<p>I prefer the American Idol analogy in which the voters are the members of the public who call for their favorite singer from the two finalists. The superdelegates are like Simon/Randy/Paula except that their vote counts for about 25% of the total vote- AND they get to vote AFTER seeing the results of the public vote. Now imagine that the finalists can promise Simon/Randy/Paula some share of the final prize (eg political appointments). This could get pretty undemocratic and the public would be disgusted.</p>
<p>And the disgusted public might just tune in to the rival network to watch something like America’s next top model (McCain?).</p>
<p>What will be really funny; depending on your point of view; is what will happen if Hillary doesn’t have the total number of “Normal” delegates but is able to pull off getting the nomination via the super delegates.</p>
<p>These are the same people that complained about the electoral college and how poor Al Gore got robbed and lost the election because he had the popular vote but Bush beat him with the electoral votes.</p>
<p>These are the rules and policy that have been in place for a very long time. There is a reason, and for the most part are very valid. Yes; once in a blue moon the popular vote will not be who wins. That however is rare. The benefit of the primary system has it’s advantages. The republicans have a winner take all. The democrats have a percentage split with super delegates after the fact. It is hilarious how everyone loves the system for years and years. They love it until it doesn’t go their way.</p>
<p>if Hillary wins with the super delegates giving her the nod, then that is the way it is. Anyone who complains that Obama got ripped off and Hillary stole the nomination is a sore loser. If the system sucks so bad, the democratic party should have addressed it years and decades before. Just like there is no reason in the world that Michigan and Florida should have been penalized and their delegates NOT COUNT because they decided to change the date of their primaries. That is B.S. The states have a right to hold their primaries whenever they want to. The democratic party has no right to tell them they can’t just because they have an agenda to to have certain states first and others later. if you let the states have it when they want to, they may all fight it out enough where the primaries can actually be held in a 1-2 month period instead of 6-8 months.</p>
<p>That is what I have been saying all along. Math does not exist for any one to get 2,025 without the help of superdelegates (absence MI and FL). There are only 611 pledged delegates to go. Obama has 1,344 and Hillary has 1,208.</p>
<p>So if Clinton bribes enough of SDs, Obama will cry. If Obama bribes enough of them Clinton cries foul.</p>
<p>Obama supporters are happy to win nomination via superdelegates, but extremely unhappy if Clinton does it.</p>
<p>Can anyone please tell me why Hillary is more qualified as Commander in chief than Obama, and why she is more experienced with foreign policy than he is? </p>
<p>Any specifics?</p>
<p>If she did win the nomination, how will she answer that any better against McCain?</p>
<p>She is older, but what is her “lifetime” of experience in this area?</p>
<p>1sokkermom, if you google Hillary Clinton foreign policy experience, one of the hits will be a link to a blog called No Quarter which gives a fairly good representative description, in a 2/26 entry, of the foreign policy issues with which she has been involved. It’s a place to start and then investigate further if you want more detailed information. CC does not allow links to blogs and you do not have PMs or email enabled so there’s no other way to get this link to you.</p>
<p>I am just so grateful that the Republican nominee is John McCain. He will be a fine President. </p>
<p>The Democratic contest is now of only academic interest. The bruising nomination battle is going to fatally weaken both candidates. Actually I am now hoping it will be Hillary.</p>
<p>We all have a “lifetime of experience” don’t we? It is a completely empty statement. Hillary just keeps saying that term and its only by implication that she’s done anything relevant. </p>
<p>Still not sure what all this experience is (well other than Whitewater and a few other things) and she never says any details but only gives you the list of countries she’s visited (so I guess your local travel agent could be president then).</p>
<p>Combining his state and federal experience, Obama has more legislative experience, which I am at a loss to understand why his campaign does not point to.</p>
<p>By Clinton’s analysis, Laura Bush has 8 years experience as First Lady, does that qualify her too?</p>
<p>It’s all rhetoric out of the clinton camp and “whoa is me” because Obama is the far more articulate and motivational speaker and they can’t stand it.</p>
<p>At the bottomline I still think judgment trumps experience (you can have lots of experience and still make the same mistakes over and over sorta like a country learning no lesson from the fiasco in Vietnam and repeating the same mistakes in Iraq).</p>
<p>The one major most pertinent event in recent times was the Iraq vote and what did Hillary’s experience do for her there. In one of the last debates she herself said she wished she had that vote back. But since the grade school playground, I don’t think you get “do overs”. Obama got Iraq right the first time and typically when you answer that phone at 3 a.m. you get just that one chance with no ‘do overs’. (and btw, McCain got this one wrong too the first go around and still doesn’t get it)</p>
<p>If we are looking for motivational speakers we should just vote for the guy on TV with the huge teeth–Tony something. </p>
<p>In reality we’ll never know what was really right on Iraq. If SH were still around he could be up to all sorts of things we would have to get involved in again. With oil so much more valuable he would have more $$$ to carry out all sorts of schemes. The only thing he was good for was keeping Iran
occupied. </p>
<p>BO already found how easy it is to screwup in foreign affairs when his NAFTA lies were outed.</p>
<p>I know who you’re talking about, barrons. He shows up on late night TV-- can’t think of his name-- oh, yeah–Tony Robbins. He’s freakishly tall, too. But the one I think is incredibly motivational and inspirational is Joel Osteen. I think he has big teeth, too. Osteen is more about religion than Robbins, but yeah-- I agree-- may as well pick one of them. They’re impressive and mesmerizing, especially Osteen, who could win over the evangelical Christians for sure. :)</p>
<p>Pete Seeger for foreign policy chief–that’s the ticket. I did hear he was very pro WW II so he’s not all bad either. Yes, Tony Robbins. For President. Or the other guy, Joel. I’m not familiar with him really.</p>
<p>Joel heads a super mega church in Houston. He bought the old Houston Rocket’s Basket Ball stadium and made in to a church. His services are televised nationally.</p>
<p>I don’t know. I just googled him and his church is called Lakewood Church. Him and his wife are very handsome. Couple of years ago they were thrown out of a plane. His wife had become abusive towards hostesses.</p>
<p>Joel’s wife was abusive to the airline hostesses? You’re kidding? Wow. I think he has umpteen children, too.</p>
<p>I don’t practice any religion (except swimming and yoga), but sometimes I catch Joel on late night TV, and again-- he is just incredible. (Makes Obama and his inspiration look really lame.) I never saw him on 60 Minutes, but maybe.</p>