Pelosi Backpedals
April 2nd, 2008 at 03:30am Matt Margolis
It looks like Nancy Pelosi got the message from Hillary supporters and is now saying super-delegates should vote their conscience.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the superdelegates who may ultimately decide the Democratic party’s presidential nominee have a right to vote as they wish, and that the drawn-out contest between candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama should be allowed to reach its conclusion.
“These superdelegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win, but they also then should get involved in the campaigns and make their power known there,” Pelosi said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
So really, how do you all feel about the whole super-delegate business?
LINK OF THE DAY: Super-Delegates
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
10 Comments
1. Catfish | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 am
Super delegates are undemocratic and absurd. How can you reconcile the belief that Karl Rove working his dirty tricks and backroom deals sullying the 2000/04 elections and the Bush administration with the idea of party elites decide who should win a supposedly democratic election? Caucases are the same undemocratic approach. When did a private 1 man/1 vote system not get it done? I like the proportional awarding of delegates, but short of that, I hate the D. process. At least in Cali I could vote in the pri and not have to declare myself a dem. (shudder). Im sorry this is long, Im new here, but I think we need a viable third party. I dont care what they stand for…..we just need a new approach. Sigh…..
2. phnx | April 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
The democrat leadership deserves this mess. They created this scheme to control the process and have the ultimate say, depriving their loyal party members of the chance of true democratic representation.
The unintended consequences (gee they always seem to crop up when the donks are involved) is party infighting. No matter what the result, one or more of their constituencies is bound to be unhappy.
As an observer I must say that the donks are entertaining if nothing else.
3. Almiranta | April 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Did Catfish make any sense at all? I can’t seem to figure out what he is saying about Rove and so on, though it does seem logical to take a thread about the Democrat delegate process in 2008 and try to make it a comment about the Karl Rove in 2000.
I mean, isn’t that what Dem discourse is all about? Deflection, distraction, disinformation, all in the interest of NOT talking about what is really going on?
phnx is completely correct—the Law of Unintended Consequences is one which dogs the footsteps of liberals who try to “fix” things with poorly thought-out sweeping psuedo-solutions.
4. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
I don’t think you would get too many Dems that like the SuperDelegate process. But it is what it is and it isn’t going away this cycle. Of course, it really hasn’t ever made a difference, so we deal with it this cycle.
5. Rich | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Furthermore, what does the count every vote crowd think about Michigan and Florida?
6. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Michigan and Florida brought it upon themselves. They should be pissed at their own Democratic parties.
So that isn’t much of the “gotcha” you were trying for.
7. Joe | April 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
By the way… regarding Mich and Florida, I think they should go to the convention 50-50 for Obama-Clinton. That is roughly what they would have gotten anyway. With the proportional delegates, it wouldn’t be radically different one way or the other.
8. Macker | April 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Please pass the popcorn please!
/snicker
9. Catfish | April 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Sorry, I wasnt all the way sober when I wrote that. what I was trying to say is people cry about backroom shadiness stealing elections in 00 and 04, but now backroom dealing and party elites will decide this one….Havent we been told for 8 years how we want transparency and accountability from the left? I know that you have because Im one of the people who have been calling for it. I just cant stand the hypocrisy of the D party. No, that does not excuse the bad policies of the Rs…..but at least they are openly pro-corporate and rich ppl….the dems claim to be a party of the people, and here they are letting rich white men decide an election. Hope that makes more sense.
10. Almiranta | April 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Catfish, the prose makes more sense, but the claim that the Republican Party is, openly or not, “pro-corporate and rich…” is pretty silly.
For one thing, the old socialist anti-corporation whine is really just for the most naive and unworldly among you. It is meaningless, and is just designed to attract people who are itching to be AGIN something and suckers for some vaguely appealing rant against The Establishment.
Ever think about a United States without corporations? Even know what a corporation IS? It’s not a good idea to try to mount an argument which is so meaningless and silly on every possible level—sober or not.
And the R’s are all RICH? You do have to be kidding. What the Republican Party is increasingly representing is the middle class hard-working American who is for small government, for keeping what he earns, for not having official government confiscation of personal property for redistrbution by party elites to those THEY deem ‘more deserving” and for a strong and proud America.
You need to look beyond the radical rhetoric of the rabid Left and beyond the tired old stereotypes and get caught up on what is happening politically.
The Democratic Party of John Kennedy is for all intents and purposes the Republican Party of 2008, while the Democrat Party of 2008 is the old Socialist Party, complete with the same old socialist rhetoric and gamesmanship. It’s all shifted, slid off to the Left, and it is important to look at actual issues instead of emotionally based catchwords and tired old stereotypes.