Superdelegates get campaign cash

[BoogyMan]

Very interesting reading.


Source: link (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html)

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows (http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336).

"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

[apdst]

That's legal?

[underdawg]

That should be illegal. I might be a democrat, but that sounds like bribery to me.

[apdst]

That should be illegal. I might be a democrat, but that sounds like bribery to me.

I agree. That's vote buying if there ever was such a thing.

[DANG]

Arrest Obama and Clinton and let us choose between Edwards and Kucinich.... without ANY friggin delegates.

[apdst]

let us choose between Edwards and Kucinich

Well, on second thought...

[potter]

That's legal?


That was exactly my response. I see it as just another way for the political process to curcumvent the will of the people.

(I was going to say "our" political process....but I really don't think we have much of a say in it any more. If "we" vote contrary to what the political leaders want, they change the rules...JMO)

[brien]

I see it as just another way for the political process to curcumvent the will of the people.

Yep, exactly. And they call themselves a democratic party. It is a party of the elites who subvert the will of the people at every turn. They smile in their supporter's face while they stick it right up their ass. I just can't fathom on how they can continually get support in light of this type of activity.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3372039.ece

Mr Obama’s camp is warning the party leadership not to frustrate the will of voters by picking a candidate who has fewer votes and delegates than him.

David Wilhelm, Mr Clinton’s 1992 campaign manager, has announced that he is voting for Mr Obama partly to “even up the disproportionate share of super-delegates backing Hillary”.

Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives Speaker, has suggested that they will “be sensitive to the public will”.

Mark Penn, Mrs Clinton’s chief strategist, makes a different argument. He says that super-delegates should base their decision on “where the win comes from” in November — when one of the candidates will face John McCain.

Not one of these people above are basing their decision upon the popular vote.

Here below gives those who care about Democracy the history on this abhorrent practice.

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/02/history-of-super-delegates-how.html

The Origins of Super Delegates, or
How the Democratic Elite Enacted a Crooked System to Keep Their Kind on Top

1968

The seeds of the current Democratic system of nomination were planted in the ashes of fires and riots of the 1968 convention and election. Entering the cycle, the Democrats were split into four camps. The old guard favorite and residing president, LBJ, was facing falling popularity and poor health, and in March of ‘68 he withdrew from the race. His VP, Hubert H. Humphries of Minnesota, then entered the race representing the old-guard machine and boss wing of the Democratic party


The 1968 convention debacle had a residual effect on the Democratic party besides a loss to Nixon: at the 1972 convention, a committee was put together to make recommendations on how to broaden the participation and increase diversity in the nomination process. Senator George McGovern was put in charge of the committee and recommended that the selection process for delegates be put into the open. This led to a majority of states switching to the primary system

After the McGovern loss:

From that point forward, active Democratic politicians and other individuals selected by the DNC would constitute over one fifth of the total vote in the Presidential nomination process.

And this link:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=266130

In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."

In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.


And you Democrats call yourselves FAIR???? This is yet another glaring example of how the Democratic Party is run by elites who refuse to bend to the will of its people. You little Dems better just sit down, shut up, and do as you are told. Boys, do they have you all fooled.:shock::madlaugh:

[preservanation]

Legal????
It's the Clintons...nuff said.

Jeeze, even MSNBC said their pimping out their daughter.
Must be legal somewhere.
Maybe they're running for president of Singapore.

[underdawg]

It is still not as bad as a party that would attempt to take away the rights of gays and women. There is still a possiblity that the votes of the super delegates could be tossed out. Corruption, yeah. I suppose anyone who seeks a public office more or less has done a few underhanded things to get there. It is not the problem of one party but both.

[Cobra]

To the one who can write the biggest checks goes the election.

[lily]

Didn't work for Romney.

[Cobra]

True but then they are all millionairs. Huckabee is the poorest with what 700 Gs.

[DANG]

There are 2 petitions floating around.
One is from Move On and tells the super delegates to vote for the peoples choice (I know... like mere words will hold more sway than MONEY)
That Petition is HERE:
http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/?rc=homepage
It says simply: "The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice."This one needs to be signed today (I know, its late) in order to make tomorrows USA Today printing.


The other petition (My Favorite) calls
on Governor Howard Dean to um, neutralize the Super delegates. To ONLY count the votes... you know, some strange concept called DEMOCRACY.... I cant find that petition right this minute.

This Petition is CLOSE to what I'm talking about (http://www.democracyforamerica.com/votersdecide)... but the good one is a letter addressed to Howard Dean.

[AlanC]

So tell me... Obama finishes with say an estimated 43% of the pledged delegates and Hillary finishes with an estimated 42% of those pledged. Because you know they will not actually know how many any candidate has until the states roll call.

On the first round of voting at the convention, just who do you think a super delegate from say Arizona should vote for at the beginning of a roll call?

The petition presumes that it will be known what "the people" want before this takes place. But they won't. Good luck with your mess.

[lily]

I agree.........this is such a mess........and the DNC is just making it worse with what they did with Michigan and Florida and Hillary's claim to them.

[preservanation]

So tell me... Obama finishes with say an estimated 43% of the pledged delegates and Hillary finishes with an estimated 42% of those pledged. Because you know they will not actually know how many any candidate has until the states roll call.

On the first round of voting at the convention, just who do you think a super delegate from say Arizona should vote for at the beginning of a roll call?

The petition presumes that it will be known what "the people" want before this takes place. But they won't. Good luck with your mess.
Lol.
Mess is right.
The Dems should by all rights be able to run away with this election, but because of some goofy rules they themselves imposed on themselves after the Mondale debacle...they decided that the party elites, Superdelegates, (an eclectic class from the very old, the very young, former presidents, vice presidents, party elites, white boys, Congressmen, govs and whoever) should be able to select their nominee rather than the actual voters themselves...good call.
Puddingheads.
One reaps what one sows.

[DANG]

I agree.........this is such a mess........and the DNC is just making it worse with what they did with Michigan and Florida and Hillary's claim to them.
Yup.
Because the people were told their votes wouldnt count in Florida and Michigan, a lot of people didnt even vote... then theres another cross section who were NOT ALLOWED to vote for anyone EXCEPT Kucinich or Clinton... those were the only Dems on the ballot and write-ins were NOT permitted. Clinton should be disqualified for putting her name on the Florida ballot. Against Dem Party rules.

[preservanation]

Mich got @ 30% undecided..Who do those go too?

[bishop]

speaking of corruption, anyone here know much about the history behind why the democrats created the "superdelegate" in the first place? it was precisely to prevent voters from altering the direction of the party - and to give greater power to the establishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

but alas, if anyone thought that the democrats were any less corrupt than the republicans, they were sorely mistaken.

[DANG]

speaking of corruption, anyone here know much about the history behind why the democrats created the "superdelegate" in the first place? it was precisely to prevent voters from altering the direction of the party - and to give greater power to the establishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate#History

but alas, if anyone thought that the democrats were any less corrupt than the republicans, they were sorely mistaken.
I would say the Dems are a bit less corrupt. At least the super-delegates are dem activists and their votes are counted as MORE votes than other dems....

But the reps own the machines that count ALL votes, and are not afraid to invalidate BILLIONS of votes.

(edit to add quote)[hr]The voters decide NOTHING..
the COUNTERS decide EVERYTHING.

[DANG]

I should have added in my last post, super-delegates include not only activists, but also elected politicos.

The dem system is far from perfect.... its times like these that will HOPEFULLY mold it into an ideal.
This bribery scandal sickens me.
Why the 'super-delegate' system?
Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.The natives are getting restless though... they are aware they are being disenfranchised.
We the People disagree with Henry Kissinger: "Democracy is too important to leave up to the votes of the people"
We Want to be heard and we want to be COUNTED (goddammit!)
We dont want the Best Democracy Money Can Buy (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Democracy-Money-Can-Globalization/dp/0452283914) (but I do recommend the book)



The Libertarians should have such problems!
They have NO establishment to complain about.
They have never gotten that far.
This season has made huge bounding leaps to change that.... unfortunately, it may not avail much in the short term.
I wish you all luck with that. (even if you cant wish the dems luck on their/our journey)

I will vote to remove the war mongering republican neo-convicts from OUR White House.... and your vote will go (ultimately)to one of the many republican losers.

[Truth Detector]

But the reps own the machines that count ALL votes, and are not afraid to invalidate BILLIONS of votes.

(edit to add quote)[hr]The voters decide NOTHING..
the COUNTERS decide EVERYTHING.


Good lord, what profound bullschit.

I have to laugh at people who think voting machines are less accurate than physical counting, and that somehow, the Republicans manipulate the results.

It's almost as laughable as the notion that we can trust the same company to make ATM cash machines that have never been known to make a mistake, but can't trust them to do something as simple as count votes.

America gets "dumber and dumberer."

[Pookie]

I don't think machines are infallible. After all, look at your own home computer. It works great until a hacker gets to it or a virus gets into it. I keep records on paper as well as disks, because my own ability to physically keep my files straight is a hell of a lot more trustworthy than a computer.

Anyone ever had a computer component in their car go phlooey? Yeah, that's a real blast, too.

I trust physical vote counting more than machines. I also think this superdelegate thing is just as worthless and unnecessary as the electoral college votes.

It's the same thing as real butter versus margarine. I trust cows a lot more than science, too LOL!

Purrs,
Pookie

[bishop]

I would say the Dems are a bit less corrupt.

is that kind of like comparing two turds and pointing out the one that's less stinky?

the dems are "less" corrupt... whoop-dee-doo..

[Osborn F. Enready]

Amen Bishop....

Both parties are corrupt beyond the point of "repair".

[bishop]

but people still seem to think that if you vote for one of either corrupt party, that corruption will magically end once they're in office. oh common sense, where art thou?

it'll be quite ironic if these "super" delegates hand hillary the nomination over the will of those who voted in the primaries.. it'll smack of the supreme court handing bush the presidency.

[Osborn F. Enready]

This whole election is going to be a joke, worse than 2004, no doubt.

I will laugh if a nation like Venezuela contests the election, and the sad fact is, they would most likely win that "contest" of the election if a REAL investigation were to actually take place.

Between the COPD, the Diebold machines, the absolute lack of securing the popular vote since last election by BOTH parties, its obvious that both parties are planning on hacking the election instead of fixing it. Shows what they are more used to....

[lily]

Mich got @ 30% undecided..Who do those go too?


Link (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-ploy-for-uncommitted/)
The groups hope that a significant turnout by uncommitted voters will
generate national attention for their candidates. Also, under Michigan
election law, if at least 15 percent of votes in any district or statewide
are for "uncommitted," the corresponding percentage of delegates may back
any candidate.

[preservanation]

The groups hope that a significant turnout by uncommitted voters will generate national attention for their candidates. Also, under Michigan election law, if at least 15 percent of votes in any district or statewide are for “uncommitted,” the corresponding percentage of delegates may back any candidate.
Because neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Edwards registered as write-in candidates, any write-in votes for them will be thrown out.

Thanks lily!
Wow, what a blunder by Obama's campaign.
I wonder if there was an effort to dissuade him from registering..

I heard that Mich might go to a "Fire House" vote, if it comes to that.
However this comes out, the fur is going to fly in Denver this summer.
Hooo Boy

[lily]

Wow, what a blunder by Obama's campaign.
I wonder if there was an effort to dissuade him from registering..

Obama followed the rules, Clinton didn't.....which really doesn't matter, because Obama is questioning the superdelegates.......so they're both fighting about one or the other.

I heard that Mich might go to a "Fire House" vote, if it comes to that.
However this comes out, the fur is going to fly in Denver this summer.
Hooo Boy

Don't know what a "Fire House" vote is.......but unless it's held in every city's local fire house and the votes are cast on the spots on a Dalmation..........there is no way we can afford, nor have another election set up in time.

[preservanation]

It will be more than interesting to see how the DNC resolves this sticky wicket.

Howard Dean to the rescue!
I wonder how he'd look in a cape?