On NPR the other morning, HRC kept claiming that both the MI and FL contests were fair. There's not much clarity required here to know she's full of shit. The fact that so many of her supporters try to defend that position is just astonishing.

Gore/Obama 08!

I can live with that, and live large and in charge to boot.

and the popular vote among actual Democrats?

Ezra, the notion that you've been sympathetic to Clinton's campaign is almost laughable. It's not reflected in nearly any of your writing, it's certainly not the way you've made the case for their campaigns, and I think it would be hard to expect it of you, given the demographic sense of this election (young, liberal, well educated, upper middle class background). You read, and sound, like an Obama sympathizer. And if you haven't been... then I think you owe it to everyone to be clearer on where you take issue with him. If it's just a healthcare plan, that doesn't strike me as a deep distinction.

Second, putting Michigan and Florida back in play, with a date for future primary doesn't stop the campiagn, it extends it. If, and it would of necessity have to be, the two primaries occur after PA and if Clinton does well, as expected, in PA, then she's got her argument to stay in. She's won Florida; she would be expected to win it again, and almost everyone suggests that with more vites, her margins grow, not shrink. Though Obama would do well along the west coast, it's hard to see him winning Eatern, central, or the pnahandle sections of the state; and, given the large latino population, Obama would be in rough shape in Miami... not mention that Miami is where his somewhat lenient take on the Castros won't play well. At all.

As for Michigan, Obama would probably do well there... but again, just how ell is debatable, at best; the working class, auto worker heavy aspect of the electorate plays to what has been Clinton's base. Though he would handily win Detroit, and Ann Arbor... it's hard to see how he wins places like Pontiac.

In short, saying that a revote calls into question Clinton's very reason for being in the race... is little more than the familiar refrain Clinton supporters have been hearing.... since January. It won't wash any better than it has if Obama isn't seen improving his success winning working class, less educated voters, white women, or Catholics. And that's the test in PA. So far, I don't see a lot changing. Including the notion of where your sympathies actually lie.

I can't figure out why Obama is basically opposed to revotes if they'd help him.

Gore/Obama 08 sounds good to me. Personally, I was hoping for Edwards/Obama, but Gore/Obama is even better.

rilkefan, I don't know either. While there are things to like about Obama, as there are with Clinton, there are things that make me suspicious. Not embracing a positive solution to MI/FL is one of them.

weboy, Klein here has been quite enthusiastic (as am I, to be honest), about Clinton's acumen on health care. As perhaps the most salient issue for the bulk of the populace that divides the two candidates, that's pretty positive.

On the other hand, he slags Mark Penn. That seems eminently restrained. Penn strikes me as the worst of the worst of the worst all-hat-no-cattle (D) consultants. Among the strongest reasons for wanting Clinton to crash and burn is that it might, just maybe, end his career.

I think you're selling Clinton's chances way too short. If the Obama's momentum continues to fade, the Reverend Wright story continues to gain steam, Hillary ends up with a statistically significant edge over Obama in head to head match-ups with McCain, and, most importantly, she gains the momentum of a win in Texas and double-digit wins in Ohio, PA, Florida, and Michigan, the superdelegates almost certainly will give her the nomination. I'd put the odds of those circumstances coming together at about 1 in 3, not "vanishingly unlikely."

"I can't figure out why Obama is basically opposed to revotes if they'd help him."

Could it be that he's more interested in maintaining the integrity of the party's primary system than in constant, ultimately pernicious self-aggrandizing?

wcw, I like Clinton's positions on healthcare a lot, too, along with a lot of other things (I'm agnostic on Mark Penn; I think it's very inside baseball to make him an issue, and I mostly ignore him, but when I do pay attention, I wince). But to say healthcare is a key dividing point between the two supporting camps... well, you can ask Obama people what they think... but the Clinton supporters I know wouldn't really pick that as a key distinction. It's the vague, nonspecific call for change and the lack of policy specifics that make many less than keen to support Obama. I tend to think Ezra finds the vague nonspecific call for change appealing (even if he wants more policy sepcifics). That's certainly how he's come across lo these many months, and it's why I think, even with the prostetations, that he's really more Obama leaning than Clinton sympathetic.

Clinton supporters are often as stupefying as the candidate they purport to promote. To say that Ezra's only reason for leaning Obama (if he does) is that he finds the "non-specific calls for change appealing" requires a supernatural effort at being uncharitable. One point that Obama supporters rally around that's as concrete as can be is opposition to the Iraq war. We want to elect someone who opposed it who represents opposition to it, not someone who cast her vote "with conviction." Foreign policy in general is a source of vast differences between the candidates. I support talking to Iran and ending the ban to travel to Cuba for people with family there. Obama has a foreign policy that mostly opposed the war; Clinton cannot say the same. You may disagree about whether these are important issues, but they are issues on which the candidates have concrete differences, and that could easily sway a person one way or the other without the aid of a "vague and non-specific call to change."

I tend to think Ezra finds the vague nonspecific call for change appealing
You need to find better cliches, or at least not hurl this one at prince of wonk.

"Could it be that he's more interested in maintaining the integrity of the party's primary system"

Since revotes manifestly don't violate anything - the rules are clear and Dean is on the record agreeing - this is bogus.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=obamas_gift

...It's not like I can make this stuff up.

rilkefan,

Your question is really good. First, I'm not sure that Obama is opposed. His chair in Michigan is actually an active participant in helping organize the re-vote. But if you do detect resistance, it could be explained by the simple fact that the campaign prefers not to spend a bunch of money and resources in these places if it doesn't have to.

weboy,

I clicked the link you posted and remain completely in the dark as to how it demonstrates that Ezra is leaning toward Obama (if he is) because of a "vague nonspecific call for change."

And you wouldn't need to, if you weren't trying to be unfair because your candidate's chances are shot to hell.

You've been a reader of this blog for years, Weboy, so you don't get to plead ignorant in the way someone like Goldberg does. You don't get to pretend that the post I wrote on that speech -- which attempted to channel a particularly moment and explain a type of rhetoric, and which I stand by -- is in any way indicative of the coverage I've given both candidates. Rather you know that the right side of the page features a cover I wrote on the difference in their economic approaches. And you know that my main issue is health care, and I've continually slammed Obama on it. And you know that I wrote this post laying out my thinking on the differences between the candidates. And you know, as I've said many times, that the chicanery on Michigan and Florida is unconscionable to me.

Read this blog or don't. But don't come here, day after day, and pretend you've missed everything that's been written.

See TalkLeft on the claim that Obama is opposing revotes (e.g. by saying mail-in votes are bad, that it's too expensive, ...) - of course that could just be tactical. Re money, Obama is ahead of Clinton by a lot - I read he outspent her in Ohio 2-1. Standard strategy would dictate engaging in multiple fronts when everywhere stronger.

It's true that the Clinton side isn't pushing the revote issue very hard (far as I can tell anyway)- maybe they think the optics are worse for Obama and that the revotes will happen regardless. Maybe they understand the strategy argument above, or have less money than thought, or relatively bad internal polls.

Clinton supporters are often as stupefying as the candidate they purport to promote. To say that Ezra's only reason for leaning Obama (if he does) is that he finds the "non-specific calls for change appealing" requires a supernatural effort at being uncharitable.

Who else is tired of being told the reasons why I/you/we support Obama by people who think they can read minds?

Furthermore, how come the reasons offered are always stupid ones "white guilt" or "youthful idealism" or "charisma".

How come no one ever says "People support Obama because, after 8 years of a President who consistently denies unpleasant, but patently obvious, they want a president who is not afraid to acknowledge things as they are - not as they want them to be or think that they should be".

The last thing we need is 4-8 more years of a President who can spout off patently false nonsense with a straight face.

So the only way for her to win is if she's able to get Obama disqualified.

Aside: I'm really getting sick of the same standard narratives being espoused. We're still talking about a presence or lack of substance? Seriously? That's so thoroughly bunk and unconvincing it's tantamount to convince an agnostic of the merits of Intelligent Design.

Repetition is not proof.

And you know, surely, Ezra, that I enjoy your writing and appreciate your take on health care and a variety of topics; I'm simply questioning the notion that you, as you describe it, are "sympathetic" to Clinton's run for President; I certainly haven't seen it, and I'm being generous in trying to allow for the possibility. Others I speak to have long ago given up on following your election coverage, because you seem so over the top in preferring Obama (you know that post I linked to got more that a little discussion for being ove the top as well as I do; I think it was well written, if a bit much), and giving the Clinton camoaign an especially hard time. I have tried, generously, to to see your points, and try to be respectful in challenging some of your conceptions. I think I've refrained, often, and here, from being especially hard edged or unfiar. I'm surprised at the level of your response, honestly. I'm not about to apologize for disagreeing, challenging, or offering alternatives to your worldview. It seems to me, that's part of why you blog. It's cetrtianly why I do. And given my continued respect, and even admiration, I'm not going anywhere. And I'll believe, simply, that the heat of the current political moment has put us all, somewhat on edge. I'll certainly try, for now, to dial it down, if needed. But my point stands - it seems to me you prefer Obama, both as a campaigner and as a candidate. If not, I think you should clear that up.

Being sympathetic to Clinton isn't the same as supporting her. I've always been open about my opinions on this blog, on both candidates, on just about every issue. You're welcome to assume my support for either. But if you want to assume my support for Obama, don't chalk it up some vague preference for a certain style of rhetoric. I've worked too hard to be serious about this process for regular readers to actually believe that. And I've been too clear as to my substantive feelings on Clinton -- that her domestic policy shop has been exceptional, but her campaign is objectionable and her advisers discrediting -- for you to pretend there's some sort of demographic solidarity acting as the causal factor.

The primary hasn't heated me up. Frankly, I'm tired of all the actors and wish it would end. But I expect Goldberg to rip my posts out of context. I don't expect it from you.

I'm sorry, then to seem broad brush, or oversimplifying, in yours - or others - support for Obama; I get that, for many, the prospect of Obama as President, both as a positive symbol for change as well as for his positions, is welcome. That I see it differently, and would prefer more, doesn't change the fact that, should he be the nominee, I'll be happy to support him too. But I reiterate, this isn't over. Nor, do I think that - your analysis notwithstanding - that the outcome you describe is the only plausible scenario. And I disagree strongly with notions like "shot to hell" or "she has to disqualify Obama." I don't think that's been the sole message of her campaign, though I think, for those who prefer Obama, it can seem that way. I wouldn't be supporting her if the only notion of her candidacy was negative. And that, in the end, is what I mean about the heat around all of this; we're all using pretty strong language, and brooking little dissent. There's a division among Democrats; it hasn't been solved, and it's not as one-sidedly unequal as some on either side would like to suggest. We can, and should, let the process play out. If her candidacy is hopeless - which is surely not the point we're at now - then that will be the end of that. But that's not going to happen, at the very least until Pennsylvania votes. And at this point, all I can say is if we plan to sustain this level of passion in dealing with one another, and disagreeing, it's going to be pretty rough. I'll do it, but not with any particular enjoyment. I prefer to think we can disagree, be civil, and share differing points of view. I'm a little less sure after all this discussion... but I'll keep trying.

"Eventually, Pelosi and Reid and Dean are going to realize that, and convince a solid bloc of superdelegates to make an endorsement that ends this process."

What puzzles me is: why isn't this happening right now? Surely Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and the uncommitted superdelegates can see things as plainly as Ezra and the rest of us do. Just put Clinton out of her misery already and let's get started on beating McCain.

Ezra: you have been in step with mainstream press and Obama supporters in characterizing every statement and move by the Clinton campaign in the most cynical ways possible.

Congratulations, Ezra. You've become yet the latest to personally discover that by being even slightly pessimistic about Clinton's chances, you're now another Andy Sullivan.

What puzzles me is: why isn't this happening right now? Surely Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and the uncommitted superdelegates can see things as plainly as Ezra and the rest of us do.

My guess is that they see some value in the increased turnout and general excitement among primary voters, and would rather not cut that off. I can just imagine the last half-dozen states or so screaming about why they didn't get to count in the nomination battle, and ending things now would probably make the later ones pull stunts like MI & FL next cycle. This six-week gap sucks, though; there shouldn't be more than a couple of weeks between primary elections, IMO.

And ironically, if someone had asked me three weeks ago which side Ezra was on, I would have guessed that he leaned slightly Clinton because, well, he's more a domestic-policy wonk and as he noted above, that's her campaign's strength (wrt proposals, not necessarily results). Guess we're all disposed to take offense these days.

The superdelegates don't want to decide the contest. They keep waiting for Obama to end it and he keeps spitting the bit. He wins Ohio, and its over. He wins Texas and its over. He didn't. He wins Pennsylvania and its over but it looks like he's going to lose.

And no way does he want a Michigan and Florida revote, two big states he could lose in June? He's not an idiot. Clinton is willing to take the revote because she needs momentum more than delegates. Its perverse to some degree but Obama needs delegates more than Clinton does. He needs such a big lead that superdelegates can't look like they are overturning a result.

And at this point, all I can say is if we plan to sustain this level of passion in dealing with one another, and disagreeing, it's going to be pretty rough.

Internet activism is rife with such divisions and pedantry. The only thing to be grateful for is that they don't appear to extend much beyond the boundaries of the Web.

Far be it from me to support Weboy, but Ezra you really have been very biased in your analysis lately. As you know, I supported Edwards, and remain neutral between Clinton and Obama, but how you can read the tea leaves as you do-- is well - a representation of that bias. Much of what you say is pure speculation. You can certainly say its unbiased speculation, but you repeatedly seem to speculate in ways that favor Obama. This is probably where weboy and I have come to conclusion that you are a supporter of Obama. I personally have no problem with it other than because of your status you end up attracting virulent Obama supporters here who run with your speculation as if its fact. You aren't responsible for them, but it sure would be refreshing to place what you say in context.

As a follow up, Ezra, please note how several posters to this thread by you take your speculation as fact, and then ask with all sincerity, why haven't Pelosi and others simply stopped this? This, of course, being the democratic process of choosing the nominee. I am not a Clinton supporter (as weboy will readly admit considering how many fights we have gotten in over my issues with her) BUT, the kinds of impulses driving these conversations based on your pure speculation are abhorent to progressive values. I hope at the very least you will agree that such statements as you see now in many of your comments sections are wildly against our values?

Um... I think that, if anything, Ezra has leaned Clinton, and I've been reading this blog for several months now.

Oh, an ditto what Rob says. Ezra's argument seems counter intuitive (that's putting it as positively as I can).

He has disagreed with Obama over healthcare policy, but that's not the same thing as leaning Clinton as a candidate. Being sympatetic about obvious things is also not particularly persuasive except to virulent Obama supporters who lack any resembling objectivity (ie, the type who says I will vote McCain rather than Clinton).

He has also made it clear that healthcare isn't an issue that he feels is a deal breaker.

So, when you say how you "feel" lets look at the diary content here for example. He's going on absolute speculation. Most people here are.

It's not likely that Clinton will win, but there is no absolute here because no one knows the outcomes of the votes in the remain states. If she wins the popular vote, what then? We have a split. Both sides- if they are honest- would have to admit that.

Yet the core argument seems to be-- let's not get to that point. Let's end this now because although Obama can't win out right with delegates, he has a manner delegate lead (historically speaking -- its minor), and therefore, that should trump all other arguments.

The problem for someone like me is I don't see any process or substative reasons why either Obama's argument or Clinton's argument is more valid than the other. Ezra certainly has provided one outside of pure speculations of future facts. That's where he shows his bias. In fact the facts that he would like to have happen rather than in the ones that have been proven or can be proven at this juncture.

I would say until after we have a legitmate revote in FL and MI and know for certain there will not be a split, and in consideration of the thin diference in delegate vote (again historically speaking no losing candidate as ever lose with this high a number of delegates) thre is absolute no reason why either shouldn't be the nominee unless one is biased toward one or another. Obama too has an argument, but its only just a valid argument, and not everwhelming- at least not yet. That could change too, but not right now.

thre [sic] is absolute no reason why either shouldn't be the nominee unless one is biased toward one or another.

Although they might both be acceptable to the base, it is entirely legitimate to have a preference. They are not interchangeable candidates.

"""I can't figure out why Obama is basically opposed to revotes if they'd help him"""

Because having them excluded, the current status, helps him much more.

Look for the leaders in the Party to push for new primaries now that Wright is being hung around Obamas neck. No way pelosi, Reid, etc. allow the Democrat party to become the Black Liberation Party....

I think Ezra would just as well like to end this tomorrow with an Elimination Challenge, winner take all.

But the media would make Obama cook toast...and Hillary an authentic Green Oaxaca Mole with whole pig.

Black Liberation Party? The whiffs of racism permeating the rhetoric this primary season are quite astonishing.
Rev. Wright is an African-American from a certain generation honed by the most incredible struggle for the most basic of rights guarenteed by the American Constitution. He's entitled to his American point of view just like the rest of us, and his is distintly American. There is no doubt.
Some people need to learn how to respect their fellow Americans and their experience, unless of course they prefer discord, national trauma and suppression of dissent. The White Power Party does its own share of damning America.

As an Obama supporter, I've never felt Ezra lent towards or away from my candidate. At times I felt he took a charitable stance towards Obama, but at other times, I felt he took rather uncharitable stances. Or one need only look back at his post where he says flatly that he doesn't find Obama's legislative record to be very different from Clinton's (a position I happen to disagree with, but that's neither here nor there) to see that. I fail to see how or why a rabid Obama supporter would go out of his way to debunk a Dkos post extolling the virtues of Obama's legis. record.

As for the situation at hand, some notes:

akaison, you can insist the delegate difference is small compared to other historical differences, but that doesn't mean in any meaningful sense it's "small" or that the race is "close". Indeed, the notions of closeness or smallness of a lead are completely incompatible with the concept that the gap between them is insurmountable. And guess what? All signs point to the delegate difference being just that: insurmountable. With no Michigan or Florida re-votes, Clinton would need to beat Obama in the delegate race 64-36 the rest of the way to get a tie in pledged delegates, which means she'd have to basically repeat her performance in uncontested, home-state Arkansas in every contest, including demographically unfavorable ones like North Carolina, South Dakota, Oregon, etc. And each one of those she fails to hit her number, that number goes up for all the other contests.

That's not just unlikely, it's completely absurd to suggest its plausible at all. That's not just loose speculation, it's engaging with reality.

Even with Florida and Michigan re-votes, she'd need to win 59-41 in delegates the rest of the way. Less absurd, still basically impossible without it turning out that Obama is a pedophile or some such business.

I'm feeling too lazy to do the math for the popular vote right now, but it's similarly implausible. But a quick guess, based on his current lead and population sizes, would be 60-40 wins in all 3 of PA, MI, and FL, as well as out-doing Obama in the remaining aggregate states by a solid margin (again, even though many are demographically unfavorable)

In effect, as noted above, Clinton needs to destroy Obama, or Obama needs to destroy himself. And if he's going to destroy himself, she can wait for that moment from a suspended campaign just as well as she can while actively campaigning. The only reason to actively campaign is to actively try to destroy Obama, which is, of course, what we're seeing: a systematic effort to make him as unelectable as possible, while toeing the *just enough* to not piss the super-delegates or voters off.

This is why Obama supporters are talking math. Because an honest look at the math says she can't do it. If I Clinton person wants to make the case, go through and project the turn-outs and margins in an even-remotely plausible manner, and show how she wins the popular vote and/or the pledged delegate count, go for it. But I've looked it over, and I don't see it.

I liked the November 2006 Ezra better. The one who thought Obama was a complete fraud who was getting ahead of himself by hinting at a presidential run.* Apparently, Obama accomplished great things between then and now to sway young Master Klein.

*may contain truthiness

In effect, as noted above, Clinton needs to destroy Obama, or Obama needs to destroy himself.

Which is why we won't see Gore/Obama '08. If Clinton succeeds in destroying Obama, veep won't be an option either.

Gore/Edwards, perhaps. It's worked before, putting two Southerners on the same Dem ticket.

The de-legitimization of FL and MI already helped the Obama campaign. If Clinton has two big wins in January, the entire process and storyline heading into Super Tuesday changes.

In my fake history, Clinton wins NH and MI, convinces the press that IA was a one off, gets the union endorsement and wins by over 10% in NV, loses SC but captures 30-40 % of the AA vote because there is no MLK/LBJ race flap, crushes Obama in FL and comes out of Super Tuesday with over a 200 pledged delegate lead.(Penn probably thought this was going to happen right up to the day after NH)

Obama's team managed this well while the Clinton team, thinking she was inevitable, bungled it.

Ezra, I appreciate you coming in and debating with the commenters. I have seen it before and meant to note that, but never had anything else I wanted to add to it.

Counter, I find that scenario you outline compelling, and your last statement to be this election in a nutshell. Though with a vigorous campaign in Michigan, I don't know that a Clinton win there was probable. Regardless, I have been thinking about the scenario for several minutes and find it interesting.

Since the votes actually started being cast in January, I have found this site, Ben Smith's at politicos, and Ambinder's at the Atlantic to be the most even-handed on the democratic side, which is really the only one that matters to me. I am an Obama supporter, and for me it is largely a matter of his tempermant. We need a vast correction away from the unitary executive, and I don't think that would happen in a Clinton administration. It is weird to me that the candidates' views of the presidency vis a vis the other branches has gotten so little play.

I think we can agree that politics make for strange bedfellows this primary season when akaison and weboy are in agreement!

silva66 - Black Liberation is not a racial insult. You should check out racismreview.com, a site of 2 anti-racist professors, who explain Wright's preaching as a classic example of Black Liberation theory, which is a legitimate theory of political power. That it makes (many) whites uncomfortable does not make it racist.

Response to several points:

a) I actually think Obama is receiving an unfair deal with regard to Wright. I understand, pershaps because I am a member of the community, from Wright's radicalism derives. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. It's the frustration of the minority dealing with the indifference of the majority- a la Katrina. Again, not justified, but understood. I don't think its fair personally to link Obama to that, but I also think politically he should have expected it.

b) Yes Redstar, I truly am confused-- I am not a Clinton supporter so to be forced in this role is rather uncomfortable and to find myself agreeing with weboy seem down right wrong.

c) Andrew, I give up - either yout get that I am saying that both arguments have validity or you don't. If you insist on pretending I favor one over the other because I consider them both valid, then you will continue to argue pass what I am saying.

d) Michael, the numerical difference that I point out is a minor point to blunt the silliness that some how its enough to merely state the absolute numbers without understanding their relative value. Pretending as you and others due that this is cut and dry is cut down slightly by this, and by a number of other arguments I make. That your argument is in the end no more valid than Clinton's argument would be if she should win the popular vote is my main point. You certainly do a good job of wasting my time by pointing out that it doesn't matter, and then going on to talk endlessly about the delegate count. Except you face one problem- Obama won't have enough delegates- in terms of dedicated delegates to win. That undercuts pretty much your whole post. You also make alot of unfounded assumptions. sorry, not interested in that from Obama or CLinton supporters.

either yout get that I am saying that both arguments have validity or you don't

"But over at the Megablog, Mark Schmitt's take on the politics of Michigan and Florida is a must-read"

Ambinder writes:

Mark Schmitt may be right about the Clinton preference for uncertainty over math, but my reporting suggests that most -- though by no means all -- of the folks in Florida and Michigan who are fighting for a revote are Clinton allies, and almost everyone who is fighting against a revote are Obama allies.

Schmitt, despite seemingly being a nice guy, is generally wrong on political matters.

Silva: ""Black Liberation Party? The whiffs of racism permeating the rhetoric this primary season are quite astonishing......
Some people need to learn how to respect their fellow Americans and their experience""""

Yes, we all need to respect a guy that says our government created aides and gave it to black people. We need to repect a guy that says we should abandon a Democratis ally like Isreal in favor of terrorists in the Palestinian Authority.

What Wright spouts is not the black experince, he spouts nonsense. he fills people with hatred for their own country, based on lies.

He preaches Black Liberation Theology, how is it disrespecting to use his own terminology to describe his own political positions?

Obama is going to turn the Democrat Party into the Black Liberation Party, just read Wrights preachings over the past 10 years before you get all upset with someone for speaking the truth.

I find the whole argument that the superdelegates vote to be undemocratic or an overturning of the will of the people to be truly ludicrous. Superdelegates are a prime example of a representative democracy. They are elected for their expertise in political campaigning and management. I don't see why their vote has any less legitimacy than a Republican voting in a Democratic primary.
The rules of the primary process were established before the primary. Claiming the campaign is over and Clinton can only win by stealing the election is an outright attempt to delegitimize legitimate superdelegates. Clinton is correct to extend the campaign to capture the votes of a large chunk of legitimate dleegates.

There's just too much fear as to what the repercussions among African-American voters would be.

EZRA - again - it would not be just the African-American community that would be offended to the point of not voting. If a candidate wins by spewing hate, they don't get my vote. Period. My wife sitting here with me and chimes in with "second that."

These tactics offend a lot of people Ezra. Not just members of the African-American community.

Silva66:
Have you even read what Wright was preaching?

Have you read his 10 point value system?

Have you read his praises for Farrakhan?

You think he was keeping all this secret from Barack and the rest of the congregation for 20 years??

princep, no they aren't. Inherent to a representative Democracy is the notion that people are elected specifically for the purpose they serve. Nobody voted for most of these people to be Super-delegates. They voted for these people to be Reps, Sens, Govs, and party chairs. The idea that they might someday pick a nominee was not really an issue in any of these campaigns.

Jeremiah Wright himself stated when asked what would happen if his views came to light in this campaign was very candid, he said:

"a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell".

Now why would Pastor Wright believe this? Because people are lying about him? Or because he knows his views will damage Obamas campaign?

"Inherent to a representative Democracy is the notion that people are elected specifically for the purpose they serve." True, and the rules for superdelegates have been around for many years. If you voted for a Democratic candidate and did not know you were voting for a superdelegate, then that is your fault for not being an informed voter. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. You are voting for people who make decisions that affect yours and everyone else life. If you can't be bothered to learn what you are voting for then you have no grounds for complaint. This also makes you the kind of voter that our founding fathers were most afraid of and wanted to restrict from voting.

principes, very good point.

So everyone knows that the DNC members that you elected voted to exclude Florida and Michigan. It is your own fault if you voted for a DNC member who then voted to exclude Florida or Michigan...its your own fault that you didn't know what you were voting for...

No Democrat has any grounds for complaint that Florida and Michigan won't be counted, principes has spoken!

Great job principes, you made a great argument why Hillary should not be listened to with regard to Michigan and Florida.

The DNC members we elected have spoken, Hillary has no grounds to complain.

Princeps, you use Democracy as a sword. You use it as an excuse to disenfranchise people. You treat it as a privilege to be gamed to get a desired result, and not as a legitimate as sacred as any civic institution can be.

If you're serious about Democracy, you don't make arguments like the one you made. You only make them if you think Democracy is something to be gotten around.

Interesting responses.
1. Yes, I agreee that Hillary should not get to seat the Florida and Michigan representatives.
2. A functioning democracy is completely dependent on everyone following the rules established before the vote. If you don't like the rules, change them beforehand. Changing them in midstream is antithetical to functioning democracy.
Which means superdelegates should count and Florida and Michigan shouldn't. The DNC screwed up and let the Florida GOP maneuver them into a mistake.
As people become more shrill and self righteous in the closing days of this campaign it is important to remember one little truth about democracy. A functioning democracy is messy, inefficient and very rarely is everyone going to be happy.