Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi and Superdelegates, Cont'd

Following up on the previous item, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also addressed the issue of the role superdelegates should play in deciding the heated Democratic primary fight this morning.

Pelosi's latest comments are somewhat similar to those that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) made today, but different -- at least in emphasis -- from the comments she made multiple times on the subject last month. Here is what she said today:

"I believe superdelegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision: their own belief and who they think will be the best President, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility. ... I have confidence that they will make the decision that is necessary, before we go to the convention, to a place where Democrats are unified and go into that convention unified so we come out of the convention unified."

And here is what Pelosi said during an appearance on Bloomberg TV last month:

"I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that. I don't think that will happen. ... I do think that [superdelegates] have a respect -- it's not just following the returns, it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people. It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said today that the Speaker still holds the position she held last month. "The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. What she spoke about today was what factors a superdelegate would have to take into account when making a decision," Elshami said.

By Ben Pershing  |  March 5, 2008; 5:44 PM ET
Categories:  2008 Campaign , Dem. Leaders  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hoyer, Pelosi Split on Superdelegates
Next: Democrats Struggle With Ethics Bill


Although I prefer Obama, I disagree with the idea that superdelegates are morally obliged to vote for whoever leads in regular delegates. If the superdelegates have no choice (morally), then why have them vote?

In effect, the regular delegates have already voted on the first ballot, but the superdelegates don't vote until the convention. They're entitled to a free choice when they vote.

There is no "lead" until after all the votes have been counted in the first ballot. Obama now leads among a subset of delegates, not among all delegates.

Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. "

The will of the voters? That's the issue - which voters? National delegates? or the superdelegates' own constituents? If there are no rules, there are no rules. Which means the Obama campaign can't really say that superdelegates are overturning "the will of the voters" if NY, CA, NJ, MA, etc. have significant numbers of superdelegates and ID, AK, UT have - what? four each? - and he is not saying they should folow the will of "the people"? I'm very confused why his campaign isn't being challenged on this. Neither can win without superdelegates. If there are no rules for superdelegates, he can't dictate what they are at this stage of the game. (Nor can Clinton, but he seems to be playing the PR game with superdelegates "following the will of the people" more so than she).

Posted by: echo2 | March 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I have a warning for all the super delegates and the Democratic Party. If Obama wins the most number of votes AND the most number of states AND the most number of pledged delegates, be VERY careful if you plan on having the super delegates anoint Hillary Clinton the queen of the United States ignoring the will of the constituents. If this happens, there will be a civil war within the Democratic party. A large number of people who voted for Obama (more than 50% of the Democrats) will NOT vote for Hillary under these circumstances and some of them may even vote for McCain.

I am a Maryland Democrat but I believe in Democracy and fairness. If Hillary Clinton wins the most number of pledged delegates fair and square I will vote for her in the general election.

If the party insiders make her the candidate ignoring the will of the people (what is this, Russia?), I may just vote for McCain out of utter disgust. This wold essentially mean the end of the Democratic party and she will become the Ralph Nader of 2008.

Play fair or it will be the end of the Democratic party.

Remember the outcome of this is not meant to be a CORONATION for a queen but a presidential candidate for an INAUGURATION as chosen by the CITIZENS, not all the corrupt self serving chronies of the Clintons.

Posted by: Maryland Democrat | March 5, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

the problem with the democratic system, is there are corrupted and unproductive.

we should following the national system of winner take all, this way, we can ensure the stronger candidate will emerge in the general election.

current caucus system is very very corrupt, and few loud people corrupted the will of people.

if you are planing take SAT math test, will you take a SAT foreign language test for preparation?

Winner take all, otherwise Republicans will win white house for another 4 years

Posted by: ruleitang | March 5, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't get what the big deal is. I voted for Obama but I think that both he and Clinton would do a great job.

If the race is essentially a tie, I expect that the party should put the person out there with the best chance to win.

If one candidate were running away with it and the Supers put the other candidate in as the nominee, I would feel differently but that's why we have Super Delegates, right? To make a decision if it's close.

What if Hillary could only win states that the Democrats would definitely win in November. The party should think twice about whether that handicaps her chances.

And what if Obama's lead is only due to red state caucus wins that won't matter in November. That should be taken into account.

If the people haven't clearly spoken, then the Super Delegates need to step up and guide the party. That's why they are there.

Posted by: John | March 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah. And anyone who would vote for McCain out of disgust is a fool.

The Republicans are thiiis close to having a majority on the Supreme Court and Bush has done a lot of damage to the other Federal Courts over the past 8 years.

Electing McCain will have the most serious negative consequences imaginable for a number of issues that Democrats value.

This is an important election, people, but not for the reasons covered in the debates. Don't let your feelings get hurt just because one democrat gets 1% more of the votes than the other.

Posted by: John | March 5, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Very curious. It is strange to find voices of reason like John's on this board. Most of us, it seems, are beyond it.

But I am a Hillary supporter and I totally agree that Superdelegates have been created precisely to evaluate the voting public's judgement. Otherwise we would only have had Pledged Delegates. Still, if people wanna change the rule and raise the issue of "will of the people" then, as others have alluded to here, Superdelegates of California should consider the will of the people of California not Utah. Likewise for Utah.

Posted by: VG | March 5, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I might be mistaken but aren't the Superdelegates getting to vote twice? These Superdelegates voted in their states primary or caucus - that was their chance to have their voice heard, the same as all the rest of us average Americans. But I guess by their names these individuals are super special and have amazing powers of reasoning and foresight. Because of their superior knowledge and intellect they know what is right for us and US. These individuals are not odorous when they deficate as well. How lucky we scum of the earth are to have such Gods as these Superdelegates walk among us. Maybe mothers should pray that one day their children could grow up to be Superdelegates. Seriously, this Superdelegates idea sounds like a Republican concept - that the rabble crowd is to stupid to think for itself.

Posted by: dre781 | March 5, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad that people have strated to realize that New York has more super delegates than Iowa. Reason: there are more people in Central Park NY than Corn in Iowa.
If NY voted for Clinton then their super delegates should also.
And by the way, does Obama really think he will carry Wyoming in the general, to say nothing of Alabama, Georgia, etc.
And one more point. If I'm a Floridian or a Michiganite and the DNC disenfranchises me because I voted after Iowa, well needless to say, but the best that the DNC can hope for is I stay home come November!

Posted by: John H. DuHart III | March 5, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I'll vote for Hillary if she wins based on on pledged delegates, but if she wins based on superdelgates I'll vote for Nader if possible, or MCcain if necessary out of disgust. I'm a life long Democrat, but between her attack politics, her campaign's thinly veiled racism ( far as I know), and attempt to steal an election I can't tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans anymore.

Posted by: Brennan | March 5, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the statements of Nancy Pelosi. I think what she was saying is individual superdelegates should make up their own minds about who to vote for. However, if enough superdelegates vote for a certain candidate that overturns the popular majority, the pledged delegates, this would be perceived as unfair and undemocratic.

There are still some people in this country who seriously believe in democracy, which means the will of the majority in elections. Some people still hold dear the values of fairly winning and being democratic as being more important than being partisan in supporting only Democrats or Republicans. Hillary, if she wins a majority of the pledged delegates, will win fairly. Otherwise anyone who calls a person a "fool" for believing in democracy and turning to another candidate or not voting for president as a form of protest is being, in my opinion, very unfair.

Posted by: Koreen | March 5, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Here's another spin from the elites who are afraid of being overshadowed by Hillary and I think Pelosi is one. Rep. Tubbs in my opinion is a better leader. Pelosi wants to promote a band wagon effect among the Democrats.
Let the super delegates vote according to their convections and not according to pressure. The super delegates have only themselves to blame if they will cave in. Their actions now may come back to haunt them later. They are suppose to lead and stay above the petty politickings among their followers.
Voting according to their conscience will bring this primaries back to sanity. Lead! That's your job.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

The superdelegates don't vote twice. Their "superpowers" consist of an automatic seat at the convention and the freedom of not being pledged. That's it. Each has one vote, just like a regular delegate. They don't meet separately and vote as a bloc.

Each will choose his or her own basis for voting. Some may deliberately vote with the majority in their state or the national majority; others may vote based on who would make the best candidate against McCain or the best president -- whatever.

I wish there were no superdelegates. But since there are, the rules should be followed: they vote as they want to.

Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

This just in....the Clinton campaign seeks to reinstate rule that Afircan American ballots count as three-fifths of a vote.

Posted by: agit | March 5, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I might be mistaken but aren't the Superdelegates getting to vote twice? These Superdelegates voted in their states primary or caucus - that was their chance to have their voice heard, the same as all the rest of us average Americans. But I guess by their names these individuals are super special and have amazing powers of reasoning and foresight. Because of their superior knowledge and intellect they know what is right for us and US. These individuals are not odorous when they deficate as well. How lucky we scum of the earth are to have such Gods as these Superdelegates walk among us. Maybe mothers should pray that one day their children could grow up to be Superdelegates. Seriously, this Superdelegates idea sounds like a Republican concept - that the rabble crowd is to stupid to think for itself.

Posted by: dre781 | March 5, 2008 07:46 PM

Hey stupid, all delegates get to vote twice according to your thinking. Once in the primary/caucus and once at the nominating convention.

Posted by: John H. DuHart III | March 5, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

If Obama only ends up with a slight (20-30) lead in pledged delegates, then it makes perfect sense for the superdelegates to be making the call as the race would essentially be a tie. However, if Obama wins the pledged delegates by a significant margin (100+), and the superdelegates overturn it, I too will be voting for McCain. I could never support someone who uses their political muscle by twisting arms and calling in old favors to overturn the will of the people.

Posted by: Steve | March 5, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

if Obama wins the pledged delegates by a significant margin (100+), and the superdelegates overturn it, I too will be voting for McCain. I could never support someone who uses their political muscle by twisting arms and calling in old favors to overturn the will of the people.

Posted by: Steve | March 5, 2008 08:37 PM


Is that 100+ with or without Florida and Michigan?

Posted by: John H. DuHart III | March 5, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I hate Hillary, she really makes me want to puke.

I am registered Independent, though I have never voted for a Republican in my life (if I thought Ron Paul had a chance, I would have this year).

You don't change the rules in the middle of the game. How basic is that? A six year old knows it. One who tries to say otherwise, is a WEASEL.

That is Hillary. A WEASEL pure and simple.

The Superdelegates question is complicated, and there are no firm rules. But the Florida and Michigan question is so basic, it is mind-numbing that Hillary keeps bringing it up. Again, any six year old knows that the right answer is to not seat their delegates. It's called KEEPING YOUR WORD and PLAYING FAIR.

If the Dems can't handle that concept, there is no doubt that they are ALL weasels. Period. Not only will it piss off every Obama supporter to the point of not voting, but it will make Hillary look EVEN WORSE to Independents and Repubs (the same people who are already more likely to vote Democrat, if Obama is the nominee.)

No doubt, Obama is taking a savaging over the last week. No doubt, he is also still in the lead, and still the better of the Dem candidates versus McCain. To anyone of even a moderately independent mind, Hillary's antics only make her look worse and worse.

Posted by: frededias | March 5, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

"The Superdelegates question is complicated, and there are no firm rules. But the Florida and Michigan question is so basic, it is mind-numbing "
Posted by: frededias | March 5, 2008 08:46 PM

Disagree 100%. The superdelegate question is not complicated - there are no rules there and all candidates knew it going in.

The FL/MI question is not basic - THAT is the mind-numbing question. When the DNC (not the campaigns) said they would punish those states for holding early primaries. . . they did NOT anticipate that there wouldn't be a clear nominee by this date. It was absolutely anticipated that the DEMS would have a nominee by now and "seating" the MI & FL delegates would be a formality.

Everyone is tripped up right now. No one is entitled to anything.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 5, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

I give up on the Democrats - They pretended to work to get out of Iraq. They didn't. Democrats supported Bush's attacks on the Bill of Rights. At least Obama voted against the Iraq adventure. I support Ron Paul now.
Wake up, America. This whole primary baloney is an engineered charade - super delegates and all. If you care about your grandkids and your country, wake up !! The Democrats and Republicans alike hold you in contempt. Wake up !!

Posted by: Grandpa Steve | March 5, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

It would be too bad if McCain achieved the presidency by Democrats starting a fraticidal war. President McCain would be able to add probably two justices to the Supreme Court. Roberts, Scallia, Allito and Thomas would join with the new justices to overturn Roe and gender equity legislation and lower court decisions. Women will find themselves regressing back to the 1960s in their drive for fair hiring and wage equity. Ironically it will be Hillary, a self-proclaimed feminist, that will raise the curtain to this new age. Oh well, Go Hillary!

Posted by: sperrico | March 5, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I am an active Democrat, and the chair of a local county party. The superdelegates that I know tend to be more politically sophisticated than the enthusiastic first-time voter. If there is only a difference of 100 or so pledged delegates between Clinton and Obama, I don't believe the 795 duperdelegates should just fall into line behind them. 100 delegates is only 100/2025, or 5% of the number presumably needed to win.

If the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all like the Republicans, we would have a very different picture here. Clinton would be ahead even without MI and FL. Since delegates are being awarded proportionately, why should the 5% winner take all the superdelegates?

Posted by: dotellen | March 5, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

What if Hillary wins the total popular vote in the total primary count?

Posted by: wwIIbaby | March 5, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Boy this is fun to watch but wait it will get better. Come convention time the Clinton's will release their scorched Earth plan against their very own Democrats. As they steal this election and fracture the blacks, young voters and any honest Democrats from the party. This is going to be historic and hysterical as Bill makes good for all the bad he put Hillary through. Just think, who is going to tell Hillary to drop out? Yeah right. Superdelagates wait for your call from Bill telling you the way its going to be. If the opponent had been white, this would have been over. Get the popcorn and hide the children, the Clinton's get what they want.

Posted by: GrumpsNKaty | March 5, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"

"Après lui, le déluge

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning --as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve-- namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting-- paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

Note, as a single example, today's report by the CBC that Canadian Prime Minister Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, was indeed the source the leak of supposed quotes regarding NAFTA--and that Clinton's team had also allegedly told Harper to "take her NAFTA concerns with a grain of salt.

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear and unproven distortion. In the slowly receding shadow of these past two terms, pursue reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experience", and dark insinuation, tenaciously learn--and vote--the facts."

Head of State

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 6, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

If the superdelegates vote as their constituents voted, then Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (Obama supporters) MUST vote for Clinton. If they do not, not only are they hypocrits and unworthy of public office, but the Obama arguments is mute and Obama is a fraud when he insists that superdelegates vote as their constituents voted. If Kennedy and Kerry vote for Obama, then I -- a life long yellow dog Democrat -- will vote for McCain to stop Obama's assault on the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Dr Arthur Ide | March 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

As a registered Democrat whose vote in the Florida primary is not going to count as a result of Florida's delegates being unrecognized, I think the DNC had better stick with all of its rules, not just the ones that suit it. We in Florida lost our delegates because of the DNC rules. Now the super delegates should be allowed to vote however they see fit. That is how the DNC rules were set up, and if the regulations are inflexible for Florida and Michigan, then they should be inflexible as to pressuring the super delegates. The only reason the super delegates are being bullied now is because it helps Obama. It's curious how he believes the rules should be ignored when it's to his benefit but he thinks they are just fine to keep the Florida delegates away from Hillary. Maybe the country should look hard at this preview of his true nature.
And the Democratic party needs to consider the way it does business or it's going to experience some serious voter defections this fall.

Posted by: Lu | March 6, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Why can't we just make it simple and easier on everybody and go back to the majority wins?????? These new progress rules of delegates isn't a world of the people and by the people. I will never believe that it would be a tie. One or the other will have more votes.

Posted by: Democratic voter | March 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Hey Ben:

What's with your eyes in your picture?

Kinda look a little hurting cross-eyed, like this:

Posted by: Bozo The Clown | March 6, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Yes, superdelegates will vote using their own 'judgement' -- you know what that judgement is: Which one of these two will get me re-elected? Outside of personal loyalties, any rational superdelegate currently accountable to an electorate will realize that putting Hillary in office is a guarantee that Congress will be ceded to the Republicans. Hillary as nominee may not be enough to coalesce enough Repubs to thwart her (Bush's 19% approval helps) but if she makes it in office, Repubs will be so disgusted that they will win back Congress. And History repeats itself.

Pelosi knows this. Plus, she hates Hillary personally, so it's not a hard decision for her.

Posted by: Pupster | March 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

This Super delegate fiasco is going to fracture the Democratic party. I also think the Caucus setup is ludicrous. Kennedy, Kerry, and Governor Patrick Deval is supporting Obama, regardless of the fact their constituents voted for HRC. I can't believe I actually voted for Kerry, because true to his Yale 'Skull and Bones' roots, he is an elitist. I always viewed Ted Kennedy as a joke, so nothing he does surprises me. I thought it was great when Obama had him stumping for him, little did Obama know how poorly Ted Kennedy is regarded outside Massachusetts.

A few days ago I had to drive to Baton Rouge, and was listening to a Black AM talk radio show. The DJ after about 20 calls from other Blacks and supporters of Obama literally said: "Can I get a White man to call in , so I can switch him from HRC to Obama". Being I had 2 hours of driving, I gave into the
temptation. He realized he met his match. I went to College in New England in the 60's, but came down South to march in Selma, AL. I think I've earned my right to honestly say, I'm pretty well balanced. This DJ was trying to inject the 'race' card, when he realized I had excellent reasons for supporting HRC and that I was more informed about Obama then he was. Dejected, my call soon ended with a commercial break.

Posted by: Sean | March 6, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Red phone at 3AM, HELL, watching Hillary perform and backed by the chaos of her own team, what does this say for leadership from day one or day one thousand? Imagine her Cabinet - in fighting and finger pointing followed by a genuine (?) tear to win ower a cruel foreign power or a disasenting party member? No thanks!!!!! Haven't we seen more than we ever wanted to see? Good night, Hillary. The system is broken and you would only break it more. Caio, arrivederci. au revoir, scram.

Posted by: John Wylie | March 6, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is presents a moving target. A moving target in the world of "expert witness" is someone who cannot support one fixed position. Why is Pelosi a moving target? Because she is too gutless to be able to propose and stand by a position. Just like no impeachment, and a probable vote for telecom immunity coupled with "rolling over" time and time again to Bush on Iraq, Pelosi should take her regular moving target position , get on a train and leave Washington D.C. She is worthless and there will be a train wreck in Denver, the likes that have never been seen.

Posted by: wcochran1 | March 6, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

This hyped controversy over "super delegates" is a contrivance of the media which always tries to make the news rather than report it.

The Democratic party is an institution with members, rules and procedures. All candidates knew the rules regarding super delegates and all Democrats should too if they were real party members i.e. commit funds and time to the party. Why shouldn't the people who have the most at stake in the fortunes of THEIR party -the party officials and elected representatives- have a say in who its candidate should be. They will be guided by "the voice of the people" but at the convention should use their considered political judgement as to which candidate in fact has the best chance to WIN the election. Many (most?) of the people who participated in the Democratic state primaries or caucuses have no particular stake in the Democratic party and in many states don't even have to be declared Democrats: Independents or even Republicans in some states. Why should they have the final say over who leads the party? And since each state has its own often unintelligible rules and conditions for delegate assignment, the delegate count itself does not give a clear and balanced view of the popular will. If one state is "winner-take-all" and another is "proportional allocation", then the notion of the popular will as expressed by adding up delegates is clearly irrelevant. Now if every state was "winner take all" and the delegate count winner received less than the popular vote, then where would you be? (Does this sound familiar?) In the final analysis, if you play the game you accept the rules. Retroactive rule bending, like retroactive law, is destructive to the health of any democracy

Posted by: Eric Yendall | March 6, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

The lost irony. The party that screamed that the will of the people was OVERTURNED by the surpremes will turn around and do just that.

The greatest irony if Al Gore himself places the decisive super delegate vote. Hopefully, he finds the guts to stand on principal and finally sets to rest the haunting refrains of the 2000 election.

HRC had her chance to compete in ALL states, she chose not to, instead insulting all but the 10 big states. How quickly folks forget that Clintonian triangulation cost the Dems house first time in 40 years and they lost the senate too in the 90s.

Worse, ignoring the red states resulted in the shrinking of Democratic party in state legislatures.

The idea of only competing in a few big states has cost Dems White House in the last 2 elections.

Finally, in 2006 the Dems woke up that FAILED strategy of relying SOLELY on Florida and Ohio every 4 years, sure cost them 2000 and 2004 and likely could again in 2008 if they don't wake up.

Howard Dean fought the Clintons hard and won on his 50 state strategy approach which regained for us the House and Senate. Look at how many DEMOCRATIC governors head red states now and how even in Texas Democratics are making in-roads again for the first time in 30+ years in state leaders.

Obama merely followed Dean's successful leadership concept of competing in EVERY SINGLE state which led him to 150 delegate advantage.

No one prevented HRC from learning from her 90s mistake and competing in ALL states. If she had, she may well be ahead in delegates now instead of trailing by 150.

It was HRC who made poor strategic decisions and now insists the super delegates bail her out.

Super delegates must answer once and for all, do Democrats CARE about ALL voters in ALL states or just a select few???!!

If they send the message only a select BIG state, so be it. But don't come crying to us Independents to back you in November.

We independents are the ultimate SWING DECIDERS and HRC has lost us in almost every single state she's run.

Posted by: Paual | March 6, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama saying that he didn't vote for war with Iraq is misleading to the point of lying. He was not in the Senate at that time. He did not have the opportunity to vote one way or the other.

Posted by: Marion | March 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I would like to know why CNN/MSNBC and other News networks are talking about Clinton winning and B.O. being her VP....How is that possible except to overturn the popular vote, which is the voice for the voters, just because SHE feels she has more "Experince"...Please explain this...Is Hillary Clinton that "bad" as to tear the party down because of what SHE desires? It does not make sense....And why is the DNC allowing her to endorse McCain? and why isn't anyone talking about this?

And also it was the Clinton party that "winked, winked" at the Candain why aren't news prgms tlking about that????

Posted by: Hheeaatt | March 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"...anyone who would vote for McCain out of disgust is a fool.

Remember 1968?

Disenchanted Democrats could hurt the party's chances in November simply by not voting for either presidential candidate.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | March 8, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Very simply put by the Obama campaign, if the candidate won a particular state, then the super delegates for that state should vote for the candidate which won the state. So by that standard, shouldn't Senators Kennedy and Kerry be using their super delegates to support Senator Clinton, since she won Massachusetts???

Posted by: mjo | March 10, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company