<p>
[quote]
But the take away message here is that your opposition is based solely on your perception of who is the better candidate, whereas mine is based solely on the role superdelegates are intended to play, something applejack pointed out explicitly to you and you ignored, probably because it's a hard thing to refute.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And your perception of the role of the superdelegates is that they should use their judgement to pick who you consider to be the better, more electable, candidate -- i.e. Clinton. Your support for the complete prerogative of the superdelegates is so they can vote for your favored candidate. I don't refute the prerogative of superdelegates and if you could read you'd have understood that. What I say is it should be exercised in fairness and with respect to the will of the voters. Nothing material has changed since the voters spoke in this election cycle. Sure, the superdelegates can do what they damn well please. I am saying they really had better not. And as I said, the principles of democracy and fairness favor my position.</p>
<p>As to your hypothetical, it's rather ridiculously far afield from this situation. And again, I never said that the superdelegates couldn't subvert the will of the majority of the voters, I said they shouldn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I assume you are an Obama supporter, because this kind of complaining about a perfectly legitimate and by-the-books potential outcome (superdelegates nominating Hillary) without complaining about any of the other unfair, but by-the-books practices in the primaries is a defining characteristic of his supporters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is this statement from a few posts back that shows your biases in vivid color -- and yet you purport to have a neutral position. What a crock. The rules are established beforehand. I am aware the rules involve the ability of superdelegates to choose as they will for whatever purported good they may choose. Again, in this case, there is no good rationale for overturning the will of the majority of the voters.</p>
<p>BedHead: Don't try to change what you said in retrospect. You said it would be "immoral" for superdelegates to support HRC, and all kinds of other crock. If you want to have a debate over what the correct choice is for the superdelegates between BO and HRC, that's one thing. But what you were arguing (at least up until these last 2 posts) was that the superdelegates should be nothing more than a rubber stamp, which is in no way true.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, nice as it may be to pretend I only think the superdelegate system is fine because it might nominate the candidate you think I want to win, that's not the case, since as I've said multiple times I don't think it's clear at this point in time who is more electable/the better candidate, especially given BO's lead in delegates and popular vote, and if I were a super I'd really be pretty torn between the two of them (slight bias towards Hillary, but not huge at this point in time, unlike your really pretty explicit pro-Obama, anti-Hillary stance). I'm sorry that doesn't pigeonhole me as much as you'd like it to, but that's life.</p>
<p>
As to your hypothetical, it's rather ridiculously far afield from this situation. And again, I never said that the superdelegates couldn't subvert the will of the majority of the voters, I said they shouldn't.
</p>
<p>Of course it's rather far afield. But my point is, was and has been that your only opposition to the superdelegates being able to determine the nomination is that it might result in an outcome you consider undesirable. You have tried to make it seem like you're criticizing the process, while in reality you are only criticizing what you consider an undesirable outcome - and that is both deceptive and shallow.</p>
<p>
It is this statement from a few posts back that shows your biases in vivid color -- and yet you purport to have a neutral position. What a crock. The rules are established beforehand. I am aware the rules involve the ability of superdelegates to choose as they will for whatever purported good they may choose. Again, in this case, there is no good rationale for overturning the will of the majority of the voters.
</p>
<p>I can be basically agnostic between two candidates and still think one candidate's supporters are more ideologically inflexible and biased than the other's. And I happen to think that. Just like I happen to think that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are conspiracy-theorizing idiots who don't understand the implications of what they suggest - but that doesn't stop me from supporting Ron Paul (at least in some measure).</p>
<p>^^When have you ever been "agnostic" about Obama? You've done nothing but criticize and complain about him since day 1. You're about as neutral on the topic of Obama as Hillary is.</p>
<p>You seem very angry. Just because you do not think there is rational reason to overturn the will of the people does not mean that there simply isn't rational reason. I think there's quite a bit.</p>
<p>The nebulous Obama that won Iowa no longer exists. That was back when blacks were waiting to see what happens. That was back when a charming and inspiring speech could rally emotional votes. That was back when caucuses (which favor educated political activists rather than normal people) won him many states. He has a coalition that has proven lethal to the Democratic Party in the past - urban blacks and educated urban whites. He has proven he cannot transcend that base when there is a candidate more capable of reaching the working class white vote. That is simply not a culture Obama knows very well. McCain is more capable. Hillary is more capable. The blacks and educated whites will mostly follow Hillary either way. The same cannot be said for conservative Democrats. The Democratic Party should be very nervous about the numbers. </p>
<p>The Republicans know power. They know that having the most inspiring person does not necessarily guarantee a win. They calculate their candidates based on numbers, not effectiveness. They saw Bush could rally the social conservative base and knew the fiscal conservatives weren't abandoning ship to what they see as socialism. </p>
<p>Perhaps it's time the Dems played power. You can rant on and on about Hillary's Bosnian sniper fire comment and others who oppose Obama can do the same about his bitter comment. Blah blah blah. It's politics. People lie to get what they want. I work in DC. Every single thing that comes out of that government is created for one reason (usually very nefarius) and sold to the public on another reason (usually very inspiring). Government lies. Until that changes, it might make sense to have someone who knows how to game that system and allow Obama the chance to begin changing the system as VP before really changing it as president and hopefully ending a government based on lies. That takes time. I just do not think he will command the respect necessary at this point to do that. I hope I'm wrong.</p>
<p>Who said as an Obama supporter he hopes he loses? How ironic is that. Why? Doesn't he seem to offer more than any other candidate at the moment? Who do you truly think will win?</p>
<p>To answer your question, I haven't seen too much evidence that he offers more than any other candidate. Frankly, he seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal with rather average ideas and a pedestrian track record focused on getting to the presidency as quickly as possible. I think the left wing of the party is so gagga over him because he appeals to their values more than the centrist Clintons.</p>
<p>I look at the practical realities of our society and I see a society that wants change but, like a freighter turning around, isn't ready for some sweeping shift. I just think Hillary, while she's in her prime now, would offer a nice transition between Bush and perhaps an Obama presidency in 4 or 8 years. Hillary could stabilize things from her centrist perspective and appeal to discontented independents who might solidify as Democrats, laying a ground work for Obama to establish a progressive dominance in society.</p>
<p>We too often look at society as having to be one way or the other, then trying to lock into that way. I look at it as an evolution or process and I think Obama might be somewhat ahead of Washington and middle America, but Hillary is right with it. Let this last vestige of the 1960s play out. Those people will be dead soon anyway. Then it's our generation's time. That time is not yet.</p>
<p>This Bush administration single handedly ended the rise of theocracy and the mindless effort attribute a political party to Jesus. It ended the rise of the neo-con movement focused on using military might to retain American dominance and did the complete opposite. The American empire is done. Change is coming either way. We don't need any candidate to usher it in.</p>
<p>Your insights (and grammar) are profound, k1man. Congratulations on your ability to think outside any preconceived boxes and see the necessary tension between the various progressive and conservative political ideologies to keep our society functioning.</p>
<p>I think I figured out the root of Bedhead's concerns - </p>
<p>The only election that is government sanctioned and required to reflect the will of the people is the one that actually selects the president.</p>
<p>How candidates are chosen to get to that election - be they from any particular party or simply running on their own - is not regulated and can be done in any way. So, the Democratic Party is completely within their ethical and moral parameters to "rig" the nomination process in their favor. Even if they never included the general public, they would be able to do that.</p>
<p>Yes, Barrack Obama will be proud that instead of debating the difference in policy issues between himself and John Mccain you are resulting in character attacks that are pretty much unfounded. Please try to take the high road, your candidate (and mine) will be happy you did.</p>