Comments on: Richardson: Voters Decide, Not Big Shots

Says Party Superdelegates Should Not Overrule Popular Will Of Voters In Choosing Nominee

[iceman_1960]

Is this really who you want to answer that call?

http://rense.com/general81/pose
r.htm

Take a look!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by OBAMASGRANNY at 12:21 AM : Mar 31, 2008
------------------------

That photo was taken of the mirror image.

He was actually holding it right, silly.

[alphaa10-2009]

TracyM_organ said, "... super-delegates can do whatever they want..."
---
Such a layer-cake of uncommitted, unbound delegates makes a mockery of the Democratic Party primary system. Not only can the superdelegates decide the convention with their 800-odd votes, but they became superdelegates long before voters expressed their preferences in the Clinton-Obama contest.

In effect, the superdelegate system is a relic of the old Terry McAuliffe clique of "top-down" political campaigning-- also known as machine politics.

The people of this country, when polled, say they want reforming leadership-- an end to gridlock, with benefits for all Americans, and a moratorium on Bush-style stupidities like Iraq while we face serious threats to our health, wealth and security as a nation.

[sgtrds]

I just refused the Kool-Aid!!

Posted by OBAMASGRANNY at 12:29 AM : Mar 31, 2008

You''re a republican. I know you are, you know you are, so why play around? You''re goal (and yes I''ve read many of your posts) is to get Hilliary as the nominee from the Democrats because John McCain actually has a very slight just to beat her because of the right wing''s anti-Clinton bias. That said the GOP knows that McCain doesn''t stand a snowballs chance in hell against Obama, so the more they can discourage his nomination, the better off they think they are. Still, no matter how real Democrats like me feel about either Barack or Hilliary, the idea that McCain will win in November against either of them is a fantasy/miracle on the level of the Loaves and Fishes or Dungeons and Dragons. It just ain''t a gonna happen. In the meantime NO ON BELIEVES YOU! NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY! YOU''RE MAKING A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF!! Just thought you should know that.

[alphaa10-2009]

Poster asks, "If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?..."
---
I hesitate to ask, but were you asleep when Bush stole into the Oval Office and did exactly what your laundry list details?

For example--
1. "Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over throw this country?" (Bush Homeland Security TSA regularly fails its own standards)
2. "Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind?" (ever hear of Bush "signing statements"?)
3. "Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny against this country?"
(Bush, Cheney, Delay and the whole GOP, or just some of them?)
4. "Would He impose martial law?" (When has Bush ever cared about the law?)
5. "Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology?" (hidden?)
6. "Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America?" (with Iraq, Bush doubled the national debt)
7. "Would He CHANGE your civil liberties?" (not for the better)
8. "Would He CHANGE your mind that you voted for Him? (most are utterly disgusted with Bush)

Exactly what were you thinking for the past seven years-- or not, as the case may be?

[obamasgranny]

BREAKING NEWS:
Richardson fancies himself a "Bigshot"

[obamasgranny]

I sent an email to Richardson on the day that he endorsed Obama thanking him. When the Superdelegates start to break and endorse Clinton, they will say "Richardson set the precedent, he did not follow the constituents in his state",..I don''t want to hear any Obama-bot whining either!!

[obamasgranny]

Umm....yeh....sure you are........uh huh.........
__________________________________________________-
I just refused the Kool-Aid!!

[sgtrds]

I am a Democrat just not an ignorant one!!

NOBAMA 08

Posted by OBAMASGRANNY at 12:17 AM : Mar 31, 2008

Umm....yeh....sure you are........uh huh.........

[obamasgranny]

Is this really who you want to answer that call?

http://rense.com/general81/poser.htm

Take a look!!

[obamasgranny]

Thanks for the input of the radical neocon right wing. Now how about letting Democrats work this out.
_____________________________________________________
I am a Democrat just not an ignorant one!!

NOBAMA 08

[obamasgranny]

Obama-bots get some truth:

www.stop-obama.org

[obamasgranny]

Obama answers the 3:00 am cal:

http://rense.com/general81/poser.htm

[sgtrds]

Like the voters decided in your state Richardson? You Hypocrite!! I will be so glad when the Superdelegates vote for Clinton and say "Richardson did not vote the way his constituents did!"
Loser.

Posted by OBAMASGRANNY at 12:06 AM : Mar 31, 2008

Thanks for the input of the radical neocon right wing. Now how about letting Democrats work this out.

[alphaa10-2009]

petefromnz said to a poster, " (I hope)... that all these "if *** then I''''m not voting Democratic" postures are just letting off steam and that you all come to your senses..."
---
Wasn''t this the same "I''ll hold my breath until I get what I want!" childishness so many in the Terry McAuliffe clique accused Nader of encouraging in his followers?

In point of fact, Nader told his supporters to vote for the best candidate-- just as did all the other party leaders.

But how ironic that some who in 2000 called themselves Democrats want to commit the same irresponsible behavior they imagined of Nader in 2000!

Posted by

[obamasgranny]

Like the voters decided in your state Richardson? You Hypocrite!! I will be so glad when the Superdelegates vote for Clinton and say "Richardson did not vote the way his constituents did!"
Loser.

[alphaa10-2009]

Urban Legend Killer--

Obama--
Here is an article on Obama at Snopes.com, a website devoted to fact-checking and exposure of "urban legends"--
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Here is another Snopes.com article on the most common rumors about Obama--
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

McCain--
Here is a news article on John McCain at abcnews.com, detailing his "offenses" against the Bush GOP--
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/limbaugh-mccain.html
Yet, any fact check will show McCain is more conservative than Bush, according to the Heritage Foundation. Moreover, McCain votes as he views the issue, not as Bush does (does this make Bush more "liberal"?). See www.snopes.com for other McCain facts, not legends.

Clinton--
Here at Snopes.com is the best means to track down those pesky urban legends about Hillary--
(from a search with the term "Hillary"
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=hillary&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-p00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

[sgtrds]

Oh thats great! I''''m gonna take my ball and go home! You mean to say that you would rather have a senile old warmonger in office because your person lost? Like I said,ANYBODY But McBush!

Posted by rebelscout at 10:37 PM : Mar 30, 2008

I''ve voted in every national election since 1976 (which curoiusly enough was one of only two times I voted Republican, for Ford and for Arnie for California Gov) and I''ve been a loyal Democrat for nearly all of that time. That said I don''t see how we can even call ourselves a Democratic Party if our nominee was not chosen democratically! I can''t see how I could vote for either Democratic candidate unless they were the one who had the most committed delegates and had the largest popular vote. If Hilliary OR Barack gets the nod only because of the superdelegates, then I believe I''ll be staying home on election day.

[alphaa10-2009]

Can the Democratic Party''s Superdelegates Decide This Election?

1. If the Democratic party is committed to the democratic process its party label implies, how can superdelegates have any influence on the outcome of the primaries?

2. If superdelegates are NOT chosen at random, how can the body of superdelegates be distributed fairly and equitably between Obama and Clinton to reflect the outcome of the primaries?

3. And even if distributed between Obama and Clinton by outcome of the primary, superdelegates are not bound to vote for either. If democratic selection of the party nominee is the objective, why have superdelegates, at all?

4. If the body of superdelegates was committed long before the Obama-Clinton race began in earnest, and well before primary voters made clear their preference, how could the superdelegates be anything but an obstruction to democracy in the party?

The superdelegates now become party machine politics at its worst, reminding many of the way the Democratic Party handled the 1968 Chicago convention. That convention nominated Hubert Humphrey, LBJ''s VP, who had won fewer party primaries than his opponents (McCarthy and RFK).

Humphrey, as the Democratic Party''s "heir-apparent", lost the election to Richard Nixon, another GOP soldier with a long party record.

[sgtrds]

Four years of Obama will be four years of blood in the streets.

Posted by truth-hurts at 11:07 PM : Mar 30, 2008

I doubt it. The only way there would be blood in the streets is if republicans to to them in protest and they''re just not the type. Cowards actually.

[petefromnz]

"... and if Richardson is on the ticket, I won''''t be voting Democratic."

What, so you''d vote for (or not vote, and hand the election to) someone who would continue the ruinous economic, foreign, environmental, and social policies for another four years? I just hope that all these "if *** then I''m not voting Democratic" postures are just letting off steam and that you all come to your senses before November, for all out sakes.