Slog - Comments on Clinton's Black Superdelegates Wavering

Comment by Bub

Bub — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:57:13 -0800

The Clinton spin machine will try to discredit Scott and Lewis in 10, 9, 8 ...

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:04:26 -0800

I don't get what this has to do with it being a black man and a white woman.

Comment by lorax

lorax — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:09:46 -0800

I think it's time for Sens Kerry and Kennedy and Gov Patrick to switch their support to Clinton, if they're going to be consistent.

Comment by josh

josh — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:30:19 -0800

DO POLITICAL JOURNALISTS/COMMENTATORS REALLY THINK THAT SUPERDELEGATES ARE GOING TO BE AN ISSUE OR ARE YOU JUST TIRED OF TALKING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES?

Comment by johnnie

johnnie — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:30:30 -0800

Especially because they're white.

Comment by johnnie

johnnie — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:31:50 -0800

My comment was meant for the little guy who speaks for the trees, of course. Not josh.

Comment by Suz

Suz — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:41:05 -0800

The super delegate system sucks and should be abolished. It should be 100% up to the will of the people. Didn't Gore teach us anything? Damn. And you can't expect the Clinton delegates go to Obama (i.e. Cantwell) unless you make the Obama delegates go to Clinton (i.e. Kennedy).

Comment by Fluxophiliac

Fluxophiliac — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:43:04 -0800

@3 you are the politics of the past.
Change means that when the state goes for Obama, they have to look to their constituents and go for Obama. So, Murray and Cantwell should switch and be for Obama. But Kennedy or Kerry should look to a broader picture, to Idaho and Washington State and SC as well as Mass, and go for Obama, too.

You can't see the consistency here, just like you can't see the transcendency of the Obama movement.

Hopefully, when we get to the convention, we will keep out the delegates from Florida and Michigan. They want to block change. If we can control who gets to vote in the meeting, we can control the result, just like in 1933.

Change is a comin' so if you oppose it with false cries for consistency you are historically obsolete and tied to the past and you need to get out of the way.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:53:03 -0800

For what it's worth, if I lived in MA I would expect Clinton supporters to lobby their Senators in the same way. I happen to live in WA, and I happen to support Obama, so that's the way I'm lobbying. I'm not sure why people think those of us who would like our senators to vote with their state assume we don't think senators from clinton-supporting states should do the same thing (or at least be lobbied to do so by their voters).

Comment by banjoboy

banjoboy — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:26:39 -0800

If superdelegates (those in elected office at least) had to vote the same way as their constituents, wouldn't that make them fairly pointless? They should just vote for whoever they think is the better choice for the party.

Comment by Fitz

Fitz — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:00:44 -0800

To be fair to all, abolish the super delegates. In fact, many of them are out of touch with their constituencies anyway. Both the Dem & Rep parties are jokes. We need to move past these antiquated systems, including the electoral college. Popular votes are the ONLY way to go.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:37:23 -0800

Um, how can they be "out of touch with their constituencies" when they were for the most part recently elected by those same constituencies?

Comment by Babaloo

Babaloo — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:44:14 -0800

@8:

Comments like that just make you sound like a glassy eyed cult member. "Transcendency?!" Obama is not the Messiah, he is a just a man. A smart man with excellent ideas and a gift for oratory, but a man nonetheless.

As for your argument, it makes no sense. A superdelegate represents the state he/she is from, not the others, and should vote accordingly. That said, I think the superdelegate situation will work itself out, as Josh said. Everyone just calm down.

Comment by johnnie

johnnie — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:12:23 -0800

Babs, I believe it was a parody.

Comment by Fitz

Fitz — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:37:15 -0800

Fnarf, some of the super delegates I'm referring to no longer hold office. And, I follow Southern and Mid-Atlantic politics closely. The voters are tired of their representatives not listening and are on the verge of removing them from office. Personally, I think Maria "vote for the Iraq war" Cantwell needs to go. And although McDermott voted against the war, he is useless, and needs to go too.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:26:29 -0800

Oh, does he really?

Look, I can't frigging stand Jim McDermott, but even I think that the voters in his district, who returned him to Congress less than two years ago, are better qualified to make that determination than one anonymous guy named "Fitz" on the internets.

The vast majority of superdelegates are sitting elected officials. Feel free to argue that superdelegates should be done away with, but please don't start by suggesting that they have no constituencies.

Comment by Jason

Jason — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:46:55 -0800

I think since we're stuck with this lame superdelegate system (in this election at least)superdelegates should be free to vote their "conscience". We can't change that midstream. However individual Superdelegates CAN change their committment midstrea.

As elected officials their constituients should remind, plead, guilt, cajole, and pressure them to vote for whomever said constituents prefer. Hillary supporters should be sending emails and letters to Ted Kennedy if they feel this way. I don't see as much call to do this (any MA sloggers here?), perhaps because the Clinton supporters know they don't have as many pesky "activists"? Also, they should also look at the national popular vote % and, yes, go with their superior insider hunch on who they think is the most Electable come November.

To me encouraging Superdelegates to change their vote is reminding them of their autonomy, not changing the rules. Just because they said they'd support Hillary/Obama back in May doesn't mean they have to now.

Comment by Fitz

Fitz — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:19:58 -0800

Fnarf, I am in McDermott's district, and will continue voting against him. He does not "represent" me or my beliefs. I'm not sure why you are arguing what I feel and think.

Comment by Babaloo

Babaloo — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:18:42 -0800

@14:

LOL. It is hard to tell sometimes-a lot of what some Obama supporters write on Slog sounds so outrageous as to be a joke...then it turns out they are sincere!

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:07:20 -0800

@18 - you and the other 8 percent of voters ...