Sen. Barack Obama won a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. Yet Hillary Clinton still remains very close in delegates. The winner of the Democratic Nomination is still undecided, unlike the Republican side, whose leading candidate has three times more delegates than the nearest rival and is only a few states away from winning the nomination. A scenario could play out where Sen. Obama wins more states, receives more total votes, and wins more delegates than Sen. Clinton, but still loses the nomination because the Super Delegates are the margin of difference in her favor.

Questions for debate:

1.) Do you believe the established Democrats who are Super Delegates will cast their votes for Obama or Clinton? Explain.

2.) Will you vote for Sen. Clinton if the Super Delegates are the reason she wins the nomination? Explain why.

3.) After enduring eight years of Bush's "I'll do what I want" presidency and then having your elected candidate ousted by Democratic party Fat Cats, what will be your opinion of our so-called representative democracy?

1.) Do you believe the established Democrats who are Super Delegates will cast their votes for Obama or Clinton? Explain.

I have no idea. You seem to think that they'll cast their votes for Clinton.

2.) Will you vote for Sen. Clinton if the Super Delegates are the reason she wins the nomination? Explain why.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it is Obama or Clinton. "Super Delegates" are less of a concern to me than a continuation of any of the more outrageous policies of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, et al. by any GOP presidential wannabe. Their blatant disregard of Constitutional law is disgraceful, and the Congress should compel them to answer for it.

3.) After enduring eight years of Bush's "I'll do what I want" presidency and then having your elected candidate ousted by Democratic party Fat Cats, what will be your opinion of our so-called representative democracy?

I don't like it, but it's what we've got for now. I was especially angered when the Democratic Party decided to ignore Michigan and Florida when it came to getting delegates. Since I was effectively disenfranchised in the Michigan primary, they can darn well look for money elsewhere to support the candidates this time around.

But I would still prefer the Democratic "fat cat" nominee over a GOP candidate who says "How about a hundred years?" regarding how long our troops need to stay in Iraq, or one who says "Get rid of Guantanamo? No--Let's have more Guantanamos," or one who says "Let's get rid of the IRS (as tempting as that might sound)" without being clear on an alternative solution.

I still think we need to dispense with the Electoral College, by the way.

1.) Establishment figures may be more inclined to vote for Clinton while progressives would feel a pull toward the Obama camp. Since they aren't really pledged to anyone, I imagine there could be a pretty even split.

2.) I would not support her because party talking-heads tell me to, no.

3.) Same as its always been: Better than Iraq.

I dislike removal from the democratic process, but it's becoming more and more a reality because people have sat back and let it happen. The best thing for this election would be the for Superdelegates to actually take the temperature of the nation and decide that way, not by listening to their finances.

1.) Do you believe the established Democrats who are Super Delegates will cast their votes for Obama or Clinton? Explain.
I don't know.

2.) Will you vote for Sen. Clinton if the Super Delegates are the reason she wins the nomination? Explain why.

I will vote for her if she's the nomination, but only as the lesser of two weevils. I'm looking forward, however, to voting for someone who did not authorize the use of force in Iraq.

3.) After enduring eight years of Bush's "I'll do what I want" presidency and then having your elected candidate ousted by Democratic party Fat Cats, what will be your opinion of our so-called representative democracy?

I think the Super Delegate set up is ridiculous, but I'm not a member of a party, so there's not much I can do about it except tell the members of the party how ridiculous I think it is. It hijacks the primaries and gives the ultimate decision to party officials. For the Democrats, super delegates make up almost 20% of the votes at the convention.

For those interested, here is a list of the Democratic super delegates and who they've aligned themselves with:

Democratic Super Delegate Endorsement List.

I don't like the idea that these people can align themselves with a candidate before the primaries in their states. It's a club. But, hey... not my party.

And here's a list of - as yet - unaligned super delegates:

Democratic Super Delegates - unaligned.

I imagine that Hillary will complain about Michigan and Florida. My hope is that they do not allow those delegates.

1.) Do you believe the established Democrats who are Super Delegates will cast their votes for Obama or Clinton? Explain.
Though they aren't officially pledged, Clinton appears to have about a 2-1 advantage with superdelegates (assumed) thus far. I hope that it doesn't play out that way, but I fear it will since she's the status quo of the party and current party folk are more inclined to go for her as a result. Hopefully Obama will win enough of the remaining delegates from the primaries/caucuses that remain so that the superdelegates won't be an issue.

2.) Will you vote for Sen. Clinton if the Super Delegates are the reason she wins the nomination? Explain why.
I have decided that I will vote for her because I fear a Republican president in charge of nominating Supreme Court justices, but that is the ONLY reason I will be "supporting" her if she does indeed win.

3.) After enduring eight years of Bush's "I'll do what I want" presidency and then having your elected candidate ousted by Democratic party Fat Cats, what will be your opinion of our so-called representative democracy?
I really detest the idea of superdelegates...the idea that current political figures are in the position to potentially decide our presidential candidate is ridiculous and is a slap in the face of democracy and the voting process. There needs to be something done to remedy the disenfranchisement in FL and MI, but I have no clue what that remedy is. Awarding Clinton those delegates is supremely unfair to the candidates who played by the rules they all agreed upon, but having two entire states' votes treated as meaningless is equally unfair. People should be very angry with both the DNC for the decision and at their state for going ahead with the changed primary date knowing full well the consequences of such a decision.

Another thing that I don't like about this is the way the media is handling it. CNN reports that the Clinton/Obama delegate situation is 823/741 in Clinton's. MSNBC has it as 834/838 in Obama's favor. Each news organization is using their own way of calculating the results. It's equally ridiculous.




At this point, I don't think there should be a remedy unless they hold another primary in which all available candidates can run.

The problem with no remedy is that the nomination will be tainted no matter what the outcome and the DNC looks like a bunch of jerks (not that they don't already) which cannot be a good thing for the party going into a national election. Another primary would be nice but probably not feasible (would it even be allowed?). It's just a terrible situation all around, one that the voters themselves shouldn't have to 'pay' for, IMO.

1.) Do you believe the established Democrats who are Super Delegates will cast their votes for Obama or Clinton? Explain.

You know, I have actually been surprised by Obama's ability to win over the democratic establishment. Has there ever been a race this century when one party's establishment was so split for endorsements? Jesse Jackson endorsed Hillary, his son, Barack. Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack, RFK's kids, Hillary. The New York Times, Clinton, The Los Angeles Times, Obama. Just about the only major family in democratic politics that isn't split on this race is... the Clintons.

So while I don't diminish the ability of Bill and Hill and newcomer Chelsea to rally up the rank and file, I'm not so sure Barack can't compete pretty square with them. Yes, a lot of democrats owe Bill favors, but what's more... a lot of democrats are as tired of the Clintons as they are of Barack. Who knows? What a stalemate!

Personally, I think this race is going to be settled somewhere in between Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania which bodes poorly for Obama. Ohio is Clinton country, I can feel it (Nighttimer, other Ohioans, agree? disagree?) Pennsylvania will pit Philly against its suburbs, and give western PA an unusually decisive role in the democratic nomination process.

But who knows? Barack has virtually tied Hillary in every way -- tied for delegates, tied for popular vote, they split the early states, and he tied, no scratch that, he is now pulling ahead in fundraising. I think a lot of democrats, if they see a fire behind Barack and a chance to win the general, I think they'll jump on board. Likewise, if Hillary manages to pat Obama down some and come into the convention as a front-runner, I think they'll line up for her. But if they go in as tied then as they are now, well.... i dunno! Who can say?

Maybe Jimmy Carter will call his daughter Amy and ask her who to endorse.

2.) Will you vote for Sen. Clinton if the Super Delegates are the reason she wins the nomination? Explain why.

I agree with Paladin on this one. If I don't vote for Hillary -- a prospect I have ever so slightly entertained -- it will not be because of this arcane nominating processes. The shredding of the constitution these past 8 years just pales in comparison to the injustice of having elected officials settle a virtual tie.

3.) After enduring eight years of Bush's "I'll do what I want" presidency and then having your elected candidate ousted by Democratic party Fat Cats, what will be your opinion of our so-called representative democracy?

I think there is something in the water, nay, the media, that is encouraging close elections, at least as far as high-profile elections are concerned. Seriously, cable news hit the airwaves during the gulf war, months before Clinton v. Bush kicked off.

And every election from there on out, minus the possible exception of Dole V. Clinton, has been shockingly close. And I'm not just talking about presidential races. Senatorial races, congressional races, primaries... it seems like high-profile races have become close by default, and here's why, perhaps:

The media loves an underdog, and lives for an upset. A scandal about a presidential front-runner is sooo much more tantalizing than a kick-em-while-their-down scandal about a struggling insurgent. What, Bush is ahead? Oh, did you know he has 3 DUI's? Oh, Kerry's ahead? Did you know he didn't earn those medals in Vietnam? Oh -- wait. Clintons ahead? Did you know she waffled on driver's licenses for immigrants? Oh wait, now Obama's ahead... well, he said Reagan had good ideas, and his church's minister has congenial relations with Louis Farrakhan. See what I'm saying? It's a drama that's draws more attention and is more exciting when it's close. I think some of the blame for these precariously tied elections sits on the shoulders of editors and producers thinking about how to frame the narrative of an election.

Think of it like sports. If the Giants were thumping the Patriots 34-0, a lot of viewers would start moseying towards the chip table, towards the bar, maybe even towards their cars, and onto home. You can bet that if the producers who televise a super bowl could subtly slip the losing team a couple of touchdowns and bring them within a single field goal of a victory, they'd do just that.

Was there a public outcry in those states about moving the primary? When they found out the consequences did the voters in those states protest the decision to move the primary?

In answer to that question, I know a bunch of people in Florida organized a petition to prevent the Democratic Party of Florida from moving the primary in our state ahead of Super Tuesday because they were wary of the consequences, and rightly so. There was some measurable opposition, but what good is the rabble from commoners in face of the wisdom of the political honchos?