Comments on: Pelosi defends Democratic Party's superdelegates

By: jp/michigan

jp/michigan — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:04:23 +0000

The super delegates will make the decision who will be the nominee of the democratic party in the November election. Just like the Supreme counts decided who was the President 2000. The one who can hoodwink or bamboozle the super delegates in to voting for them.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:00:09 +0000

By the way, I know how to spell "enough". My finger slipped so shut up!!

By: David, Gilbert Arizona

David, Gilbert Arizona — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 22:59:54 +0000

Wow! I've seen politicians put a lot of spin on an issue but Pelosi really worked this one. "These superdelegates are all part of their state delegation, so that state will speak...” What a crock! The super delegates do not have to vote the will of the people. They can cast their vote any way they choose.

I know for a fact that if Obama had more super delegate votes the Hillary fans would be crying foul just as loud as the Obama fans are doing now.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:38:19 +0000

Look folks. You do not live in a Democracy, you live in a Republic. A republic is representative form of govt. The founding fathers DID NOT trust us to get it right back in the 18th century and that lack of faith persists today. That is partially why we have an electoral college. The cry of the founding fathers was not "one person, on vote" (would have been "one MAN, one vote" back then), it was no taxation w/out REPRESENTATION). This convoluted party sysyem is based on our REPRESENTTIVE form or govt. If you don't like it you will need to convince your elected officials that it is time to change the constitution, or you could revolt, or move (there may be other alternatives I have not considered but you get the general idea). I don't care what form of govt you have, someone screwed up putting Bush in office! Even Superdelegates are likely to do better.

By: Jace

Jace — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:10:09 +0000

Is it just me or if you try to submit a pro-Clinton post on this site, it gets rejected? Guess it's proof of CNN's Obama bias.

By: Pete NYC

Pete NYC — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:50:52 +0000

It is funny that these are some of the same people who whined about "stolen election" lies (and you liars know who you are) and how the Supreme Court overrode the will of the people (which turned out to be incorrect). Superdelegates means that if you are a VIP you get to vote for 10,000 people (who don't exist) in the primary. It is corrupt on its face, no matter how they vote.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:49:36 +0000

To all you young voters, change is great and so is Obama, but if it works don't fix it . You are to young to look back at the 90's, believe me I would take much more of those times then to have Change....Clinton first to lead us back to a Super Power then Obama for your change.

Hillary 09

By: Sarah augusta ga

Sarah augusta ga — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:49:29 +0000

I AM SORRY HUCKABEE BUT YOU ARE A RETARD! COM ON MAN ROMNEY ONLY DROPPED OUT BECAUSE HE THOUGH IT BEST FOR US. U R GOING TO RUIN THE US OOH YOU GOT SERVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Against the Cult

Against the Cult — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:38:53 +0000

It doesnt matter, the charisma following has destroyed the prospects of a united democratic election. When the republicans win the election in November, the democratic party will regret the division they have caused with their shameless endorsements all spun by the media.

By: Julie-Albuquerque

Julie-Albuquerque — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:02:59 +0000

I strongly agree with CNN Political Analyst, Donna Brazile, and her fear of allowing 795 superdelegates to pick the next Democratic presidential nominee. The idea that each superdelegate will work alongside the wishes of the people in their own state is baloney pure and simple. These so-called superdelegates are human being – they have already formed their own opinions, preferences, likes, and dislikes. When they vote, they will be voting as an individual, not as the whole of one state. It's scary that it might all come down to this. This kind of thing encourages the thinking of some people who don't vote because in the end, our votes don't really count.

By: Carol, Pittsburgh, PA

Carol, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 19:54:02 +0000

This appears to be old party politics at work - anything to negate the voice of the people. This had better not be the case. I hope Mz. Pelosi knows that the people will not stand for the machine standing in the way of the peoples' choice! If this is the case, I may never vote again if it means my vote will be decided by some hack politicians who want their own way and are willing to spin my vote. Uh-uh!

By: RP

RP — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:28:40 +0000

If Obama is favored by the well-educated demographics, what does that say about the superdelegates voting for Clinton? Just asking...

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:45:10 +0000

The word is "lose" not "loose". I'll put it in a sentence for you...."Obama will lose because he has no experience and is simply hoodwinking inexperience voters." Get out of college and learn how to spell.

By: John

John — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:43:36 +0000

PH, sheb, etc.:

While you are right I am scared that superdelegates will take away the victory from Obama, that is not my real motive. I am perfectly willing to get rid of the superdelegates or tell them they must vote with their state, and see what happens. I am not willing to be told my vote did not matter. That's what superdelegates do. If Hillary is elected by the people, so be it. But if Obama wins and then they give it to her, that is not Democracy.

By: John in Charlotte

John in Charlotte — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:43:30 +0000

If the super delegates tried to override what the people voted for there would be a riot on the democratic side.

Obama can beat McCain and Hillary can't, look at the head to head polls in Time this week. Hillary cannot bring in independents and Republicans the way that Obama can.

Yes We Can
Obama 08

By: stuart in l.a.

stuart in l.a. — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:42:37 +0000

Sammie- do you not realize our country is on the brink? Can you not see the signs? Hillary is undoubtedly the better choice to get us back on track at this point in time. Would it be so bad for Obama to wait 4 or 8 years to become president, which would ensure that the Democrats have 16 years of control? I'm afraid Obama would be torn up by the Republican smear machine if he wins the nomination, whereas Hillary has clearyl weathered their attacks year after year, and not only survived but flourished. They are afraid of her now. Change is good, but let's get the country back on track first and then look at ways to change.

By: Peace

Peace — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:42:34 +0000

I hope the superdelegates will keep in mind what suits the Party best, e.g. survival, prosperity, and mainly what will bring us to win the election. Please be wise and do not commit Political Sucidal to the Party.

By: GREGORY THEOBALD KLINE

GREGORY THEOBALD KLINE — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:40:40 +0000

The history of super-delegates is not pretty. It harks back to the days when "party bosses" in closed roomes "picked" their parties nominee. When people complained loudly about this, a delegate system was negotiated. As a compromise, to get party boss support, "super delegates" were brought into the equation, who technically have the option to vote for whomever they please. Super-delegates are an anachonism, an old dinosaur, that needs to be done away with. They are surely against what the framers of our Constitution would have supported, and clearly not appreciated by "we the people". If you think SD's are not skewed, look at the regular "pledged" delegat count, where Obama leads by a few, and the super-delegate count, where Clinton leads almost two-to-one. The nuts and bolts of super-delegates would make an excellent CNN feature story. Not a side bar, a front and center feature.

By: Brad, Obamaha NE

Brad, Obamaha NE — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:39:57 +0000

so Scheb – where was hillary's "idea" that the iraq war was bad choice?

cuz i'm pretty sure she voted for it – a year after barack stood up and spoke out against it.

who is leading? and who is following? and who is folding under the weight of the voice of the american people?

answer sheet:

Barack. Hillary. Hillary.

Obama 08

By: pbj

pbj — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:39:13 +0000

Nice try, Nancy. Superdelegates exist to override the results of the primaries if the powers that be disagree with what the rank and file have done, plain and simple. Go back to being the least effective Speaker of the House ever; leave the sophistry to others.

By: Lilia, from MD

Lilia, from MD — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:28:51 +0000

I agree, this DNC process is very confusing. Now I understand the bulnerability of democracy. No wander why other countries in the world laugh when we try to promote democracy in their country.

WE DON'T HAVE IT OURSELFS JOE!!!!! THIS KIND OF DEMOCRACY STINKS!!!!!

By: Kin

Kin — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:27:56 +0000

Keep whining, Obama fans. Superdelegates are a staple of both parties.

By: sheb

sheb — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:25:45 +0000

One thing I realize from most of these comments already is that people are scared that the delegates will over rule thier vote for Obama and vote for Hillary . I don't think that is a bad idea. All Obama is giving you is inspirational messages. How does that compare with someone who has the knowledge and understanding to get America back at #1 STANDING! OBAMA DOES NOTHING BUT TAKE HILLARY CLINTON'S IDEAS and project them as his own. He only comes up with ideas after she has proposed them. That's why people see no difference in their positions, because he takes all of her ideas. If you would look back at the records instead of getting caught up in what feels good and sounds good at the moment you would see that he is all talk and no action! And I even venture to say that is why the republicans keep saying we want Hillary to win because they actually want you to vote for Obama because they know they will eat him alive! Pay attention and research why you are voting for who you are and please make sure its because they have proven they can do the job and not because of race or inspirational talk!

By: Change we can all believe in

Change we can all believe in — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:24:48 +0000

Two thumbs up, Sammie...There is nothing left to say...

Obama 08

By: PH in OK

PH in OK — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:24:15 +0000

Why are all you Obama people so upset about SuperDelegates. If Obama is the great orator that you say he is...why doesn't he just talk his way into getting the votes?

By: unfinished1

unfinished1 — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:56:42 +0000

What a pathetic defense for the indefensible – Essentially Speaker Pelosi is saying that this is all about someone being able to attend a Convention – how shallow is that? But the reality is that the Democratic leadership has determined that one vote isn't enough for the powerful. This is sad.

By: Sammie

Sammie — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:47:37 +0000

I am an Obama fan, like many i participated in this elections for only one reason "CHANGE" and i believe only Obama can bring about REAL CHANGE.

If super delegates give the nomination to Hillary, not only would i
NOT vote for Hillary, but i would loose all interest in politics again, like most people my age, Obama reintroduced us to what is good about politics.

I can imagine there are lots of young voters like me, that we only got interested in politics again because of Obama, and we wont vote Hillary cause she and McCain are old news.

Why hasnt Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC gotten the message.
We dont want Clinton, We dont want McCain, We Want Change we want Obama.
Clintons has already lead this country for 8 years, give someone else a chance. Obama represents the Future for us, Not Hillary, Not Bill and most certainly Not McCain.

Come on People.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:45:48 +0000

Let's get real. I am a registered Democrat but superdelegates were created to allow the DNC to effectively override the popular vote if they didn't like the candidate that the people chose. If they vote with the will of their constituents, than why do they even exist? I think the incredible blinking Pelosi is great, but she is spinning here. 800 superdelegates are way too much, especially when you need 2000 to get the nomination. The DNC needs to limit superdelegates to ELECTED officials, who will then have the responsibility of explaining their vote against what the people have explicitly expressed. A sound explanation will most likely be acceptable to most. An unsound explanation (e.g. "I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the Clintons, so I have to give them my vote"), and voters can tell their superdelegates exactly what they thought of their vote in the next election.

By: S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:42:57 +0000

I would have hoped that this idea would have been explained better. There needs to be an explanation as to why the delegation from one state isn't voting in the convention as the state voted in the primary or caucus.

By: Xavier, Washington, DC

Xavier, Washington, DC — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:42:23 +0000

Is Speaker Pelosi suggesting that superdelegates should fall in line with how their states vote? If so, that's bad news for Hildog.

By: arthurW from Virginia

arthurW from Virginia — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:38:56 +0000

Nice Spin Nancy, but you could have had these superD folks be the delegates to represent the primary results, i.e., the votes of the people. The clear reality is that the old establishment in the Dem party just doesn't trust upstarts or the voice of the people if they happen to get behind an unexpected candidate who may not cow tail to the old democratic oligarchy. If this goes to the convention without resolution, and Hilary wins because she can call in favors from the Dem party, you-all will LOOSE the support and participation of many that Obama has energized and excited.