Democrats & Liberals Archives

An open letter to the super-delegates

Super-delegates listen up: you are not more important than me. You are not more important than my neighbor. Come November, your vote is no more or less as valuable as anyone else’s. So it’s your obligation and responsibility as a delegate to cast your vote in the voice of the people.

In 1968, electoral procedures were reformed because of the backroom shenanigans of some power-brokers. Such backroom politics is and should be a thing of the past. The days of old, fat cronies sitting in backrooms smoking cigars and deciding the fate of the free world is something that I had hoped we worked through already. But after hearing that some super-delegates feel that they live by a different set of rules, it's time to make things understood: All delegates should reflect the view of the people that stood in lines, waited in the cold and cast their votes for their candidate of choice. Super or no super, a delegate should represent the decision of the voters from their party. When a candidate wins the primary or caucus, to the victor go the spoils.

Going against the will of the people defeats the purpose and will further disenfranchise scores of voters.

For example, the Democratic party has tried, unsuccessfully, to ignite the youth of the country. They've spent long hours, MTVing it with anyone that would listen. But, as the turnout numbers prove, the youth have stayed home. But now the youth of this country are finally coming out; they are coming out to support Barack Obama for President. They are looking to the future for a positive change in this country and view Obama as that catalyst for that change. But when a young voter goes the voting booth to cast their vote to find that old cronies are playing politics as usual, essentially saying 'your vote doesn't count as much as mine" the Democrats will lose the youth vote again. And getting that vote back will be a monumental task; if not insurmountable.

After years of the arrogant politics of Bush, founded by the principal "we know better than you, so shut up and let us decide for you", I'm shocked to think that the super-delegates could be performing the same crime on the American voter.

So super or non-super delegates hear this loud and clear: when your people voice their vote, hear them; don't ignore them. You don't know better, we do.

Posted by john trevisani at February 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #245058

Democrats are unsuccessful at getting the youth vote? Nothing I’ve read supports that…including this article from the Boston Globe…

Spurred into action by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, youths 18 to 24 years of age have dramatically accelerated their participation in politics, both at the ballot box and on college campuses. After a steady decline in youth voting since the close of the Vietnam War, young voter participation increased from 36 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2004, representing a huge jump. Analysts also project that the final statistics from 2006 will show it to be a record year for youth voting in a midterm con gressional election.

The Internet has accelerated the trend, giving young people a cheap and efficient tool to organize rallies, recruit volunteers, and exchange information about candidates. With passions high over the war, national security, and global warming, young people today are shaping up as a political power bloc that could exceed the influence of antiwar protesters in the late 1960s and early 1970s, pollsters and analysts predict.

Further, the current crop of young voters is trending more Democratic — unlike the previous generation of youth — giving the eventual Democratic nominee a key advantage in the general election, according to two independent surveys of young voters.

Posted by: Rachel at February 11, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #245061

The youth vote, which as you said, is trending Democratic, and is trending up. But that’s not really saying much. Since 1972 it’s dropped consistently, peaked in 1992 and then dropped again only to climb again in 2004.
Overall, the participation about 18% less than those aged 25 and above.

The point is that we all want participation to increase. Playing games like super-delegate games, where you disenfranchise voters, isn’t going to entice anyone to continue to come out.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 11, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #245069

john trevasani, I applaud your article and position. I hope yours is but the beginning of a growing crescendo of outcry for democratic fairness in primary voting that forces your party to live up to its namesake.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 11, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #245080

“True friends stab you in the front.”

The problem area will be how close the delegate count is at the convention. The superdelegates will follow the popular vote. Everything is almost even now, but trending towards Obama.

The problem area now is coming from Obama supporters who want their candidate to win so much, they say things that don’t even make any sense, like Obama won more states. Can the next POTUS be elected by winning the 26 least populous states? Democrats need to win in the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West Coast. Anything else is gravy, not the meat.

People who are saying that they will not vote for Hillary if she is nominated, or that they will leave the Democratic party if they do not get their way, can not be relied on anyway. The rules were set up to increase representation of women and minorities. Both candidates fit the bill. Whatever happens at the convention will be more democratic than a coronation at the Rpblcn convention.

“One should always play fairly when one has the winning cards.”

Posted by: ohrealy at February 11, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment #245083


I was always taught that:

“Fair is when I have the advantage”

My three children learned this very quickly…

In case you are struggling with the analogy, there is no such thing as fair…

Posted by: cliff at February 11, 2008 6:38 PM
Comment #245096

“we know better than you, so shut up and let us decide for you”

How is that any different than the “arrogant politics” of the left lo these past 60 years or so?

Posted by: Aggle at February 11, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #245100


“Super-delegates listen up: you are not more important than me. You are not more important than my neighbor. Come November, your vote is no more or less as valuable as anyone else’s.” Except to Hillary Clinton.

In machine politics, the machine candidate almost always wins. She has the machine. And you watch, when Obama wins the popular delegate vote, she will use these super delegates to steal the win for herself, just as Algore tried unsuccessfully to do after losing Florida. And before you start ranting that he actually won, remember that every liberal and democrat leaning news media went down there to count and came away with the same conclusion. No matter what criteria you use, Al lost. If he had not, you would hear this from every news source in America, ad nausium, to this very day.

This is your own party’s fault for making your nomination process so unbelievably complicated. I think this is intentional so that machine politicians can take the win no matter what the people want.


Right on! I could not have said it any better or more concisely than that.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at February 11, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #245102

“Super-delegates listen up: you are not more important than me. You are not more important than my neighbor”(except those living in Florida nad Michigan.)

Posted by: RMD at February 12, 2008 1:06 AM
Comment #245105

cliff said: “In case you are struggling with the analogy, there is no such thing as fair…”

Sounds like a Republican philosophy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 4:43 AM
Comment #245110


How is that any different than the “arrogant politics” of the left lo these past 60 years or so?

Of the left?
Let’s see… Truman was reelected President 1948. Let’s see what the leftist Truman did…
- Began a program to remove communist sympathizers from government office
- dropped not one, but two Nuclear bombs
- founded that communist organization, the United Nations
- created the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe (i guess because it included some commie governments)
- created something called the Truman doctrine (don’t need to explain what that is, do i?)
- Created NATO
- Served in WWI

After that.. Ike… i forget… was he a leftist too?

The reality is that in 1968, the Democrats changed the way they dealt with delegates to ensure that backroom politics were a thing of the past. The use of Super-delegates to go against the will of the electorate goes against that general philosophy.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 12, 2008 8:38 AM
Comment #245111


“The reality is that in 1968, the Democrats changed the way they dealt with delegates to ensure that backroom politics were a thing of the past. “

First you rant about back room deals being made to thwart the will of the people. Now you say this was taken care of in 1968. WHICH IS IT? This statement eliminates the need for your original post. Apparently you do not believe your own party’s ability to keep from shooting itself in the foot. In the democrat party, backroom politics seem to be business as usual, not very surprising.

“The use of Super-delegates to go against the will of the electorate goes against that general philosophy.”

Who’s philosophy? Obama’s? Yours? Certainly not Hillary’s. You may rest assured that if it comes down to it, she will use everything at her disposal to get the nomination. After all, she feels it is owed to her.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at February 12, 2008 9:33 AM
Comment #245113

Beirut Vet:

First you rant about back room deals being made to thwart the will of the people. Now you say this was taken care of in 1968. WHICH IS IT

In 68 the Democratic party changed its delegate selection process. The purpose of the change was to give greater control back to the individual voters. In 1980 the Democratic party changed the policy again, this time creating a ‘super-delegate’ to give power back into the hands of party leaders and other politicians.
That’s where we are now.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 12, 2008 9:49 AM
Comment #245114


You are exactly right…

To think that there is such a thing as fairness in society is a pipedream and probably does represent the dems philosophy. So, as I said before, (only with a spin)

What’s fair is when the dems have the advantage.

Posted by: cliff at February 12, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #245117



The government should stay out of the “trying to make things fair” mode and instead, make things and keep things equal.

Posted by: cliff at February 12, 2008 9:55 AM
Comment #245122

I do not know what “machine” people are talking about in relation to Hillary. The “machine” politicians here are for Obama. Florida and Michigan are the more important issue, because it actually deals with disenfranchisement of voters over something that they had no control over, and we might actually need the electoral votes of those states in December. The number of super delegates pledged to Hillary simply reflects the fact that they thought she would be the winner. They want to back a winner. If that changes and enough super delegates feel that Obama is a likely winner, more will back him.

Not to believe in fairness is moral relativism, or antibuddhism, or the end justifying the means as long as I win. It not only speaks ill of the person espousing the view, but of their parents, associates, education, and religion.

“Why was I born with such contemporaries?”

Posted by: ohrealy at February 12, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #245123

The very existence of these “superdelegates”, as well as the continued existence of the Electoral College, proves that America is NOT a true Democracy, and that our votes really do not count. It is time for a change!.

Posted by: capnmike at February 12, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #245131

capnmike, the American people are not educated or mature enough for direct democracy. The founding fathers were right then to have created a republic, and until the American people take responsibility for providing themselves an adequate secular education in civics, economics, history, and political philosophy, they are not ready for direct democracy. The failure of such a large portion of the electorate is precisely how we have arrived at this sad state of governance. The voters are too ignorant to figure out that when government disappoints, they have to vote out THEIR incumbent representative, who is either too corrupt, too incompetent, or too ineffective to make governance better.

It’s still a lesson too far for the majority of American voters who believe the Political NFL sports metaphor is the appropriate way to go, instead of a big part of the problem in the first place. An effective direct democracy could only be maintained by an educated and highly independent non-partisan electorate.

We are moving in that direction. But, we have some ways yet to go before we learn enough about the responsibility of democracy to actually install one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #245132

cliff, that’s your opinion. This country however was founded on equalities, and that dictates where inequalities in the eyes of the law are present, government has a solemn duty to work toward fairness. Inequalities in the eyes of the law, are inherently UNFAIR by our own founding documents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #245136


Equality can be defined and implemented objectively…Fairness is a moving target.

When the government tries to legislate fairness (like morality), we get the mess we are in today…

Posted by: cliff at February 12, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #245146

Inequalities in the eyes of the law, are inherently UNFAIR by our own founding documents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 01:37 PM
DRR, where in the world did you come up with that jewel of nonsense. Can any law give everyone equal brain power, equal ambition, equal life outcomes? It is and has been a fallacy of liberal proponents that laws can make us all equal. Equality of rights is the only guarantee of our constitution, beyond that, we’re all responsible for ourselves. Liberals want to change that and make everyone responsible for everybody else. That stinks. It has never worked with any government anywhere at any time in the world. For liberals it’s all about feeling good about themselves at some one else’s expense. Spend your own money and time helping someone and leave my money and time to me. Bragging about how you have helped your fellow man at someone else’s expense is evidence of an empty and hollow person.

Posted by: Jim M at February 12, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #245156

Look, the American people in their infinite wisdom decided last time that they wanted The Perfect Frat Boy for President; look where that got us. Are the Democrat primary voters going to get to offer the country The Perfect Cheerleader as their candidate this time? If the Democrat Super Delegates are the only thing that can save us from the possiblilty of another president with no experience, more power to them. Give Obama another couple of years to show that he can produce some real accomplishments in the Senate and he might be worthy to be our candidate. Besides, I’m a 65 year old retired physicist who now knows how ignorant I was as a 20 something. I don’t want that demographic to pick my president.

Posted by: krol at February 13, 2008 12:08 AM
Comment #245159


What exactly do you think that the president of the united states does. The job description is that of a person that sits down with a group of advisers on economic and foreign issues and bring people together for the good of America. The real choice here is between giving America back to the people and taking it away from the American royalty that has plagued it for the last 15 years. We have a different set of problems than we did in your day. Clintons failed economic policies led to the debacle that was the Bush campaign. The older generation is partly to blame for this mess we find ourselves in. It’s time that the 18-45 year olds help fix it.

Obama 2008
Yes We Can

Posted by: Arc Andersen at February 13, 2008 1:18 AM
Comment #245160

Oh, insert name of choice for deity, please save Barrack Obama from his own supporters, or he will win as big a victory as George Mcgovern.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 3:12 AM
Comment #245163

Obama is running a campaign of hope. Quite frankly, it’s the most positive campaign message of my lifetime and it’s refreshing. It’s not about scare tactics. It’s not about how bad the other guy is. It’s about a vision of America that is, unfortunately, rarely expressed from candidates: hope. Hope for the future if we all work together. Obama brings that message to the people that need it the most. The people that have, especially for the past seven years, been forgotten by their country. Those people displaced by events like Katrina, those people that did the right thing and got an education but can’t find a job (in this country) and those who have watched their living wages decrease because the rising costs of oil, gas, food, education and health care (while watching the record profits from the very same corporations). Obama brings a message of hope.

If Hillary wins the nomination because she won the primaries, then all is good. But if Hillary wins the nomination because of super-delegates; the Democratic party will (and rightly so) implode.

McCain isn’t Nixon. Unless of course you know a couple of fixers and plumbers working in his campaign.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 13, 2008 6:40 AM
Comment #245178

I agree with you re: superdelegates but I also think that this should have been dealt with long ago. We have played this game with superdelegates for awhile now and all of a sudden some people want to change the way the game is played because it might not help their candidate. I don’t think we should change the way the game is played now that it has started. If Obama losses because of superdelegates so be it. If the shoe was on the other foot, Obama supporters would not be wanting to change the impact of superdelegates. We should have dealt with this issue long ago.

Posted by: Carolina at February 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #245184

Yes, the Democratic party should never have reinstated it in 1980.

However, i’ve said if Hillary wins because she won the primaries, then okay; we have the candidate of our choice. But if Hillary wins but Obama actually won the primaries, then we have a major problem. And the Democratic party deserves to lose.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 13, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #245188

I think we have a major problem now. We are using a stupid system to elect a candidate. But for now we are stuck with it.

Do I think democratic party deserves to lose? NO-it won’t be just the party that loses-it will be all of America. Even Hillary would be better than any republican. “And the Democratic party deserves to lose” that sounds kind of like if I can’t win then I don’t want to play and I won’t shake hands and make nice for the benefit of everyone else. Surely I am misunderstanding what you mean.

Posted by: Carolina at February 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #245190

You most certainly are um… misunderestimating… me…:)

What i said is that if Hillary wins the primaries, then great. Okay?

If Hillary wins because of the super-delegates and not because of the primaries, then bad. okay?

The losing that i’m referring to is the disenfranchised voters in the primaries. If you’re disenfranchised in the primary, what’s the motivation to vote in November.

Posted by: john trevisani at February 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #245193

j.t., you are giving me flashbacks to Ribicoff in 1968: “If George McGovern were president, etc.” Look at the election results for the righteous against the unrighteous in 1972 to see what happened when the righteous got nominated. It was more than Hunt, Liddy and the plumbers that lost us that election. I voted for McGovern, and I will probably vote for Obama if I don’t have to listen to him, but that’s not too likely, because it’s 9 months away.

One of the congressional candidates here is already advertising after winning the primary. It’s February, the election is in November. I like the candidate, but are they going to be fundraising and advertising for the rest of the year? I’m not even in his district, but when will we be sick of listening to the “change” message. I hope my mute button doesn’t wear out.

Hope and change are nice buzzwords, but the devil’s in the details. People might be hoping for different changes, and professional kvetches
will always keep kvetching no matter what you change. Obama is being nominated by the best educated voters. To win the election, he will have to appeal to average American tobacco spitting fried food eaters.

On jobs, can we get a national program to get the wiring underground? Why learn anything when you can stay stupid forever?

On Katrina, if I was living below river level, I think I would probably have a boat on my roof, and life preservers in the house. It’s only the
Mississippi River out there.

Education is the biggest baloney issue in our party. I have to admit that I am prejudiced against public schools. I only attended Taft (Rydell H.S. in Grease was based on it.) for driver’s ed, which was required by the state and was not offered in my school, but the difference between any public school and private school with the same student base is ridiculous. Education is not valued if you do not pay for it. It’s more complicated than that, but that is the basic concept.

People who are pointing at Hillary about superdelegates need to look at where their other fingers are pointing. This is the Democratic party, we like to nominate and elect the person who got the most votes.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 13, 2008 1:17 PM
Comment #245307

ohrealy, your facts are a bit askew.

One in three freshmen reading this article is likely to drop out their first year at college. At least, that’s what a new study by the American College Testing Program indicates. The study says that nearly one-third of freshmen drop out during their freshman year and almost 42% of college students do not finish their bachelor’s degree within five years of starting it.

Refutes your assertion about ‘free’ public education and paid education. College is all paid education. And the dropout rate in college is higher than in the public high school national rate.

Your assertion is patently false. Stop reading the right wing rags and do a little independent research. It is healthy for a rational discourse.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #245308

Jim M offered the following ignorant reply to my comment: “Inequalities in the eyes of the law, are inherently UNFAIR by our own founding documents.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 12, 2008 01:37 PM”

“DRR, where in the world did you come up with that jewel of nonsense.”

“All men are created equal” [in the eyes of the law]. It is one of our founding documents preeminent concepts. You will find this phrase in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence. Did you sleep through civics class like GW Bush?

The same sentiment appears in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which predates the U.S. Constitution by seven years, and was the first of its kind in the world. 1780 also marks the first time in America that such wording was used to successfully argue against slavery in a court of law: Brom and Bett vs. Ashley.

“Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

You should know better than accuse my comments of nonsense. But, then, you should also know those words appear in our founding document. So, I will take your reply with the grain of salt it deserves and hope for a more educated comment from you next time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 11:14 AM
Comment #245310

cliff said: “Equality can be defined and implemented objectively”

OhReally? How do you implement equal education? How do you implement equal treatment by police forces some of whom are inherently biased. How do you implement equal pay for equal work amongst the sexes in America. Many have tried, and failed. Does this suggest to you that we should dispense with trying?

That is afterall, your argument about Fairness. Just because ideals are not achievable, does not mean they should be abandoned, as you suggest. Fairness is inherently more just than unfairness. And justice is the province of government where laws and jurisdiction in such matters are established.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 14, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #245343

All college is not paid education, people get grants to attend. Sometimes they just go for specific courses without seeking a degree, which would count as “dropping out”. Also, when a person goes to a competetive college, it is a different experience from public high schools. The only people there are those who have qualified for admission, and those who survive are those who were best prepared in high school. I never even heard of anyone dropping out of the college I attended. People that did not continue were those who could not complete the requirements of their course of study.

Your assertion about reading right wing rags is patently false, and I stand by people only value education when they pay for it. College and high school are not comparable. No one has to go to college, and obviously too many people try and fail because they were not prepared by their high school experience.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 14, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #245432

ohreally, you are talking a minority. Doesn’t make your point. You have been factually refuted, accept it. College education is not “free”. Debate responsibly, don’t contradict yourself and then defend the contradiction. It ruins one’s credibility.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 15, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #246239

Site to submit your letter to Super Delegates:

(Quotes and Semicolons have been eliminated due to various blog site limitations.)

Dear Automatic Delegates (Super Delegates),

First, I would like my letter read by all the Automatic Delegates or perhaps the DNC leadership, since my state – Michigan - does not count. My statement - Hillary Clinton: The Only Real Nominee for Our Precious Nation in 2008. Unfortunately, two important state primaries, including Michigan and Florida, have found their voters disenfranchised during the most important election of my lifetime. Hillary Clinton would have had a commanding lead in the delegate race and carried serious momentum into the recent primaries, if Florida and Michigan would have followed the rules of the DNC. Again, I attribute Baracks momentum to the fact that Hillary could have carried the two important states of Michigan in Florida and a bulk of the pledged delegates, if our votes would have only counted. As a resident of Michigan and supporter of Hillary Clinton for President, I am completely outraged by being left out of the primary process. My outlook has been enhanced by the fact that I will be graduating with a Master in Public Administration - May 2008, have a son in college, and have a new grandson. Consequently, I need to emphasize this election is the most important election of my familys lifetime.

Meanwhile, the main street media has been displaying anti-Clinton sentiments and badgering Hillary Clinton, since the beginning of this primary election process. Interestingly the media is counting Hillary out of the primary race again – as they did before the New Hampshire primary - with their declaration that Obama has an unassailable lead and that the race is essentially over. This media bias, along with lack of delegates that Hillary would have gained from Michigan and Florida primaries, favors Obama as he was able to win a number of red state primaries and caucuses, while gaining the lead in pledged delegates. The medias outrageous declaration, favoring Barack, comes when she is only behind approximately 2 percent to 4 percent of the awarded delegates with more than 1/3rd of the delegates yet to be awarded. There is still a long way to go to decide the Democratic nomination and the Automatic Delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the Nation and the Democratic Party.

My hopes are that the Pledged Delegates from the major states of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, along with the judgment of the Automatic Delegates will carry Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Nominee. Hillary is needed by the Democratic Party to overcome the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the General Election. Experienced Democrats ought to realize that experience will be essential in winning the 2008 Presidency. To dramatize the affects of an Obama nominee, Barack Obama will be shredded to pieces by the Republican political machine, due to his unproven and divisive voting record and questionable qualifications to responsibly lead our Nation; not to mention his years of dubious activities and dealings during his younger irresponsible years of his life. I do not think Americans will tolerate substance related problems again in our next President and the Republicans are just waiting to exploit Obamas weaknesses, if he secures the nomination.

Hillarys experience will be challenged as well, but who is tested and can lead our country, when familiarity, knowledge, judgment, diplomatic and leadership skills are essential to addressing the multi-faceted problems of our country. In Hillarys terms, these problems are just opportunities in need of solutions. Hillary is the only nominee who can deliver a record of achievement and success for the complex domestic and foreign policy considerations confronting our next President, Administration, and most importantly, a unified Congress and complementary Judicial system.

To Whom It May Concern: Please do not dismiss my discussion thus far, due to what I am about to propose. CNN has prevented every comment I have submitted to their relevant blogs, whenever I bring up the following issue. Most often my blog entries are accepted by CNN and favor Hillary Clinton. Generally, I ask CNN to tone down their bias and CNNs often conversion to the Obama News Network. The fact that they will not publish the following blog suggestion, alone, leads me to believe that there is some truth in what I am about to discuss.

Here is the theory I think the Automatic Delegates should consider when making there decision to place their confidence in Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nominee for President. Although I am not the first to suggest this, I have alleged for a number of months that the Republicans have implemented a plan of enlisting Obamacans (Republicans for Obama) and Independent voters (with Republican voting tendencies), known as - Crossover voters -, to vote Democratic for Barack Obama. Specifically, these - Crossover voters - have been engaged to offset and distort the real Democratic vote for Hillary Clinton, favoring Barack Obama. Facts show that Hillary is more successful in states with closed primaries where advised Republicans were not able to register as Democrats quickly enough to distort the vote. Partly, the asymmetrical (Democratic vs. Republican) numbers are indicative of this – Crossover voting trend - throughout the U.S. especially in the open primaries. If I had more time, I could statistically prove that – Crossover voting - is a fact and is a real influence favoring Barack, especially now that the presumptive Republican nominee is set.

In addition, the GOP plan included moving up the Florida primary and disenfranchising the Florida voters, while taking away Hillarys momentum by eliminating the number of Pledged Delegates that would have favored Mrs. Clinton. I have been encouraging others through blogs and personal contacts to sign the petition to get the Florida votes to count, as they should. Please, I am asking the Automatic Delegates to do not let the GOP dictate this election again through their devious and unethical tactics. I will not mention any names responsible for these underhanded efforts.

Certainly, Barack Obama grown in many ways as a popular political figure and has accomplished the means to deliver an effective political presentation, as he modestly states is pretty good sometimes. However, qualifications and substantive plans and efforts are needed to turn our country in a positive direction. In order to maintain unity for the Democratic Party to guarantee a win in the General Election, I think Barack would be an excellent Vice President for Hillary. Perhaps, Barack could run for President in 2016 after serving as V.P. for eight years; however, Barack Obama will most likely not have the support of the Republican and Independent - Crossover voters - recruited by the GOP to debase Hillary Clinton in 2008.

If the GOP was anything like me, I believed Hillary was the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party 8 years ago; therefore, although my suggestions about counterfeit - Crossover voters - for Obama are only conjecture, the GOP could have been planning for this attack against Hillary for 8 years. Many facts support my theory including GOP financial support for Obama, GOP disenfranchising the Florida voters by moving up the primary date for and election that was a lock for a Hillary win, enlisted - Crossover voters - creating and unusual and excessive amount of voters favoring the Democratic Party and Obama in particular, inconsistent dramatic swings in National Polling, and most importantly and the National primary and caucus process that easily allows fraudulent voting through - Crossover voting, by Independents, and Republicans in open primaries/caucuses and the registering as Democrat and then re-registering back to Republican for closed primaries/caucuses and the General Election. Hillary has been climbing an uphill battle against the negative media and GOP attacks and potential fraud, including the - Crossover voters - and the Florida Election.

Thus, the Automatic Delegates are our nations only chance to protect the future of our economic, social, national security and international status of America by voting their hearts and assisting in the nomination of - Hillary Clinton: The Only Real Nominee for our precious Nation in 2008. Hillary will deliver on her promises on the balancing the budget, reducing the National Debt, improving the economy, increasing business opportunities and creating more jobs, improving and stabilizing the education system and make college more affordable, healthcare reform through universal health care and lowering costs, immigration reform, ending the War in Iraq, terrorism, evaluating international treaties and improving relations, and unifying our dysfunctional government system and agencies. Most definitely, a long laundry list thanks to her predecessor, but Hillary will begin the process of prioritizing and accomplishing the goals of her administration once she is elected as our Nations first woman President and Commander-in-Chief.

Get behind Hillary Clinton for President! We need a real Democrat for President.

Best Regards,

Todd - MI

P.S. Sign petition to get Florida votes to count:

Posted by: ToddT at February 23, 2008 9:34 PM
Post a comment