No they don't.  This is great entertainment for the rest of us.

 

Yep, that's the point who is it helping - McCain and the Republicans.  Stupid Dems, sometimes, I hate belonging to this club. 

If one of those 'stupid dems' were to walk away, the buffet would certainly stop.  Unfortunately for you, your candidate is done and just doesn't realize she can't win.  That being the case, she'll go nuclear and do everything possible to win the nomination that she 'waited for' 4 years ago and now feels is owed to her.

Fact of the matter, if she'd have run instead of Kerry, we would probably have been saluting Mrs. President over the last several years.  She opted not to run in the 2004 race and now there's another candidate that better represents change than she does.  Now it is no longer her turn and she refuses to acknowledge that, so yes, she and her minions are doing what they can to knock back the other candidate in the hopes she can somehow still pull it off.

I don't think Hillary should drop out.  She has won many of the big states.  I think the Democratic party leadership needs to make sure that the voters in Michigan and Florida have a say in the nomination process in fairness to them.  If Obama is so sure he would win, why is he protesting the revote?  It's not impossible for her to win.  It's not over yet.  I don't think that it's her turn but I think she is the better candidate. 

The article linked is good in one respect only. It does show the true colors of the NY times.

And just a question. WHy is it any different for Hillary or Obama to tear into each other, than to tear into others? The only difference is the opponent. The truth of the person only sees that, and nothing more.

And while I dont agree with 99% of what Obama says, I do agree with him in your quote of him. And the truth is that his statement IS important to the voters.

But it is going to be hard for him to support her in november after speaking the truth.

The only way Hillary could win the delegate race is if all the Michigan & Florida delegates were awarded to her by the DNC, and it's not a lock then. That would create the same sort of firestorm that the usurpation-by-superdelegate scenario would. Absent a gracious withdrawal, it's gonna stay ugly.

The super delegates do and should count.  They are the party leadership of current and former office holders. 

I thought it was funny. 

I agree. Those are the rules the DNC has set up, and they should at least follow them. The issue is the wisdom of their choices, not just of the superdelegates but of the DNC itself.

Remember this is the party of 'every vote counts; count every vote' but if their rank & file members happen to choose someone the power brokers (party leadership of current and former office holders) can't or won't live with and they throw the nomination to the candidate with fewer elected delegates and fewer popular votes, they'll have 'disenfranchised' their own members.

That they designed their nominating process this way is very telling, even allowing for the fact that the goal is to win the general election.

I understand your point but I also understand why it's set up this way.   In the primaries it seems like the most liberal Dem. wins but it's the moderates or centrists that can carry a national election. 

Yet the super delegates do not ameliorate the issue of the liberal influence, but exacerbate it.

what?!  That's not what they're supposed to do. 

  Funny how that always seems to be the case with Washington Solutions.

Latest idea is even dumber - rig up a "mini-convention" just for superdelegates so they can get their nominee decided before the "real" convention. If all this maneuvering, wrangling & do-over silliness doesn't clearly demonstrate the party's lack of principles, nothing will. I'd be pretty bummed if I was a Democrat just now.

Gotta love the idiots in DC!    

The Democrats show their true colors if they allow a second vote in
Michigan and Florida, one person, one vote, not one person two votes because the Democrats did not like the rules they set up.