Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Robert Johnson, Steve Ratner, et al., were most appropriate in having written a directive to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, on behalf of the Super Delegates not being "Robot Delegates". Why give hundreds of thousands of dollars to a party that is attempting to railroad a viable Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate. Anyone who is the least bit grounded during this particular election year, would not have jumped out front in anticipation of the end of this particular horse race. There are still too many day-to-day variables or unpredictibles in the air, and I feel as an Independent that Senator Clinton has every right to press through all the remaining State Primaries/Caucuses to enable every voter's (those who choose to exercise their right to vote) voice being heard through the casting of their individual vote. What has occurred regarding the Florida and Michigan votes and delegates is a disgrace to The Democratic Party after what happened to Vice President Gore in the 2000 Election. All Democrats should feel appalled by the slippery tongues of both Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi when they've been interviewed by the bias 24/7 cable news pundits and (both) in their own subtle way have attempted to sway this year's campaign election and to push Senator Clinton out of the race....shame on The Democratic Party.

Reply
Report this post

I agree with you 100% ( or maybe 95%). Anyway, thanks for the information and the analysis, not that it appears at the moment as though it will make a difference. 'THE Dem Party' is absolutely petrified of even the idea of going to the convention. Damned if it would and damned if it doesn't. Anyway, I hope Hillary wins big in PA.

Reply
Report this post

Susan: I have a lot of respect for you. I sense you support Hillary Clinton for President and that is your perogative. Although I am a fervent Obama supporter, I would have supported Clinton in the fall had she not stuped to the level of saying John McCain, the REPUBLICAN, is more qualified to be President then Obama. That was the last straw. I will leave the President vote blank if Hillary is the nominee. With that said, you are totally correct regarding the superdelgates, or for that matter "elected" delegates. They can vote for whoever they please at the convention on the first ballot or any successive ballot. You and I both know it's extremely unlikely an elected delegate will abandon the candidate they were elected to support. These people are elected based on their strong support for their candidate. Superdelegates is another matter. They could go either way. To be sure, no superdelegate is obligated to support the candidate with the most elected delegates (whether we are talking national total, state total or CD total). But I would argue that unless it can be CLEARLY demonstrated that Hillary Clinton would have a significant better chance of defeating John McCain then Barack Obama it would not be an act of good faith to negate the majority vote of Democratic primary voters just because Clinton may have a bit more pull in the Democratic party establishment. I would also argue with the passion Barack Obama has engendered both in the African American community, a usually stable Democratic Party voting bloc and the enthusiasm he has garnered with so many NEW young voters, it would be political suicide for the party to say "We don't care. We owe the Clintons political chits and we are going to pay them". No, show me polls where Hillary is polling 5%+ better in a large number of key states against John McCain then Obama and show me that is a consistent pattern over a number of weeks, and I would be less upset if superdelegates decide to give her the nomination. Short of that, it would be equivalent to a smoke-filled back room deal and we can all plan to watch the inauguration of John McCain on Jnauary 20, 2009. (And Hillary Clinton's retirement from the US Senate in 2013, after it is apparent she cannot be elected as dog catcher for destroying the Democratic Party's one sure chance in 2008).

Reply
Report this post

Hi Susan Your last sentence says it all. I have the same internal conflicts as there are external conflicts. "Democratic or democratic!!" Big D or little d!!! In this year, the big question is "Electability?" "Who can beat the Republicans?"

Reply
Report this post

Ms. Estrich, I read your column regularly. One of the reasons I look forward to your columns is that I believe you tell the truth as you see it, i.e., you don't play loose with the facts simply to support a thesis. In you most recent column, however ("The Robot Rule"), you write that Hillary Clinton won both Massachusetts and NM "overwhelmingly." Hillary Clinton did not win NM overwhelmingly--it was very close. She received only one more delegate than did Obama. I think you are aware of this and that you purposely overstated the facts. In my view, this renders you no more valid than any other columnist who bends the truth for the sake of expediency--it's unprofessional and sloppy.

Reply
Report this post

Susan, please retract your statement from this article. You state: "Last weekend, with his endorsement of Barack Obama, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson argued that superdelegates should not deny the will of the people. But he's denying the will of the people of his home state of New Mexico, as Ted Kennedy is the will of the people of Massachusetts, even though Richardson will be a New Mexico delegate at the convention and Kennedy will be a Massachusetts delegate. In both cases, the elected official will be voting for Obama, while their states overwhelmingly supported Clinton." In fact, Clinton won New Mexico by 1% of the vote; less than 2000 votes. She wasn't declared the winner of New Mexico for days with the vote being so close. You state that New Mexico "overwhelmingly supported Clinton." Will somebody else please put pressure on Susan to retract this statement. This is exactly the kind of statement expected from the Paul Begalas, James Carvilles, and Lanny Davis' of the world and it should be unacceptable in Susan's role as a Fox Political Analyst. Classic move for one of the Clinton mouthpieces.