"Ahhhh but let someone from a another country talk about our politics , especially when they side with you is ok?"

What's the matter? Forced to change the subject because you can't muster a document-supported argument to counter my own? It appears your ADHD is flaring up again, and your meds are far past due.

Typical.

LOL.

Ahhhh but let someone from a another country talk about our politics , especially when they side with you is ok? You are one funny Puppy

Why don't you cry about it?

I guess they didn't teach you that in Paparazzi school.

LOL.

"I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?"

Wow. You truly are illiterate. FYI, I did NOT cite this article to demonstrate that I was magically able to locate the exact article on which you are basing your misconceptions--in fact, with your blatant disregard for documentation, I question whether you can read at all. What is at issue are the rules for nomination stated in that article. The article clearly states that there is NO such scenario whereby superdelegates could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from then unwillingly. In order to nominate Gore, Obama would have to willingly surrender the 1900 votes he has already won.

What are these rules so difficult for you to comprehend?

LOL.

I guess I shouldn't expect so much from a Safety School reject with a degree in Paparazzi.

Pathetic.

One scenario where that might happen, and where BTW it ought to happen, is if a horrendous corruption or vote-rigging scam was discovered after the primaries but before the convention. In such a case, the delegates (super or not) would all be crazy to just vote for the soiled candidate anyway. They could reasonably assume that, had the voters known then what is known now, they would have cast their votes differently.

!Oh libsR Iam not here for pos or negs, truth is the more you neg me the more I am sure I am correct in my opinion

BTW...I wonder, at the convention, will superdelegates John Kerry and Ted Kennedy vote for the popular vote winner in their state?

I think you get the first positive vote I ever gave one of your comments. I don't think either scenario will happen though, but I agree Obama will not win. He's too out of touch with Middle America, and you can't win without Middle America. That's the point Hillary has been harping for a while, but Middle America doesn't much care for her, either.

Can't say I disagree with you, Slate. He's a perfect example of the pompous, elitist a$$ produced by Yale, as is Al Gore. They must loathe the fact Bush went to Yale and did better than Gore.

I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?

Your parents still upset they wasted all that cash on your degree? You still pretending you have done peer-reviewed research but think "sampling" is somehow tied to math? LOL. friggin' looney.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

GORE lost plain and simple. All attempted recounts confirmed it. They should stop whining.

""Superdelgates" is a completely stupid idea"

Tell that to your Republican "Automatic Delegates." While the idea of superdelegates might seem initially unsavory, they do serve a useful purpose.

Not that your opinion matters. After all, who are you to meddle in intraparty affairs for a party of which you are not even a member? LOL.

LIBS:

"you might have read accounts of Democrats nominating Al Gore."

Not all media rumors are considered "possible." Perhaps you didn't finish reading your own story because EVEN THAT unlikely scenario would require Obama surrending the nearly 1900 delegates he has won.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...

"Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along."

There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte.

Sometimes "better" is not safer in preserving the best that we have.

It could be faster, cheaper, shorter - but I have yet to hear of another country that has one that works as well in the long run. (notice, I didn't say short run )

Hopefully judges, not politicians.

"you saying but but you have them too shows weakness, butch up and deal with your problem at hand or you may end up really being up set with the outcome next fall"

What problem? There is no problem. The only problem here is your continued bitching about intraparty protocol for a party you are NOT even a member of.

I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to comprehend.

LOL.

Pathetic.

"I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want?"

Actually, that would mean to me that you are clearly illiterate, as I ALREADY stated below: "Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice."

You can vote in any open primary you wish, but that should not override the Democrats' ability to choose their own candidate. This is NOT a general election; it is a PARTY PRIMARY and the PARTY chooses its nominee.

The fact that you continue to confuse the goals of the general election with the goals of a party primary comes as no surprise.

LOL.

Interesting that you would say that!

You see we haven't had the problem of the infighting that your party has once things get moving along,,,, this is a problem you are having to face at this time in history,,,, you saying but but you have them too shows weakness, butch up and deal with your problem at hand or you may end up really being up set with the outcome next fall,,,, the only people you can blame is your own party, for being such knuckle heads and getting into this mess in the first place,,,, all I have to do is sit back and watch,,,,, a few months ago I was resigned to the fact that all was lost, but people in your party have given me a glimmer of hope now, because the smugness in your own party has bitten ya in da behind,,,,

I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want? On a closed elitist mind would thnk that way.

If you had one candidate worthy to actually win without going all the way to this late in the game and the supers not have to come to play then you'd not have to have so many sleepless nights pondering the possibility that you may not get what you demand.

If the primaries in question are OPEN then they are OPEN to all Dems, Repubs and INDs., not just those you feel are worthy to cast a vote,,,,

You call me Self Righteousness? hehehe then why is it You are the ones upset because your lttle parade isn't going well. Heck I think it's fun to watch you guys freak out about it.

"Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left."

Sure it bothers me. Where did I say it didn't? Go ahead and quote my exact words back to me, if you can.

SLATE:

"stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,"

I suggest you take your own advice and stop your whining. The Party primaries are INTRAPARTY AFFAIRS, and since you're NOT a registered Democrat, your opinion is even more inconsequential than usual.

Your sense of self-righteousness is laughable considering the fact that the Republican Party also has Superdelegates; they just call them "Automatic Delegates."

LOL. Pathetic.

Yeah, many talking heads are saying the Fat Lady has sung. If you look at the delegate math, that's not too far off the mark. Hillary's only hope is wring as many votes out of the FL and MI compromises and continue to suggest that Obama is unelectable, but again, all that really does is make uniting behind the eventual nominee more difficult AND give ammunition to the Reps in the Fall.

Unless, of course, Obama is discovered in a hotel room buggering Cheney.

You could argue that Powell is attractive, but less so after he grabbed his ankles to deliver the cooked and blurry intel to the UN leading up to the war. Since that time, Powell has barely been a blip on the radar, which is probably to his advantage.

The democratic party may be a different issue however. Maybe they want to run their affairs as a democracy, but wait why would you have SDs in a democracy?

Now for some reason every SD decides to go with Hillary and put her over the top, would the Obama Supporters in the Democrat party be OK with that?

Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left.... stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,,, even if that means voting for a Democrat,,,

Say it enough times and everyone will believe it and change history to reflect your lie. Next thing you know some nut job will say Bush pulled off 9/11 to make a little cash.

JOEY EVANS

Who gave the Republicans McCain?

WHO has been manipulated?!?

Also, you might have read accounts of Democrats possibly scrapping the entire matter and nominating a third candidate, such as Al Gore. It won't happen, but it has been suggested; therefore, it is possible.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie...

"Reed had collected sufficient position to appeal the decision of the convention's rules committee to give all 165 members of the Republican National Committee automatic delegate slots at the 2004 convention. To Reed, that will begin a slippery slope toward the Democratic Party's installations of more than 500 super-delegates."

In BOTH the Democratic Party and Republican Party, the number of Superdelegate votes or Automatic Delegate votes is INSUFFICIENT to win the party's nomination. However, it does give party leaders leverage to counter efforts by the opposing party to sabotage or influence the primary elections.

"There were anecdotal reports of big turnout in Republican precincts in Indiana – with, presumably, Republican voters asking for Democratic presidential ballots. 11% of the voters in Indiana tonight were Republican-- and they went for Clinton over Obama 52% to 46%."

Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice.

Thirdly, the nomination process represents INTRAPARTY BUSINESS. As you're obviously not a member of the party, your opinion doesn't matter anyway. Democrats are free to choose their nominee any way they see fit.

Fourthly, after the neocons' collective disgust at McCain's nomination (Independents and Crossover voters flocking to McCain), it sounds like you would have liked similar rules to prevent McCain from winning the nomination.

LOL.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people" claim is void where prohibited, and closed to Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan. The Democratic Party superdelgates will decide the voice of the people and provide "a mandate" for the country regardless of how "the people" vote.

"Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it."

Firstly, a Democratic candidate needs 2025 delegate votes to win the Democratic Party nomination. The number of superdelegates in play is FAR short of that mark.

Secondly, while the idea of superdelegates may seem unsavory at first, it does have its usefulness. Superdelegates can ensure that the candidate supported by most registered Democrats gets the nomination, despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries. This blunting sabotaging efforts, like Limbaugh's so-called "Operation Chaos."

Latest W. Va poll May 8 Clinton 63 Obama 23, Clinton up from 56-27 twi days ago. So Clinton up 40 pts. in West Va. and up 34 pts in Kentucky & on the day of the Kentucky primary where he'll lose by astonishing numbers for the 2nd straight week Obama is going to announce victory.

If he does that he'll look as foolish as George Bush did on the Air Craft Carrier announcing victory in Iraq almost 5 years ago. Good fodder for McCain & the 527's.

That's why the superdelegates are there, to prevent an unelectable candidate who for some unknown reason won a few early primaries from embarrassing the party by lopsided loses like those of McGovern, Dukakis & Mondale!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0m8iCFbr8

We elect them then the BIG-dollars folks direct them.

Many of them are elected politicians. They won't risk the wrath of their constituents

As I have posted before, the Democrats should be more worried about the "pledged" delegates

According to a news article Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a "myth."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583....

What a party. Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it.

Oh yeah, Michigan and Florida, just shut up. You don't get a voice.

Nice party.

The elites will always want a chance to correct any "mistake" made by the people

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

We don't create tax policy ... they do

We don't run deficits ... they do

we don't take money from lobbyists ... they do

We don't go to war ... they do

Then they give themselves a nice reward ... we don't get one.

When I look at your country I can see it heading in a general direction and this is just my opinion but it is not in the direction of interest of the average American, when I factor in the super delegates that the Democrats use when selecting a presidential candidate it seems to confirm my fellings that the direction the country will go is not in the hands of the average American.

The average American that I am refering to is a person who still believes in the United States of America and works hard to provide for their families, believes in law and order, believes that their government will be accountable to them and above all will treat all equally whether rich or poor. Equally is what I feel the Average American is losing to all governments.