|
|
|
|
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/4/2008 6:18:16 PM | In Houston Superdelegate Sheila Jackson Lee was booed because she endoresed Hillary Clinton and 90% of her district voted for Obama. How should she vote?
HomeDiariesBreaking BlueE-Wire 2008Sheila Jackson Lee Booed by BO's Followers
by alegre,
Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05 25 PM EST
I'll tell ya folks, I thought it got ugly on these boards but this is nothing compared to how Hillary's surrogates and big-name supporters are treated by BO's followers. Take a look at how Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee was treated during a county convention in Houston earlier today...
The following was posted as a description of the video...
U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas (D-Houston) gets booed at Texas Senate District 13 Democratic Convention on March 29, 2008. Though her congressional district is overwhelmingly in support of Senator Barack Obama for President, Congresswoman Jackson Lee is a superdelegate and supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Race. When she took the stage, she had to wait a couple of minutes for the booing and Obama cheering to subside and kept remarking, "I'll wait for you to stop." | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/4/2008 7:38:32 PM | | LOL What a brave woman. I think she should vote for who she wants to vote for. Those people are not going to be around to cheer or boo after the election and on "day one". The only person that's going to matter on day one is who is actually in office. Even if it's not who she voted for, at least she will have a clear conscious that she did what she felt was right. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/4/2008 7:49:08 PM | Well, there's a vast difference between an actual election and what happens in a primary...
The Superdelegates to the best of my knowledge evidently owe their loyality to the democratic party and not the people who vote for one candidate or another? That in effect frees them to nominate a candidate who has less of the popular vote in a tight race... Not exactly very democratic but it none the less is how the demcrates have their system set up...
The question is will they do that come June? | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/4/2008 8:13:27 PM | | I'm glad she got booed. If she is not going to represent her district by voting against 90% of them, then she should be recalled. Her one vote could essentially wipe-out all of theirs. There's just something not right about that. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/6/2008 7:51:28 AM | | A political analyst stated she made a very dangerous move. She is up for re-election and if 90% of her district did not vote for Clinton, then it is very unlikely she will be re-elected. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/6/2008 8:08:21 AM |
I'm glad she got booed. If she is not going to represent her district by voting against 90% of them, then she should be recalled. Her one vote could essentially wipe-out all of theirs. There's just something not right about that.
Does this go both ways? Should Ted Kennedy be recalled for endorsing Obama despite overwhelming support among his constituants for Clinton? | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/6/2008 11:20:25 AM | In the news story her treatment is described as ugly.
She got booed - they weren't throwing things or making threats; just expressing their disapproval. If you're going to stand up against the wishes of your constituents, you're going to meet with disapproval. Sometimes representatives have to take unpopular positions. I obviously disagree with her position here, but at least she has the courage to stand up and defend it. Only cowards go before only friendly crowds - why does that remind me of someone? | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/6/2008 12:24:14 PM | Faith writes:
In Houston Superdelegate Sheila Jackson Lee was booed because she endoresed Hillary Clinton and 90% of her district voted for Obama. How should she vote?
Sheila Jackson Lee has the power to overthrow the will of 90% of the people she represents, and her endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a statement of her intention to do exactly that. No more, no less. "How should she vote?" is an ethical question, and Jackson's ethics disagree with those of her constituents. Jackson has explained that her support of Clinton is borne out of a sense of loyalty to Hillary. She says: "What would I be if I went back on my word to an individual that I've worked with for more than a decade and sat down talked to me about her vision for America?"
The irony is that the politics of personal loyalties is in a big way responsible for the mess this country's already in, and it's dumbfounding to Jackson's constituents that she just doesn't see the parallels. The ultimate responsibility for a politician is to the electorate, and NOT to maintaining the cozy relationships she's made in DC.
Sheila Jackson Lee has the power to thwart the stated will of the voters. We know that. Will she do it? So far, that's what she's saying. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/6/2008 12:27:06 PM |
Sometimes representatives have to take unpopular positions.
It's perfectly fine for people or even a representative to have and express their opinion. However, when your a representative you took a pledge/oath to represent the district in which elected you to that position. They are for every word your boss! To do anything less than protecting thier wishes is not representing them.
This is the underlying problem in the United States today. We have a congress and excutive branch that has no understanding of the meaning of an oath.
With this woman the case is a little different because she was chosen by the democratic party to be a superdelegate. An appointment is not the same as represntation where one is elected. Her loyality lay with the Party elite not the people who make up the party. This means she has ever right to do as she likes regardless what the people in her segment voted... It's an internal fallacy of the Democratic party system. Does this mean people shouldn't boo her, of course not. Does this mean she doesn't deserve the booing, of course not. She in her own mind has made the choice to go against the will of the people, if she thinks such a choice doesn't merit the backlash then she's down right foolish in her thinking... While she may have ever right to do this under the democratic party rules. It doesn't mean that her actions will not bleed over to something more inline with true represtation when it comes to re-election. People don't forget being ignored! | |
|
| |
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/7/2008 6:11:54 PM |
Well, do you feel she has the right to cast her personal vote one way and then her delegate vote for the candidate the people that placed her in the position desired?
I havn't heard you answer whether this question should apply to Obama delegates also.
What Ted Kennedy, who is going against the wishes of his constituents? Does the same criticism apply to Obama delegates, or do they get special treatment? | |
|
| |
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/7/2008 6:24:15 PM |
Well, do you feel she has the right to cast her personal vote one way and then her delegate vote for the candidate the people that placed her in the position desired?
My opinion really has little to do with it. Nevertheless, I'll admit my understanding of the Democratic Party rules is far from a complete understanding. However, I have deep respect to obeying rules and following the proper way to change rules we don't like. So, that being said I have to agree she has every right under the rules to vote as she likes and I defend her right to do so, regardless if I disagree with her choice to go against the populace choice in her district.
With the way the Democratic party has it's rules this woman has every right to do that very thing, the rules say:
"Citing Democratic rules, the superdelegates who are poised to select the party's presidential nominee are free to back whomever they wish at the end of the primaries, regardless of who leads in the popular vote or pledged delegates."
Now, as to the reasons why the Party has allowed for such rules is hardly debatable. It's clearly arranged this way to disallow a candidate who has the most pledged delegates from receiving the Democratric nomination should the party elite not like the choice of the people... What other reason can one attribute to this unique rule?
However, and to the betterment of the people in general a party doesn't elect a Candidate to office. The rules are far different in a real election than those conducted by parties with their primary's...
I will give warning should the democratic party ever decide to dismiss the choice of the people and surplant their own candidate by using the superdelegate option, it will be the undoing of the party. History has taught us that such divisions have always brought about the death of such parties in a short order of time. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/7/2008 6:41:26 PM |
Yes, Name fair is fair.
I'm all for it. If the superdelegates were intended to track the vote of their constituients, they would be superflous - you would just have regular delegates.
So the only debate is whether to have superdelegates at all - many say no, its undemocratic. But you can't really address that question without first deciding what it is you are trying to accomplish in the nomination process. If it is to produce a candidate that the party finds acceptable and which is likely to win in a general election, then some moderating force needs to be in place for those times when the party activists push a candidate too radical to win. If instead it is to produce a candidate which best reflects the sentiments of the party, period, then we have to ask ourselves why we should allow states to include Independents and Republicans. If I am a Democrat and I want the candidate to represent the wishes of the Democrats, then I don't want the votes of people not in my party being weighed in.
And with that same goal in mind, we have to ask ourselves why states are given more or less delegates depending on where in the calender they vote - some states get bonuses for voting last. And we have to wonder about allowing the Caucus system of allocation, which makes a mockery of one-man, one-vote. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/7/2008 6:56:27 PM | No matter who you support if you vote against the people and it is an election year, you may be ending your career. This comes from a political analyst not me. Hillary is have a hard time because of her continous misstatements, misrembrances, or mistruths. Here is the latest one.
CLINTON TELLS PART TRUTH, PART ERROR
From Associated Press
April 07, 2008 6:39 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has stopped telling a story of a pregnant woman's medical tragedy after an Ohio hospital challenged its accuracy last weekend.
But recent accounts of the episode have omitted key details that suggest there was more truth in the essence of Clinton's tale than her critics, and even her presidential campaign, have acknowledged.
Since early March, the New York senator has often told campaign audiences a heartbreaking story of a young Ohio woman who began having problems with her pregnancy. She said the woman was twice turned away by a local hospital because she had no health insurance and could not pay a $100 minimum charge.
Clinton, who advocates health coverage for all Americans, put it this way in Terre Haute, Ind., on March 20:
"I'll tell you a quick story that I heard in Ohio when I was campaigning there," she said. "A deputy sheriff told me about a young woman who worked at the pizza parlor there and she worked for minimum wage, she didn't have any insurance. She got pregnant, went to the hospital - and I don't blame the hospital. The hospital said, 'We can't take any more charity care. You have to give us $100 before we can examine you.' She didn't have $100. Went back another time, they told her the same thing."
Sen. Clinton said the woman returned a third time "in an ambulance. And they worked hard to stabilize her, and she lost her baby. Then they airlifted her to Columbus to the medical center, and for 15 days they tried to save her life, and she died."
THE SPIN:
Because Clinton never named the woman or the hospital, the story generated only gasps and tears at campaign stops. But on April 3, The Washington Post named the woman, Trina Bachtel, 35, of Middleport, Ohio, who died last August. The Daily Sentinel, a paper published in nearby Pomeroy, Ohio, cited Bachtel's name the next day.
With the patient's name now publicized locally and nationally, officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio, feared their facility would be falsely accused. Bachtel was indeed treated in August at O'Bleness, where her baby was stillborn. But Bachtel was never refused treatment there, and she even had medical insurance, the officials told The New York Times in a story published Saturday.
"We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story," Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O'Bleness Health System," told the Times.
Media outlets and political Web sites began criticizing Clinton for retelling the unsubstantiated story. By Saturday night, Clinton's campaign said she would drop it from her speeches.
"Candidates are told stories by people all the time, and it's common for candidates to retell those stories," said campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee. "In this case, we tried but weren't able to fully vet the story."
THE FACTS:
Clinton said she heard the story from Meigs County Deputy Sheriff Bryan Holman during a visit to Pomeroy, before the March 4 Ohio primary.
In a March 26 phone interview with The Associated Press, Holman said he had told Clinton the story in essentially the same way she was retelling it in her speeches. He said he knew the Bachtel story only second hand, and lacked several details.
The AP then spoke with Bachtel's aunt, Susie Casto of Middleport, who helped raise the woman. She said Bachtel, who worked at a pizza parlor, did in fact have health insurance when she and her baby died.
But at an earlier time, Casto said, Bachtel lacked health insurance and ran up unpaid bills when treated at a clinic near her home in Middleport. When she returned for treatment when pregnant, the clinic demanded $100 per visit to help retire the outstanding debt, Casto said. Because Bachtel could not afford the fees and found it difficult to travel, her aunt said, she postponed receiving treatment.
Bachtel eventually went to O'Bleness, about 30 miles to the north, for attention.
Casto declined to name the clinics or hospitals involved, and said she felt medical professionals did all they could to save Bachtel and her unborn child.
Pomeroy has about 2,000 residents and two medical clinics. One is affiliated with O'Bleness, the other is the Holzer Clinic, part of a nine-facility chain.
O'Bleness Health System spokeswoman Lynn Anastos said Monday that Bachtel was not a patient at their Pomeroy facility and "she would not have been turned away for lack of payment" if she had sought treatment there.
Holzer associate administrator Jim Blevins said his company has no record of Bachtel being a patient for the past five years. About half of Holzer's patients are "charity cases," he said, and the company tries to work out payment schedules with those who fall behind on their bills.
In some cases, Blevins said, Holzer clinics place "credit restrictions" on patients believed to be able but unwilling to pay their bills. That would not apply to patients needing immediate or emergency care, he said.
Clinton erred in telling audiences that the Ohio woman lacked insurance when seeking help for her troubled pregnancy. But according to Casto's account, Bachtel's medical tragedy began with circumstances very close to the essence of Clinton's now-abandoned account: the lack of insurance created a $100 barrier to needed medical attention close to home.
---
By Charles Babington | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/7/2008 7:16:03 PM |
If it is to produce a candidate that the party finds acceptable and which is likely to win in a general election, then some moderating force needs to be in place for those times when the party activists push a candidate too radical to win.
So, along that line of thinking the Democratic party feels that it's in the best interest of the party to nominate a candidate who received less of the popular vote amoung it's own primary, under the assuption the lesser candidate is going to fair better against the other parties candidate in the general election? | |
|
| |
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:40:59 PM | So, along that line of thinking the Democratic party feels that it's in the best interest of the party to nominate a candidate who received less of the popular vote amoung it's own primary, under the assuption the lesser candidate is going to fair better against the other parties candidate in the general election?
Almost. They reserve the right to weigh in as individual delegates against a candidate, possibly leading in party polls, but whom they think might be bad for the general election. That's not at all the same as saying they should go against the front-runner all of the time. Plus, the contribution of the superdelegates is merely that - a contribution, not a veto.
Remember, this all came about in reaction to the activists nominating McGovern and proceeding to lose every state except one.
As to your description of 'received less of the popular vote among it's own primary,' I remind you of the can of worms that opens when it's own primary is not equally weighted in a one-man, one-vote sense, and also includes the votes of people not in the party. It is not as if this system is in conflict with an otherwise democratic tally of the party. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/9/2008 1:45:22 PM | Top that is how it appears.
So how do you feel about msg 14? What do you think the objective of the primaries should be: nominate someone acceptable to the party and best positioned to win in the general election, or nominate the most popular choice among the democrats regardless of their appeal to non-democrats? And if the latter, what do you think different states having different rules about letting non-party members have a say in the party nomination?
I'm asking in the abstract, but point out that according to exit polls Clinton leads the popular vote among democrats by 400,000 (and that's not counting Florida and Michigan). It is when you throw in votes from independents and republicans that the margin shifts to something like 1.2 million in Obama's favor. My motives are not to shill for Hillary here but simply to point out that the argument that superdelegates breaking with their constituents is somehow an afront to an otherwise democratic exercise is simplistic and misleading. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/9/2008 6:39:39 PM |
Almost.
Not almost, it IS...
whom they think might be bad for the general election.
An elite few picking the lesser candidate and making every attempt to parade the choice as someone who will do better in the general election is nothing short of a farce. Please, I know your not that foolish, you write too well, so open your eyes to the reality.
the contribution of the superdelegates is merely that - a contribution, not a veto.
Yes, it is exactly that!!!!
also includes the votes of people not in the party.
That is entirely up to individual States. Some have admendments written into their constitutions that allow for such things others do not. How is an independent to support the person they desire if they are omitted from the process? One election they may like the Republican candidate the next election they might prefer the Democrat. The purpose of any party or candidate is to get elected. You don't ever here a party complain about getting independents or voters from the opposing party in the general election... | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:02:03 PM |
The purpose of any party or candidate is to get elected.
This seems inconsistent. Is the purpose of a party to get elected, or to best represent the preferences of their members? These two do not always coincide when the party membership is too far to the left or the right.
If it is the former, then you do something analogous to the superdelegates. If it is the latter, you get rid of them. But it's up to the party (each party) to decide how to balance electibility with ideological purity. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/9/2008 7:18:55 PM |
Is the purpose of a party to get elected
Yes
or to best represent the preferences of their members
No, it is not, the party is only an extension of the individuals that make up the party. If the majority of the people have cast their votes to Bozo the clown it's not the job of a few elite to cast that choice aside... Bozo the Clown wouldn't be getting so many votes if he wasn't doing and saying something that the voters didn't like... How dare a few cast the choice of the populace under the rug just because they don't like him. He might just see the few for what they are and that could be the reason alone why they would chose not to nominate him. He would represent a threat to their positions and so in effect it isn't the party's best interest they are looking out for but their own privileged exsitence...
I'd be very concerned if I was a democrat in light of how their superdelegate system is designed. It's without question purposely put in place to circumnaviagate the choice of the people and should be disbanded... | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:19:41 AM |
I'd be very concerned if I was a democrat in light of how their superdelegate system is designed. It's without question purposely put in place to circumnaviagate the choice of the people and should be disbanded...
Your explanations seem at odds with your answers.
Maybe we are getting hung up on sematics here. When you say yes to the purpose of the party is to get elected (and no to the objective being to best represent the interests of the members) are you saying that that should be the strategy, or are you saying it as a matter of fact (and implicitly saying that it is should not be that way)? | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/10/2008 8:27:51 AM | I wasn't even sure that there was a general election in the time of JQ Adams, but I did read recently where he was not only the loser in both popular vote but also electoral votes but since no candidate took the needed majority of electoral votes then I believe a panel of just a few selected him as President.
Like I've mentioned before, while we vote on a ticket of Prez/VP... the electoral college actually votes for the VP separately and our history does have an instance where while the Prez candidate won the needed majority of electoral votes, his running mate did not so a provisional method was used to select the VP. Even in the past we've had a President whose VP Elect was not his running mate but rather the opposition's running mate instead.
It will not be an unprecedented aberration should the Superdelegates decide against whatever the results are after the primaries are done. | |
|
| Superdelegates, should they make the final decision?
Posted: 4/10/2008 9:12:48 AM | Since "superdelegates" are not elected and just "appointed" in the DNC I think they have the right to vote for who ever they want. I also think that since they are all party leaders and former democratic senetors, mayors, governors etc., they have a responsibility to the majority in their party - the wants of the few should never outweigh the needs of the many. If it comes down to superdelegates and it's looking like it will, they have the responsibility to make the right final decision.
I think this whole superdelegate thing is a mess and should be done away with, I'm sure it was started with good intentions but it has only proven that politicians can screw anythin up. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
