Yes, it IS time to recognize that the two ruling political institutions are not political parties at all, and when more folks begin to realize that, we might actually get somewhere.

Those who are still stuck in the repug v the DLC may or may not eventually figure it out, and of course they’ll be the first to take advantage.

But for now, they’ll do everything to hold on to the GOP status quo (McCain) because they are afraid of anything else, and will continue to find everything WRONG with the ‘unknown’.

No guts, no glory. Everything is a risk, and without taking them, we can expect what we’ve always had, which just puts us that much closer to losing what tiny bit there may be left.

Me? I’m holding out for the same people who put were behind Ned Lamont, because as you’ve pointed out Paolo, THAT took something to accomplish, and it speaks to the fact that we the people (whom others believe do not count) are MAKING ourselves COUNT, in an ‘in their faces’ kind of way, instead of just sitting on our asses moaning and groaning about how we don’t count.

Look at the bottom of the article and see the blurb about its authors.  I’m sure their not pedaling historical distortions outside of what that august think tank deems acceptable.  No.  These presumptions clash with the history of such numeraries as superdelegates.  The idea that doctrinal consistency was the highest consideration is ludicrous.  Even the Soviet apparatchiks had their factions.  This is a way to overrule the voice of the people should they actually be offered a choice.

Gregorio:

The figures and story came from the Center for Responsive Politics (CPR, opensecrets.org), which is NOT connected to Brookings.

Peace.

Cyrena, you’re a sanctimonious trip.  An uncle tom is just a black man who plays the white man’s game, in this case letting his campaign managers (whites) buy influence and super-delegate votes.  Being African-American or a woman does not mean that a candidate is somehow going to buck the business as usual approach to politics, or do anything to diminish the DOD, or increase social spending, or resist corporate influences.  Obama will not get us out of Iraq, will not look to campaign finance reform, will not reign in the Pentagon.

On the other hand there are lots of people (yourself included) who will vote for him BECAUSE HE IS AFRO-AMERICAN, and because his speeches, lacking content and specificity, sound so good, like a Baptist minister’s.  This is the same sort of atmosphere that surrounded Bill Clinton in ‘92, the man who gutted welfare, bombed Iraq for 8 years and Kosovo for one.

It’s people like you who should leave the country so that people like Nader or Kucinich or Edwards might have a chance.

Nope, not an Uncle Tom at all Gregorio, and only a staunch racist would come up with that.

I knew we’d never get rid of it entirely…was just having that discussion not long ago. Above and beyond all other extreme forms of hatred…racism lives on.

You repugs are really the scum of the earth..

I’m hoping that Obama’s election will encourage all of you to seek residency in another country. ANY other country.

I don’t trust anything I read from the Brookings Institue, Maani, and here you are offering us an article from that organization saying the superdelegate thing is all about party unity, and then, in your next post, telling us how it’s really all about money.  The Brookings article was smoke and propaganda designed to obscure the venality of both parties, but especially of the democrats.  Obama knows how to play the game.  He’s been bought, a charismatic uncle tom.

The Republicans will win in the fall not because either democrat is unacceptable to you for their corporate ties.  No room for conceit here; but instead because Republicans are not ashamed of corporate ties, and even revel in them.  They are unapologetic in their Ayn Rand approach to elitism and wealth and sociopathy.  For Republicans disenfranchisement is fair play.
Oddly, it is only McCain who has pushed for campaign finance reform.

A politician following the will of their district. Will wonders never cease.
Now, if we could get that to spread among all Democrat’s and Republican’s…

Ok, I feel a tad better about them than I did earlier. But I still don’t like the idea of any not elected by the voter’s having a say

... in this “2 party system”.

One thinks that a political party would be comprised of likeminded ideos who gather to leverage their collective power to shape government policy.

So on the one hand it is okay to open the democratic party primaries to allow non-party independants to choose a candidate. (This having the effect of dilutiing the vote and voice of the democratic party’s left wing by flooding the ballot boxes with centrist votes.)
On the other hand are the super-delegates who largely represent the institutional interest(s) in the party.

Let’s call all of this the Lamont factor. Ned Lamont knocked off Joe Lieberman in the last Connecticut primary for the US Senate. In an historic feat the party grass roots turned out a sitting senator and former candidate for VP.(Think about what that took to accomplish!)
Lieberman turned around and runs as an independent.
The Clinton’s come to town and campaign for Lieberman. Lieberman wins in a three way race against Lamont and his Republican rival.

To hell with grass roots democracy in the democratic party!

Isn’t it time to recognise that the two ruling political institutions are not political party’s at all?

farmertx:

“This “young” 63yo, spoiled, ex trucker, construction worker and now a farmer (yup, all gravy train jobs) isn’t aware that the Superdelegates ever really played a role in deciding a nomination before now.”

You may want to read the article I posted above, from the New York Times.  It explains that they have, and why.

Peace.

This “young” 63yo, spoiled, ex trucker, construction worker and now a farmer (yup, all gravy train jobs) isn’t aware that the Superdelegates ever really played a role in deciding a nomination before now.
I stand by my earlier criticism of the Superdelegates.
As for all the ones who won’t vote, check out what the Republican’s are saying about McCain.
It is difficult to make a good choice when you only have the lesser of two evils to choose between.
And the Supremes were right about the Parties being able to make any rule that they choose to make; don’t mean I gotta be happy about it.

A slightly different look at the superdelegate issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15mann.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Mark Hanson:

You said, “It’s been revealed by several news sources that Obama had been funneling 4 times amount of his campaign fund to the superdelegates who endorsed him, as compared to Clinton.  Almost $700K! Looks like nifty backroom politics to me.”

You are basically correct, though Obama gave three times, not four times, as much to superdelegates.  The actual numbers are $694,000 from Obama and $195,500 from Hillary.  This works out to 40% of Obama’s superdelegates vs. 12% of Hillary’s.

I hope this at LEAST raises an eyebrow (if not more) for those here who support Obama.

Peace.

Wait a minute. You’re worried about “legitimacy” and yet you think a system where someone who loses the popular vote in a state, but gets more pledged delegates due to some arcane rule, is fine, but if super delegates make the decisive choice of the nominee, it’s not?

The entire Democratic nominating process has to be revisted. But it won’r happen this year.

So all you young,privileged, spoiled rich folk are upset about the super delegates. Let’s look at reality without the over blown emotions.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1975 in Cousins v. Wigoda that political parties are entirely private entities and can do whatever they want. Super delegates have been around in the Democratic Party since 1980.

Both candidates got into this election under the current existing rules. You can’t change horses in the middle of a stream. And you can’t change the rules because all of a sudden they may not work for your candidate. And now some of you are acting like crybabies and saying this isn’t fair, this isn’t fair. Oh grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too many of you say that if Clinton gets the nomination you will take all your toys and sulk home. Or in other words you will not vote for Clinton. How grown up and mature is that? Too many of you are saying play by MY rules or I won’t vote at all! Just because you are voting for the first or second time does not give you the right to dictate to the Democratic Party what the rules should mean when those rules have been around for years.

Obama has said that he would get Clinton’s voters, but she not his. Even Michelle Obama when asked if Clinton got the nomination would she support her answered, “Well, I would have to think about that.”

Clinton’s supporters always say they will vote for the eventual nominee. I don’t hear that from Obama’s supporters.

Well with selfish people like some of you I can see why Obama’s voters would not support the eventual nominee. If Clinton should get the nomination and Obama does not support her that too would be a tragedy for America and would make him care more for himself than the good of the country.

NOW THAT IS NOT THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. THAT IS THE ARROGANCE OF HYPE.

Cyrena, thanks, as always, for the links.(will have to wait until later in the day when it is raining here) It is one thing for such a delegate to “vote the will of his district.” The part that bothers me is the ones who have no ‘district’. Whose will are they voting and why?

Maani, a clear cut or overwhelming majority might not always be possible, granted. Case in point is now.
Too many are not ready for a Female, any Female, to be President. And almost as many can’t abide the idea of a Black Male as President.
Even though I am a ‘red-neck’ (from farming all day in the Sun) I can see no reason why either would be such a bad thing. Especially after what we have experienced over the past 7 years. Neither Hillary nor Barak can be cited as affirmative action gone amok.
I just don’t want anyone but actual voter’s to make any decisions about who can/can’t run. That smacks too much of the old smoke filled back rooms of yesteryear. We still have enough of that in how the money gets raised and ‘distributed’.

^ I agree with farmertx; we need a direct one person one vote.  Too expensive?  This is the same argument for, rather against, healthcare among others.  But, we can spend 2+ trillion in Iraq and almost 1 trillion on defense per year?  These arguments are disingenuious at best.  We’re broken!  Thats real; thats now!  What are we going to “DO” about it?

But, not sure we should qualify all superdelegates as cigar chomping , backroom dealing autocrats. Parties are private functions so says the Courts. Parties determine the rules. Do we not spend a lot of our electing favorite Congress members or governors , who should be priviliged to attend our national conventions. Some even have a positive function.
  Superdelegates are not the problem. The problem is the national conventions and ridilicious caucus system that perpetuates the role of money.  Maybe Edwards delegates might be the deciding factor.
If we want democratic elections end conventions and go with a national primary. That might even please the role of the superdelegates who now themselves they will overrule the will of the Democratic base.

farmertx:

The problem with a “simple majority” is that it is not so simple.  LOL.  There are still some primaries to go.  Even setting aside delegates completely, suppose at the end the actual VOTE count was too close to represent a clear “will of the people”; close enough to contest, or to complain about.  As noted, this would simply make things even uglier.

That said, I totally agree re the electoral college.  With respect to the general election (i.e., McCain vs. Whoever), it is time that this country live up to its true potential as a democracy and go to a “one person, one vote” system, in which the popular vote IS the final vote.  Had that occurred in 2000, Gore would have been president with or without the Florida debacle.

Peace.

FarmerTx
I think I understand your argument about the Superdelegates (at least many or most of them) not being ‘elected’ or otherwise appointed by the people –
For this purpose…(ie, selecting a nomination)
On the other hand, it would appear that this group was in fact created for that exact purpose, (as Maani has stated, and as the article below articulates as well). And, since this is not a ‘new’ sort of rule or procedure, like so many others have come about, one might have to agree with the validity of the group (and its purpose) based on that alone. (different from the deal in FL and MI, which is ‘new’ to this election).
So, it’s one of those times when again, we probably have to respect precedent. IOW, we can’t just decide that the group should be disbanded now, when it’s been an accepted and established part of the process for a very long time, just because we might not like the outcome.
That said, you might find a bit of hope (dependant on where you’re sitting on the candidates) in this article from the NYT. I was immediately drawn to it myself, because of the reference to John Lewis. He has been (and remains) one of my heroes from the days of the CRM, in his very brave NON-VIOLENT commitment to social justice and equality. He is of course an elder statesman, and I admit I’d been somewhat disappointed in his support of Mrs. Clinton.
However, he makes an important point here, that speaks to your own concerns. Specifically, he says this:
•  “…a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.”

In short, he’ll follow the lead of his constituency.
(I’ve posted the first portion of the article below, with a link to the rest).

That said, I too disagree with the overall premise of the writer of this particular piece. Yes, there’s always patronage involved in politics. One of our own long-term Reps, Maxine Waters, is also supporting Mrs. Clinton, and we now discover that she has received monetary support from the Clinton campaign.  I wish that were not so, but apparently it is. I don’t know if she is a superdel, but as a rep she would be voting against the wishes of her particular constituency.

OTOH, Mr. Lewis is a good enough example, (and there are others) of those who DO choose, based on the wishes of their voters, and not patronage or back room deals.

Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate, he could not go against the wishes of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.
“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he, too, would not go against the will of voters in his district.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?ei=5088&en=85ac05fe6229f377&ex=1360731600&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1203050082-6eXQB0iSfn/oGHSEga0UcQ&pagewanted=print

It would seem to me that a rule allowing a simple majority could take the place of the Superdelegates.
We certainly don’t need any more elections.
Plus, seeing as how this applies to only the Democrats, how would the Republican’s decide if the situation were reversed?
One thing that would help would be a law (with meaningful penalties) banning contributions from anyone not eligible to vote for that candidate and then only a maximum of $2000. Most ‘ordinary’ American’s don’t have $2000 to give, let alone the $20k and up that special interests can ‘give’.
Most of us, Hillary excepted, can agree that too much ‘big money’ is involved in politics, making the system the mess that we have seen.
The MSM would be against this as it would hinder their ability to reap all the ad revenue. All the more reason to implement it.
That would allow a candidate who is not in the pocket of some special interest group(s) a chance at running for office.
In the case of Presidential Elections, anyone could donate, subject to the maximum limit.
Basically, I want to see the elections decided by the voter’s, not a Superdelegate nor an Electoral College.

farmertx:

You are obviously not the only person who has suggested this.  But I am not sure through what mechanism you would have “the voters” do this.  Hold a national “general election” just for Democrats? That would not only be cumbersome (and time-consuming to set up), but might end up being even MORE damaging, if the vote is close and there is either a recount or charges of chicanery.

How else do you see it being done?

It would seem to me that the voters will have HAD their say by the time of the convention, and that they simply will not have been able to clearly choose between the two candidates with any degree of certainty.  The superdelegate system, as imperfect as it might be, was set up for just such an eventuality.

As an aside, I disagree with the writer’s permise that this will make any difference vis-a-vis the general election.  So what that John McCain will be “running for president” before a Dem nominee is chosen.  Given the zeitgeist right now, his chances of winning against either Hillary or Obama, no matter when they enter the race, is slim to none (barring any truly effective “swift-boating,” or election/voting chicanery).

Peace.

Superdelegates should never be allowed to enter the picture. While some are elected officials, none were elected to decide this question.
The Democratic Party would do itself a favor by disbanding this group and allowing the process to be handled by the voter’s as it was originally intended to be handled.
But some of the hierarchy isn’t comfortable with the voter’s actually being allowed to decide such things.
This is akin to the Republican’s wanting to extend the Electoral system into State Elections as they have tried to do in CA.
The process is already too tainted by the presence of all the big campaign donations that Hillary thinks is just fine.
Both Parties could at least leave the idea of the voter’s making the final decision alone.