade's worth of time. Once. On one issue.

What issue was it? I kept seeing accusations of Kerry being a flip-flopper left, right, and centre back in 2004, but not one of them bothered to explain why. This bothered me tremendously, especially because I'd seen evidence that the real flip-flopper was our dear ol' Prez.

[Nephtys]

Kerry was called a flip-flopper because he changed his mind over a decade's worth of time. Once. On one issue.

What issue was it? I kept seeing accusations of Kerry being a flip-flopper left, right, and centre back in 2004, but not one of them bothered to explain why. This bothered me tremendously, especially because I'd seen evidence that the real flip-flopper was our dear ol' Prez.

If I do recall, was something like... he used to be for the Vietnam war. Back when he was in it. A decade later, in retrospect, he said it was a bad idea. So it's not even really surprising. It's common damn sense that looking back, the war was a bad thing.

Bush of course, merely was negligent and irresponsable. That's surely a better trait than changing your opinions ever! Ask any evangelical!

[Flagg]

He was called a flip-flopper because he made a procedural vote "for" the Iraq war resolution before voting against it. Then he made the idiotic statement "I voted for it, before I voted against it". That was pretty much the entire basis for him being a flip-flopper.

Of course when you compared his record to Bush's record it turns out that Bush reversed almost every single foreign policy position he claimed to hold during the 200 campaign.

[Adrian Laguna]

Of course when you compared his record to Bush's record it turns out that Bush reversed almost every single foreign policy position he claimed to hold during the 2000 campaign.

In all fairness to him, something important happened that would make anyone think long and hard about their foreign policy. Of course, Bush being Bush he managed to reach exactly the wrong conclusions.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Truly, her arrogance knows no bounds

Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama’s Victories ‘Irrelevant’

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.

Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign’s convention strategy.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said, adding that they would do so soon after the last contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run “neck and neck” in the remaining states and that there would be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates.

But he said superdelegates — who “have a sense of what it takes to get elected” — would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

Even though averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing, the Clinton camp is stressing the electability argument.

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.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe on Saturday blasted Clinton for the strategy.

“The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination — attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan,” he said in a statement.

“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election.”

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said superdelegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

The Obama campaign also circulated a Bloomberg story from Friday quoting Pelosi, who said Michigan and Florida should not decide the race since they broke party rules.

Though he predicted the superdelegates basically would turn the election, Ickes in the same phone call Saturday said he objected to the term because it implied they had too much power. He said from here out, he’s calling them “automatic delegates.”

“The Fourth Estate created the term ’superdelegate,’” Ickes said, though Democrats have used the term widely in the roiling debate of their allegiances and responsibilities in the increasingly competitive and high-stakes battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“They don’t have super powers,” Ickes said. “It’s one person, one vote. They have no more power than any other delegate. But they do have a sense of what it takes to get elected.”

Superdelegates consist of members of Congress, former presidents, governors and other party officials and insiders. The class was created in 1982 to take power away from activists and hand it to party insiders. Rarely have their votes decided the nominee.

“They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns,” Ickes said.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 136 in pledged delegates but trails by 95 in superdelegates, according to calculations given by both campaigns.

“Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates than Obama,” Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is “irrelevant to the obligations of automatic delegates.”

That support, however, could be eroding for Clinton, as recent reports have said some black superdelegate supporters are reconsidering their endorsements since their districts voted mostly for Obama.

So, basically the Clinton campaign has stated that no matter what the wil of the people is, they will take any measures necessary to give the nomination to Hillary. Also, Ickes is winning the award for biggest douchebag in the democratic party, for changing his mind on Michigan and Florida to get their delegates.

They say pride goeth before the fall, but it looks like with Clinton they might go at the same time.

[CaptJodan]

You know, because Clinton's Democratic policies are less vial than almost any Republican alternative I know of, I was thinking that if she got the nomination, I would have to swallow the loathing I have for her and vote her way on the principals I would hope she would stand for.

But these moves by her make me sick. She's giving the middle finger to the majority who don't want her as president. And if she's willing to do that, then she's not worthy of being president (not that the majority is always right, mind you). I may just have to not vote for anyone this year.

[HemlockGrey]

Also, Ickes is winning the award for biggest douchebag in the democratic party, for changing his mind on Michigan and Florida to get their delegates.

Ickes, like his fellow slimester Mark Penn, is a member of the most despicable political caste in Washington. People who devote their lives to managing political campaigns are usually assholes. D.C. is crawling with these jerkoffs and students aspiring to be like them; people who don't really care about the country, or policy, or the American people, but who are just in it for the power and the thrill of victory.

[SirNitram]

Yawn. More sounds of fear and reprinting. 20% of the delegates! Which means of course, if Hillary is down 21% of the popularly pledged delegates, doesn't matter if she takes all the superdelegates.

The people whose support has been fading for her.

[HemlockGrey]

Yawn. More sounds of fear and reprinting. 20% of the delegates! Which means of course, if Hillary is down 21% of the popularly pledged delegates, doesn't matter if she takes all the superdelegates.

You can't just dismiss the idea that Clinton may lose in pledged delegates and win with the superdelegates, especially when her closest advisors publically declares that to be part of the gameplan.

[SirNitram]

Yawn. More sounds of fear and reprinting. 20% of the delegates! Which means of course, if Hillary is down 21% of the popularly pledged delegates, doesn't matter if she takes all the superdelegates.

You can't just dismiss the idea that Clinton may lose in pledged delegates and win with the superdelegates, especially when her closest advisors publically declares that to be part of the gameplan.

Because you say I can't? Any such loss made up solely by her superdels will, as I keep showing, be tiny. It will not be a complete revocation of the public will.

Of course, this hyperventilation that she might overturn 19% of the electorate ignores that Obama has a fair number of superdelegates(He must be the devil as well, having 160 of them), and ignores that he's gaining them.. And she's losing them.

And then it ignores plentiful statements by powerful folks that this isn't just open and shut.

But please. Continue to insist how I can't laugh at this obvious sign of desperation. I'd love to hear a reason grounded in logic.

[HemlockGrey]

I agree that its an unlikely outcome. But the Clintons are extremely capable politicians who have consistently defied political expectations. They wield tremendous influence in the party. It is not inconceivable that Clinton could be buoyed by her expected wins in Texas and Ohio, still end up losing in pledged delegates, and then be nominated by the party anyway.

And calling this idea part of a "paranoid delusion" is absolutely ludicrous when her campaign people come flat-out and say that they'll do it. And finally, 20% of the electorate is A HUGE MARGIN, especially in contentious national elections. I don't know how you could even think that even reversing a 10% gap WOULDN'T be seen as a major reversal of the public will.

[SirNitram]

I agree that its an unlikely outcome. But the Clintons are extremely capable politicians who have consistently defied political expectations. They wield tremendous influence in the party. It is not inconceivable that Clinton could be buoyed by her expected wins in Texas and Ohio, still end up losing in pledged delegates, and then be nominated by the party anyway.

And calling this idea part of a "paranoid delusion" is absolutely ludicrous when her campaign people come flat-out and say that they'll do it. And finally, 20% of the electorate is A HUGE MARGIN, especially in contentious national elections. I don't know how you could even think that even reversing a 10% gap WOULDN'T be seen as a major reversal of the public will.

'THEY SAID THEY'D DO IT. YOU BETTER TAKE THIS SERIOUS!!!!!'

Oh please. By that non-logic, we should all anticipate some sort of violent uprising from Huckabee because he's still going to try and win the nomination despite the lack of that being possible outside of convulted mathematics.

I do love how you hyperventilate things into a 10% gap. 20% is every single superdel going to Hillary. Again, despite the fact the trend is the exact opposite direction. Even then, her wins need to be consistant and big in the remaining primaries.

My dismissal is rooted firmly in reality and logic, with some math thrown in. Your insistance this be taken ultra-serious is based on nothing but your own credulity.. Which you admit when you say the only reason is 'They said that!'.