They need to follow the rules. Even if they are stupid. Parties are not the government, they are private entities that organize themselves like corporations and associations and are bound to follow their own rules. If there is no rule about how a superdelegate has to vote, they can vote however they choose--with their constituency if that's what the individual thinks or not with the constituency. Why do they exist without restrictions on their votes if not to choose how to vote? Its not unamerican, the Congress elected the first few presidents didn't they? Even now the electoral college does so.

Vote Hoyer out of office - and ANY OTHER POLITICIAN who thinks it is OK to thwart the electorate's voiced choice.

Politicians in DC need to be reminded they are OUR SERVANTS.

Whichever candidate wins the most delegates should be the presidential nominee.

Anything else is UN AMERICAN, UN DEMOCRATIC, and patently self-serving hypocrisy.

PERIOD!

Evil laughter (HA ha ha) goes outfrom nationwide as we hear this news of the petition to re-do Florida! OMG!

Including me as I race to copy paste what I thought was old. The press would rather stir the super delegate pot than report on the popular vote count

In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the nomination process even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state.. Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules. The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election. Instead they let Clinton take the heat.

No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now. But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!

Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences. To offset potential sabotage. They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.

We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? Let Republicans choose the Democrat opponent?

In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote, I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact. God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality involving (not counting) Florida!

I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s). They should not fear being called bigoted if they are seen as questioning Barak's qualifications; it is their job (and voters), and the role of super delegates. Truth hurts? Grow up!

I THINK THE DEM VOTES IN FLORIDA SHOULD COUNT, AFTER ALL THE REPUBLICANS CHANGED THEIR PRIMARIES AND ONLY GOT 1/2 THE DELICATES TAKEN AWAY, THEIR VOTES STILL COUNTED!I AM BEGINING TO THINK THAT THE BIG WIGS WILL SOON PICK WHO THEY WANT AND THE HELL WITH THE PEOPLE!THEY FORGET, WE PAY THEIR SALLARIES, THEY DON'T PAY OURS!IT IS TIME THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE THE SAY AND THE BIG WIGS TAKE THE BACK SEAT! NO WONDER THE OTHER COUNTRIES ARE WATCHING THE ELECTIONS, THEY ARE TRYING TO FOUND OUT WHO THE IDIOTS ARE RUNNING THIS ELECTION, AND THEY ARE MAKING SURE THEY DON'T FOLLOW IN THEIR WAYS!!!!!

Superdelegates can be ' corrupted ' by patronage and political pressure and shouldn't overturn the voters choices. Why campaign for such a long time, with all the related campaign money involved, and have a limited number of individuals skew party selection.

There's no reason for such a rule...nor does the length of time it takes to campaign in each state. Shortening the ' caucus ' season and nationalizing dates for primaries might help erase some of the lobbyists money and influence.

Steny Hoyer is a worn-out party hack who will go to his grave falling on his sword to prevent change. It was a terrible tragedy that Pelosi was forced to accept him in his position instead of John Murtha. Hoyer is one of the major reasons our country has lost another thousand boys. We could have been out of Iraq by now if the Democrats in congress had stood behind Pelosi and Murtha. Thank God the time has come for these worn-out old hacks.

the superdelegates are supposed to vote their conscience and use their judgment on who they think would make the best president. They are not bound to vote on the basis of state outcomes. If that were the case, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry would have to vote for Hillary since she won the state of Mass. It appears that the media is going to start taking a closer look at Obama, which is what they should have done in the beginng, but better late than never. Maybe now the voters will realize how inexperienced and unknowledgeable he really is. This country needs someone like Hillary, intelligent,experienced and a fighter. GO HILLARY!!!!

Let's face it: Superdelegates will do what they want and will come up with their reasoning after the fact. Only the fear of being ousted from office themselves will make them somewhat cautious.

I don't know if unaffiliated leaders like Gore, Pelosi, Richardson, etc have figured out how they plan to resolve the situation, but I am pretty secure in the knowledge that those three have no particular love of the Clintons. They know ungrateful Clintons will bite the hands that possibly will put them in power. They've never been a thankful people, yet punish any who are disloyal to them.

If we Dems weren't so anxious about winning in November now that Clinton opened the door to denigrating a fellow Dem in the same breath as praising the opposing Rep, this would actually be fun to watch. As it is, the fear of Clintons in the WH again has been keeping me up nights.

If superdelegates overturn the popular vote, resulting in a loss for Obama, African-Americans across the country will feel severely disenfranchised, will sit out the November election (causing Clinton to lose), will suspect racism in the Democratic establishment, and will drift away from the Democratic party for years to come. Is this the future of our party?

Superdelegates......well why did they not think of this BEFORE..we have to listen 13 months of Proelction STUFF 6 more months of SUPERDELEGATes.....The Media sucks ,, nothing but FEAR and PILLS.....lest get a TV chanel ONLY for ELECTIOn speeches..one for republican and one for demacrats....
I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IS MY STIMULES CHECK? SHOW ME THE MONEY....IT IS the ECONOMY stupid!

Like it or not, the superdelegates were established to provide a safety valve for selecting the party's nominee. If they
had been meant to simply rubber-stamp the
primary vote, there would have been no
need for them. They should be free to
vote their conscience, taking their
constituents into account as it they
who the delegates will have to answer
to. At the very least, if they can't
vote their own conscience, then they
should vote in accordance with the
results in their state. In that case,
Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Patrich=k
of Massachusettes (who are all Obama
backers) would have to give their
superdelegate vote to Clinton who won
their state.
Taking this across the country, all of
the major states (which have the most
superdelegates) would have to go to the
winner, Clinton. States like Alaska, Idaho,
Wyoming, Montana, Utah would have their
extremely few superdelegates pledged to
Obama. GUESS WHO WOULD WIN !!!!!

I forgot to mention that Obama has spent
nearly one million dollars in donations
to superdelegates to get their endorsements. How's that for buying votes?
Can you believe he even gave Senator Byrd
of West Virgina $10,000?

The bottom line is that if she steals this nomination, she will lose and so will the democratic party because for African-Americans and others who continue to believe and want the best for this country, will leave the party so fast, it will make all their heads spin. That's why Hillary has left open the possibility of her being VP. This way she thinks she will have a chance of placating all of the Obama supporters. This is the Bataan death march for the Democratic Party!

If political parties make rules and then break them then what do we tell our children about cheating in exams or is this just a case of slanting the curve thing look better
Gm

Why dont you very inteligent democrats ask th question,why is it that just the democrats have super delegates and the party that you dont like have them ?

My answer is that one party believes in being fare.Not the democrats/////

Steny Hoyer is an outstanding politician and serves his constituency well in the House. There is a two tier system for selecting the nominees and I am not so sure that the "people" did such a good job with Kerry. Where were the insiders?? I for one think that either Hillary or Obama can win this election, must win this election for the sake of the country. Nothing will keep me from voting in November. Nothing!!!

Why are we still struggling with this outdated method of selecting our president? Why not let the peoples voices decide their president by way of the most votes, or even the most delegates instead of all this hodpotch of superdelegates. The world is watching our "democracy" at work and it is a total disgrace on how we exercise our democracy. Silence the voices of the people and in the end let the big wigs decide the precidency for us. Shame

Hi Norm, If super delegates were apportioned the same way as the pledged delegates ONLY one candidate would be leading at this point........OBAMA!!!! Winning big states alone does not win an election!!! Obama is leading in pleadged delegates and the popular vote too. The only reason that Clinton is a little close is that more superdelegates pledged to her before they even heard Obama present his case for the white house.

Like it or not, the superdelegates were established to provide a safety valve for selecting the party's nominee. If they
had been meant to simply rubber-stamp the
primary vote, there would have been no
need for them. They should be free to
vote their conscience, taking their
constituents into account as it they
who the delegates will have to answer
to. At the very least, if they can't
vote their own conscience, then they
should vote in accordance with the
results in their state. In that case,
Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Patrich=k
of Massachusettes (who are all Obama
backers) would have to give their
superdelegate vote to Clinton who won
their state.
Taking this across the country, all of
the major states (which have the most
superdelegates) would have to go to the
winner, Clinton. States like Alaska, Idaho,
Wyoming, Montana, Utah would have their
extremely few superdelegates pledged to
Obama. GUESS WHO WOULD WIN !!!!!

Posted by: Norm | March 6, 2008 01:04 PM

Hi Norm, If super delegates were apportioned the same way as the pledged delegates ONLY one candidate would be leading at this point........OBAMA!!!! Winning big states alone does not win an election!!! Obama is leading in pleadged delegates and the popular vote too. The only reason that Clinton is a little close is that more superdelegates pledged to her before they even heard Obama present his case for the white house.

Like it or not, the superdelegates were established to provide a safety valve for selecting the party's nominee. If they
had been meant to simply rubber-stamp the
primary vote, there would have been no
need for them. They should be free to
vote their conscience, taking their
constituents into account as it they
who the delegates will have to answer
to. At the very least, if they can't
vote their own conscience, then they
should vote in accordance with the
results in their state. In that case,
Ted Kennedy, Kerry and Governor Patrich=k
of Massachusettes (who are all Obama
backers) would have to give their
superdelegate vote to Clinton who won
their state.
Taking this across the country, all of
the major states (which have the most
superdelegates) would have to go to the
winner, Clinton. States like Alaska, Idaho,
Wyoming, Montana, Utah would have their
extremely few superdelegates pledged to
Obama. GUESS WHO WOULD WIN !!!!!

Posted by: Norm | March 6, 2008 01:04 PM

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 Embassy...so why aren't news prgms tlking about that????