Is this a smart choice for Governor Dean?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...a-decision-now/

Questions for debate:

Which of the below statements do you agree with?

I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.

We must select a probable nominee now in order to heal our wounds and compete with the Senator campaign.

I would insist we wait until a specific date (explain).

Should Howard Dean be the person to decide when to end the race?

He is being smart and realistic- this is hurting the dem party, any moron can see that. And politicians certainly fill the bill with "any moron"

Trust Cray Howie to try to ruin a perfectly good food fight. I think it should continue, and not just because it's fun to watch (filling up the coleslaw bowl), but because it is informative to the American people about who the Democrats are placing into consideration for President. On one hand Howie tells us what good candidates they have in Obama and Clinton, and on the other he doesn't want the negatives of each exposed to the American people. Why should this be? They're getting free media coverage on a constant basis. What's Howie afraid of? The truth maybe? So I say let the food fight continue! Let it continue all the way to the convention. If nothing else, it makes for good TV.


Aquilla

Let Howard Dean stew in his own juices over it. I don't care what Howard Dean thinks. After all, he doesn't give a rat's derriere about what primary voters in Michigan and Florida want for a Democratic nominee. It wasn't my fault or the fault of hundreds of thousands* of voters in these states what the states did to tick off the DNC.

I don't like the negativity, or the food fight as Aquilla characterizes it, but if both candidates want to keep running, so be it. It's the process. And I think you meant "Crazy" Howie in your post, Aquilla.

If Howie and the Democratic powers that be don't like it, they need to work to change the process. In the meantime, it doesn't hurt a bit to let them chafe over the results of the rules they chose to institute. That's what this "bitter" Midwesterner thinks.

Should Howard Dean be the person to decide when to end the race?

In a word, no.

-------------
*EDIT: More likely tens of thousands of voters. Sorry for the hyperbole.

Questions for debate:

Which of the below statements do you agree with?

I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.
Pragmatically I agree with Dean. Let's settle this thing and use our democratic resources to take on McCain. But I can see the perspective of the Hillary camp. With Wright and all maybe something will break that will turn things. Who knows, maybe we'll discover Obama is having an affair or maybe a picture of him will show up giving a black power fist solute at a Black Panther rally. Bill's argument is "who quits when you're one percent behind?", a bit of an exaggeration but I get his point. Of course there is the assistance of the Limbaugh crowd and their operation chaos to keep things close.

We must select a probable nominee now in order to heal our wounds and compete with the Senator campaign.
I'll assume the question is "We must select a probable nominee now in order to heal our wounds and compete with Senator McCain." Campaign - McCain? That's the sort of oral transfer that I also am prone to making.

To the point, it is better the nominee contest be resolved early than late. It is a matter of resources and focusing on McCain and his myriad of inadequacies. Between age and "stay the course" in Iraq and flip flops and his notorious temper and the disillusionment of the core Republican base of head-in-the-sand odd fellows he should be an easy knock off. He should be but he won't. As Mencken said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." We've had two presidential election cycles to see that.

Also it is important to the congressional races to get a party united behind a clear leader with a solid platform. Although I am not a member of the Dubya fan club, I think he has done a service by putting race further behind us in elections due to the prominence Rice and Powell have played in his administration.

Well, Zack, it's difficult to answer your first question because of the false implications in it. Dean did not say that the nominee must be chosen before the primaries are over... he stated that at the end of the primaries, he wanted there to be a clear nominee. June 3 is the last primary.

I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.

If Dean wanted an early resolution, he should have lobbied for an earlier convention. As head of the DNC, he could probably have prevailed. He didn't even try.

So far as I know, PLEO delegates don't have to commit their votes at all until the balloting at the convention itself. Presumably, the Democratic Party instituted its rules for a reason. If Dean doesn't like the way the primary has been going (though the population at large doesn't seem to mind a bit), well, it's his Party and he can cry if he wants to. But he can't change the rules in the middle of an election cycle.

Should Howard Dean be the person to decide when to end the race?

Not according to the rules of the DNC.

Unpledged PLEO delegates don't have to commit their votes until the convention. Pledged PLEO delegates commit their votes prior to the primaries - that committment is reflected on the ballot for the voter to see.

Wertz, you're arguing past instituted procedures which were arguably flawed. Dean is arguing present delegate behavior, which is conceded to be optional, for the good of the party. It's kind of apples and oranges.

There's a lot of fuss in the posts above about how Howard Dean can't now put an end to a game whose rules have been long prepared.

But isn't the role of the the superdelegates to moderate a close primary?

They were created as a kind of continengency planning to make sure that who ever the primary voters nominated would be viable in the fall.

So, if the superdelegates see that a protracted battle is bad for the party, then I think is close to fair, if not totally fair for them to ring the bell. It would be unfortunate for the voters in West VA, NC, etc, but hey, when have those states ever had a chance to sway a primary anyway? What's fair about Hillary's hopes being pinned down entirely on the outcome of a single state, Pennsylvania? In a primary, states are bound to have disproportionate influence.

So I dont think Howard Dean can enforce an end to the contest, but I certainly think he can and should start going office to office giving people the party line. And I think a lot of democrats are looking for him to start doing that right now. That's what the superdelegates are there for -- to moderate a close fight for the good of the party -- and Howard Dean is effectively, their go-to protocol guru for the democratic nomination process.

Yes. I stand corrected. Feel free to insert the word "unpledged" into my previous post. My point still stands - it's still the same 719 delegates in question. And they are under no commitment to express any opinion until the convention.



If past procedures were flawed, they should have been sorted out prior to the election cycle. They weren't. So I'm arguing CURRENT instituted procedures - you're arguing hypothetical, non-existent, make-it-up-as-you-go-along procedures. The unpledged PLEO delegates have the option to declare their preference at any time. They also have the option to wait until the convention. And they have the option of changing their vote between now and the convention. The problem is with changing that "optional" of yours into "mandatory by such and such a date". You may not like them apples, but it's you who are bringing oranges to the debate.

For what it's worth, I'd feel the same if it were Clinton leading by a percentage point or two - or if the race were between Biden and Gravel.



Yes - at the convention.


Exactly. And that is specifically why they are not obliged to cast their vote until the convention - as close to "the fall" as possible - in order to address any issues that might arise late in the campaign. That's the whole point of having a contingency plan. If they vote now, it's just a plan. And, given the current rules, a seriously flawed plan, at that.


The voters tend to disagree. According to an ABC News/Washington Post Poll from last week, 55% of Democrats feel Sen. Clinton should stay in the race even if she loses in Pennsylvania. Besides, we may not know who has won the almighty "popular vote" until after the Puerto Rican primary in June. Regarding the "popular vote" argument, though, when asked in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (also last week), how "superdelegates" should vote, 19% said their vote should be based on the overall "popular vote" and 27% said it should be based on the "popular vote" in their state, but 49% said it should be based on "their view of who would be the best candidate". Personally, were I an unpledged PLEO delegate, I don't don't know if I could make that determination even by August. But the rules are the rules and I'd have to cast a vote one way or another at the convention.


He can do whatever he likes, but you're right: he can't enforce an end to the contest - at least not within his party's rules. And those rules are what he's supposed to be enforcing. If he does enforce an end to the contest, he'll be acting contrary to the wishes of a majority of Democrats. How can that be good?


Do you have a source on that? According to every poll I've heard quoted on the tee-vee (without exception), a majority - a large majority - of Democrats want to wait until the convention. For example, according to a Rasmussen poll from the end of March, 22% of Democrats felt that Clinton should drop out of the race. Interestingly, 22% of Democrats felt that Obama should drop out of the race. But 62% of registered Democrats don't want either candidate to drop out. As many Democrats seem happy to have the GOP determine their candidate, though, it is interesting to note that 41% of Republicans want Sen. Clinton to drop out. May one assume you're on their side? I'm with the 6% of Democrats who feel both Obama and Clinton should drop out.

And, if Dean should be enforcing the will of Democrats, a majority of them feel that Clinton and Obama should share the ticket - 69% of them according to a Newsweek Poll last month. Should he be enforcing that? In this case, I don't think a double negative equals a positive - but I wouldn't base my decisions solely on "what a lot of democrats are looking for" in any event (especially when there's no evidence to support what some people claim they're looking for).

I would insist we wait until a specific date (explain). I honestly think all delegates should be able to change their minds up to the vote in the convention. Delegates should be open to new developments learned late in the campaign that could sway the position of early voters. In other words, a state delegate may have been chosen by voters for either Clinton or Obama and vote opposite based on feedback from the people in their district. Either candidate could have information revealed that makes them unelectable in the general election and therefore delegates should have flexibility.

Because the Super Duper Delegates are mostly political office holders I feel they place themselves in a vulnerable position by voting early. For example, those delegates that formerly were firmly supporting Senator Clinton and moved into Senator Obama's camp are very vulnerable should Senator Clinton end up the nominee. The pay back factor for retribution against a political player could cause a politician an end of career moment should suddenly a candidate suffer a heart attack or other misfortune. This early selection could cause a dysfunctional four years of infighting even if the remaining candidate goes on to be president.

Choosing early will anger more supporters of the loser than if allowed to go to the convention. The Democratic Party has ample funding to sway national opinion following the convention in comparison to a reversal where the Democratic nominee were in position McCain is in, either way if the party maintains a cool head they win. There actually is no benefit for ending the race early since both Obama and Clinton have large support groups that can out fund anything that McCain or his supporters could do to counter. Every piece of negative addressed in the race is one less that can be effectively used following the convention.

Which of the below statements do you agree with?
I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.
We must select a probable nominee now in order to heal our wounds and compete with the Senator campaign.
I would insist we wait until a specific date (explain).

I go with the first statement, that I don't agree with Dean. This is one of the reasons that I align myself with Democrats. We often disagree on stuff. We are even known to go face-to-face with our so-called superiors and spout off. Hey, I ended up in a Dale Carnegie class to control my outrage because of this. Kinda proud of that little piece of personal history. When it came time to give compliments to people we normally loath, all I could come up with for a guy from Focus on the Family was, "Nice tie." Then we had a pleasant chat, which caused me to take a long hot shower after class. A few weeks of insufferable politeness followed, then I got back to normal with a twist.

I learned that the only fight that you can win is the one you don't start. Yep, but at times I don't care who wins. Sometimes the yah-yahs have to get out.

Should Howard Dean be the person to decide when to end the race?

Nope. If we blow this because we disagree on stuff, so be it. Then we get McCain and should pay attention to who is the VP. But I don't believe we will blow it this time around.

Yet McCain is darn near a Democrat. This has become one very interesting election season. Nobody's pretending to be a neocon, yet Condi Rice might get the VP slot for the Republicans. Pay attention to that.

Meanwhile Clinton and Obama go at it in what might be called a democratic process. That's okay by me, never been afraid of scrapping. Just fight fair if you can. But if it turns out to be a street fight, then take the hangover, kiss and makeup, enjoy some of the greatest sex ever experienced on earth, and move on.

Being human has some bright sides to it.

We must select a probable nominee now in order to heal our wounds and compete with the Senator campaign.
The sooner the better. Let's not confuse this with what Wertz is saying. The actual vote comes at the convention, but that does not mean Super Delegates letting their pledge to a candidate be known publicly is making that vote.

There needs to be a "presumed" nominee to allow he party time to heal.

If Obama gets 200 superdelegates tomorrow, Clinton can still run for office, can still campaign, can still people to vote for her.

The super delegate are an X factor. Dean is trying to change that X factor to a known factor, or at least a "pledged" factor. Even IF that 'pledged" factor can change their mind at the convention when they vote.

I think someone mentioned a game, BOF I believe, where you had to say something nice about someone- and I have a thing to say about each party, that I believe is "nice"- or rather, a good, strong, ethical and healthy strength.

The republican party can change faster than the democrats can. In a very short amount of time, they can adapt, as a party, to change needed in the US- though, not in recent history.

The Democrats can allow conflict and in fighting and still remain strong- even when that fighting is very, very public.

I wish BOTH parties would get a little more of the other's characteristics, perhaps not exchanging ideology or anything- but allow those healthy traits into the party.

I see the republicans breaking ranks, finally, instead of immorally and unethically backing GW without reservation. Perhaps this is thier time to shine because of this? I don't know.

Come June, we will see if the Democrats have the same old strength in dissension in the ranks.

I do believe that Hillary does have the power to kill the chances of a democrat in the white house, and I think she is very selfish in this endevour.

I do very much worry about the "bradley effect".

But the argument is not that we have a "presumed" nominee, but that we have a clear nominee... meaning that the others drop out. If this "healing" is to occur it would mean that there is only one nominee and the party is shifting its focus to the general election.

Clinton is not going to win based on the pledged delegates or the popular vote. The only way she can win is via the superdelegates.

Meanwhile, despite the best efforts of Crazy Howie, the food fight continues. While I go off and re-stock the condiment table, y'all can peruse this article.......



Barack just figuring that out?

Not to be outdone, from Hillary.....



Ya think?

I do have to hand it to the Democrats, when they throw a food fight, they get down and dirty. This is great entertainment. I'm even thinking of inviting John McCain over to the GOP Restaurant for a nice quiet dinner where we can watch the Dems go at it in the cafe next door via Closed Circuit TV. Should be great fun and a nice respite I think. I wonder if he'd let me borrow his bus to take my dogs back east..... Heck, he doesn't need it and he'll be flying around on Air Force One soon enough......

In the immortal words of John "Hannibal" Smith....
I love it when a plan comes together


Ok, folks, soup's on! (Literally)

Edited to add a little friendly advice to my dear friends on the left...

Obviously Crazy Howie has lost control of the situation, kinda like he did back in Iowa in 2004. So, the next time y'all have a chance of selecting a chairman of the DNC what I'd suggest you do is find someone with experience at herding cats. I'd nominate my Pug, Abigail Adams, she's pretty good at that sort of thing, but alas... she's a Republican.

Aquilla

blah, blah, blah. "not participating" again, are we? Perhaps this should be moved to the democratic party thread so that folks like you can't "not participate." I realize that this would mean I wouldn't be able to post either, but, trust me... it'd be worth it.

Sheesh! First you folks don't want to allow the votes in the Michigan and Florida primaries to count, then you get ticked off over republicans crossing over in open primaries and now you want to exclude little ole me from commenting on your your food fight! Man, just how elitist has the left become? )and Hey! put down that tomato, I've got a kumquat here and I'm not afraid to use it!) As a matter of fact, I'm clinging to it out of a sense of bitterness.... I think it was picked too early.

Next up on the salad bar, "CLING PEACHES!!!"


Hannibal was right, I do love it when a plan comes together.

Aquilla

Hmmm, you still seem to be conflating a rule with a strong suggestion. I haven't in the past seen you so loosey goosey with words. You are giving the word "procedure" two different meanings in one paragraph which is fine but not as natural comparatives. One doesn't oppose the other. The rule is there but Dean would like to see the delegates commit early nevertheless, just like many of the major democrats would like Hillary to concede. That is a person to person thing and has nothing to do with the rules. Again no comparison.

My apples and oranges comment stands.

Apples and oranges! And here some people don't think this is a food fight. Careful with those apples though, might poke someone's eye out with a stem.


Aquilla

Four years ago you joined the Swiftboat gang (or pimped their wares) no doubt feeling you were doing right by the country.

Thanks more dead soldiers.

After the election you took a hiatus. Now you're back. Except when it comes to this drawn-out Democratic nomination, it seems all you want to do is make "hee-hee" posts. Is this Super Aqulla's idea of saving the country again?

I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.
-NC chairwo/men should anticipate this problem and set the rules accordingly. An attempt to get the super delegates down before the convention sounds like a bait and switch to me.

Should Howard Dean be the person to decide when to end the race?
A person doesn't decide at this point. The rules do. If people don't like it, tough. Don't be so gung ho for democracy next time.

The rules are already set. Dean simply urgently wants to get the election resolved so the party will have a better shot in the general election. Seems like he is fulfilling his function of pushing party interests by calling for the delegates to voluntarily declare early.


Candidates and super delegates can resolve the issue before the convention. Nothing in the rules prevents this. The rules are simply procedural. Perhaps some posters haven't noticed that the republicans have resolved the issue and their convention hasn't happened, rules and all and democracy wasn't jettisoned.

I think that since congress can speak louder than Chairman Dean they should set the agenda of the Democratic Party. The House leadership has the total authority and rules to set the agenda and they recently proved that with the FISA legislation. Where will they stand on war funding and domestic legislation? It seems they could determine where the Democratic Party stands as a party, what the debate should be on the campaign trail and hold feet to the fire making their members hold the line along with pointing out Republicans that obstruct their agenda. There is fear in the Democratic Party Leadership to be firm in the majority they hold to set the agenda, fear that the majority of America just may not agree with where they will take it. I could be wrong but they seem to be naming post offices when they could be setting the agenda and showing how strong they can be?

No, but it sure seems to tick off certain liberals. Always a bonus.

The Democrats have created this mess for themselves and Crazy Howie is a big part of that. If the Democrats can't even run their own party, just how in the hell can the American people expect them to run the country? Seems like a fair question to me.

Oh, and Lesly, I wouldn't mess with those grapes. I heard they're sour.


Aquilla

Forget the vegetables the fruits will be center stage.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/...-pibags-at.html

Party interests according to who? We're sadly used to 12+ months of campaigning since Bush ran for office. There are pros and cons to kicking it off in July.


Nothing in the rules requires it, either. Dean's needs mean little in this regard.


I've noticed, but then the RNC's primaries are winner take all. The DNC's primaries are supposed to be a more representative/democratic process. If the system is annoying party leaders, Dean among them, they should ditch it for 2012.


That's the only reason you're posting in this thread.


I wasn't aware there's a crisis going on.


If you're going to quote Bush apologists and warmongering bloggers, use your head. Gateway quotes Slapstick quotes 9/11 truthers.

The RNC owes guys like you a debt of gratitude, Zack.

Thanks for the links, though. What a coincidence that someone on the DNC Hosting Committee won the lottery to the Civic Center. No need to screen protest permits now.

It's just as suprising that police are making plans for enhanced "lock-downs", caging protesters, and the city refuses to tell protesters where they can go to avoid being arrested/detained in the name of security. I'll be surprised if there isn't violence.

Lesley- please don't feed the troll

Sorry if this is a bit OT but why is he called Crazy Howie?

Here's why


Not a whole lot to add to that.


Aquilla

There may, of course, be more to this than Aquilla’s self-serving, right-wing spin.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/...ain596021.shtml

Seems there is quite "a lot to add" to Aquilla's video.

Thats pretty weak Aquilla, your saying he's 'crazy' because he cried 'yeah'. Does that mean your disregard for Hillary Clinton is also due to the tone of her voice? or that you disaprove of Barack Obama because he didn't wear a little flag on his jacket?

In the other thread your ready to defend John McCain and his excedingly bizarre temper tantrums. What makes him so sane if Howard Dean is crazy?

Therein lies the hypocrisy and silliness and nastiness of the republican party-

1) John Kerry was a gigilo for marrying a rich woman- no such mention of that about McCain? - both refused to release thier respective wive's income tax statements

2) Both served in Vietnam- but John Kerry was 'swift boated"- the literal equivilent of spitting on soldiers- though actually worse.

3) John McCain has REALLY crazy temper tantrums- but Dean yells at a rally- it is "crazy".

4) if you spend trillions on another countries citizens- it is good for the country- if you spend it on your own country- it is "communism"

Welcome to the American right wing Moif.

I'm not sure where I'm meant to be causing confusion, but if it's in relation to unpledged PLEO delegates and the convention, I already addressed that: "The unpledged PLEO delegates have the option to declare their preference at any time. They also have the option to wait until the convention. And they have the option of changing their vote between now and the convention."

But, as entspeak pointed out, Dean is not looking for "a 'presumed' nominee", he's saying we need to know who the nominee is - now. He doesn't want to know which way delegates are leaning, he wants them to commit - yesterday, if possible - to how they might be feeling in four months time. He isn't allowing for the ability to "change their mind at the convention when they vote" - he wants a declared nominee. And that is, de facto, a change in the rules.



That's why I added adjectives like "instituted" and "hypothetical", but I can see where I might have chosen my words better.


I think he phrased it a bit stronger than "would like to see": "I need them to say who they're for starting now." And he needs that commitment to declare a nominee - now. That would - "unofficially", perhaps - circumvent the party's rules.


If it's so person to person, why isn't he going door to door? He went on CNN to broadcast his opinion publicly as national party chair. If "we cannot give up two or three months of active campaigning and healing time" and if "we've got to know who our nominee is" and we are denied that campaign, that "healing time", and that knowledge, it is the fault of those who will not "say who they're for" immediately. Coercion, especially in such a public forum, is a bit more than a "strong suggestion".

As I said, Howard Dean can do whatever he wants. But if, as he claims, he does not want "to tell either [candidate] when to end their run", then it might've sounded better if he'd made some sort of case for this essential "healing time" and explained why what he feels is in the best interests of the party contradicts the views of a majority of Democrats before encouraging delegates to make their preference known as soon as possible..

If all of the remaining undeclared delegates decide to make some sort of commitment voluntarily, fine - but I trust none of them will abrogate the privilege of changing their actual vote between now and the convention. I guess we'll see what happens if any of the undeclared delegate's refuse to "say who they're for" in the next few days.


I'll grant you comparing Red Delicious and Granny Smith - no need to make Aquilla's salad too diverse. As Lesly pointed out, though, comparing the Republican primary - which is winner-take-all and from which the last of McCain's opponents (Mike Huckabee) withdrew six weeks ago - to the Democratic primary is bringing a bit of citrus into the debate.


As Aquilla helpfully pointed out, it started (and pretty much ended) when a hoarse Dean was shouting over the increasingly loud cheers of a crowd of supporters in Iowa who weren't picked up on his unidirectional mike - which pretty much ended his 2004 campaign. So you see how little it takes to derail the candidacy of web-based, grass-roots candidates of "change" - and America's Debate threads.

Wertz


How can you say that, then contradict yourself later in the same post, when you say.


If he is not the offical nominee then he is the the presumed nominee. Since Super Delegates can change their vote at the convention, he would only be a presumed nominee.

Now all this hype and fluff about Dean's words is just that, hype and fluff. Dean CAN'T make Obama or Hillary the nominee. He can't make them commit. He can't make them honor their commitment if they do commit. So there is no need to pretend that he should wait to the convention to do something he can't do.

Dean is telling superdelegates to decide now so that the party can rally around presumed candidate.



He's not telling them to end their run. They continue their race until they reach the magic number to be a presumed nominee. Dean only wants to eliminate the X-Factor, which are the super delegates commitment, since they are going to be necessary.

If half of the super delegates remaining broke for Obama tomorrow then it wouldn't make a difference, because he still would not have enough to be the nominee.

Dean wants to know who the nominee is going to be, because he can't know who the nominee is till after the convention.

Pardon me, but I don't see where Aquilla pointed out anything. He merely provided a Youtube video without much explanation. What he did provide was geared to reinforce the right-wing slant on Dean's speech.

droop: What's the point of having a "presumed" nominee, if they aren't to be your "official" nominee? To me, it would look far worse for the party if they spend the next few months campaigning for a "presumed" nominee, then suddenly went with a different "official" nominee in August (which there would be no intention of doing). To "presume" a nominee at this stage is to virtually lock them in. That's why I put "unofficially" in quotes and added the "perhaps" - and why I previously stated that it was a "de facto" change in the rules. You can't really parse "We've got to know who our nominee is" coming from the party chair, whether they're "presumed" or not.



I was being ironic about how "helpful" Aquilla's link was - and provided my own "explanation" to counter the slant. Geez.

Howie is a nutcase, but I will say he can put on one hell of a good food fight! I think his days as chairman of the DNC are numbered, but he could always move on to host one of those reality television shows. Maybe that's what the democrats should have done in the first place. Instead of primaries and caucuses they could have done a "Democrat Idol" show and voted someone off each week. Heck, I'd have been happy to be a judge! (as long as they paid me... in cash and up front)


::: ducking as the matzah flies overhead:::::

Whoa! You Democrats give a whole new meaning to a "Passover dinner"....


Aquilla

QUOTE

The point is exactly as Dean said... to give the party time to come to grips with who the nominee is and stand behind that person. The point is you are... once again... spinning. Clinton had a number of Super delegates bolster her numbers so that she had an apparent lead over Obama early in the race.

He is urging the rest of the super delegates to get off their tails and stand behind someone. He is adsking the laggers to do something that MOST of the super Delagate have already done. So he is not trying to stop the race, or call the race.

Depending on how the super delegates break this race could still go to the very last primary/caucus. So for you to say "That's why I put "unofficially" in quotes and added the "perhaps" - and why I previously stated that it was a "de facto" change in the rules." is simply incorrect.

How can Dean be changing the rules, even in a de facto manner by asking the super delegates to do something they were already doing, per the rules, prior to him asking. It doesn't make sense, it's just you spinning.

I see, so the aim is to spam these threads with inflammatory "food fight" nonsense?

The aim is to end the battle between the candidates, meaning that one of them drops out if the superdelegates rally around the other candidate. If it is determined that, with the superdelegates weighing in, there is a presumptive winner, there will be a push for the other candidate to step out of the race. There is nothing in the rules that states that the DNC leadership can't suggest a losing candidate step out. So, it isn't an "official" change of the rules, but... in this, Wertz is right to suggest that it would end the process early, which, in essence, changes the date the nominee is decided - but this is not a change in the rules. If a candidate steps out of the race, a candidate steps out of the race. This has already happened in the Republican race, though certainly not as publicly as it will no doubt be on the Democratic side. I'm willing to bet that someone went to Huckabee and said (or Huckabee realized this for himself)... "look, you aren't going to win, so just step out and let McCain focus on a national campaign."

This will happen in the Democratic race as well. The closeness of the race, however, makes it difficult for people to see the writing on the wall. In my opinion, if Obama is asked to step out, he will; if Clinton is asked to step out, she won't. It's a game she certainly can play, regardless of whether or not I like it. It's a risky game, though, because she may lose superdelegates as a result - it's one thing to be a fighter, it's another to be fighting your own party.

The closest statement to my own sentiment (regardless of Party affiliation) is:

I don't agree with Dean, we must not choose before the primaries are over.

The only way this could end "Early" would be for the superdelegates to rally to one candidate or the other. To date, Hillary Clinton has more superdelegates than Barack Obama. He has 1415 pledged delegates and 1648 total delegates and needs 2025 total delegates to win. There are 795 super delegates and 566 pledge delegates still to be "won". Even if Obama got every single elected delegate remaining, he cannot close it out, meaning he needs super delegates. He has 233 super delegates currently, but needs at least 50 more if he wins all remaining contests by 60/40% margins. In other words, he can't win it outright. The same scenario faces Hillary, although her fight is much more uphill.

The bottom line is: neither can clinch it outright without superdelegates.

The super delegates are trying to decide who is more electable. Many have already decided on one candidate or the other, usually based on how their state or district voted, although some are deciding on other factors.

The superdelegates are doing their job by vetting the candidates. If a candidate cannot make it through the kids' gloves exchanges in the primaries, how can they weather the storm of the general election?

This is what Dean is asking. Being that nobody will reach 2025 without Florida and Michigan, it may be that the party will look to who is most likely to win the nomination and apply pressure to the other to drop out before the convention.

Which begs the question: why have more superdelegates stayed with Hillary over Barack? I think the 300 or so superdelegates are waiting, like Wertz, for one candidate to distinguish themselves from the other. Hillary has high negatives, but is a known, well-defined candidate. Barack is much less known and who knows what else is hiding in that closet of his...

This is a characterization I agree with - and, I think it is really silly to think that the American public, outside we AD'ers, and other political junkies and hobbyists, follow this part of the election that closely.

As far as the superdelegates, I believe that, more than anything, they want a win, and it is very hard for anyone to look in thier crystal ball and figure out if the country will both elect a woman, and one with high negatives, or elect a black man, and wonder if there is a real life "bradley effect" in play here. You can't deny either one.

I think McCain is very, very vunerable to several different easy to target attacks, and when the dust settles and the winner becomes clear- the giant voter turnout for dems vs the lackluster turnout for the republicans will win the day.

that is my prediction anyway- you will get the glee of the trolls like Aquilla for a bit- but lets face it, conservatism in action, regardless of what people call themselves or the way they define it- has shown itself to be a failed ideology and political reality. And that is all Clinton or Obama need to handle the 'pub party.

I mean, oh man, could the republicans have screwed themselves over and made themselves to look like more of a south end of a north bound mule?

Take GW and show all the recent pics of McCain hugging GW, and then him praising then denouncing GW, - well, it is just too easy.

So while I do appreciate what Howard Dean has said, I don't think it is as much of a "killer" for the whitehouse as some trolls make it out to be.

However, I do have a "wait and see" after Pennsylvania and see how Clinton does- she will obviously need a blowout, which is not expected, and massive turnout, record turnout- just to catch up. So, if Obama wins Pennsylvania outright- I wonder how many superdelegates will plege out just to end it? If it is close- same question-if it is a blowout for Hillary- it is all up in the air again, anyone's guess.

And that's fine, so long as neither the delegates or any of the candidates are coerced. Okay, blackmail isn't against the rules, either, but how does that look - especially when a sizable majority of party members disagree? If seven out of ten Democrats don't want either candidate to drop out at least until after the primaries are finished in June, how is forcing a candidate to drop out going to contribute to party unity and "healing"? (By the way, can anyone tell me what exactly needs to be "healed" - apart from, maybe, Barack Obama's ego?)

I expect that a lot of the undeclared PLEO delegates have put off making their support known for very good reasons. They may want to see how things play out in the primaries or what the final "popular vote" count is; they may want to see what "distractions" are at play and gauge public reaction to them in terms of electability; they may want to hear more from the GOP's candidate to best assess who might take him on; they may want to see what the sentiment is in their home states to assess how their endorsement might affect their own chances of re-election; they may want to see if the tide turns decisively in favor of one candidate or another before throwing their weight one way or another - I could go on. As I said earlier, Dean is, in effect, demanding that these delegates predict now how they might be feeling in four months. To me, that contradicts the whole rationale behind having unpledged PLEO delegates in the first place.

I must also admit that I prefer candidates being chosen at a national convention - that's what the conventions are for. But the process now simply consumes too much time. When I was young and golden, of course, the "primary season" itself was considerably shorter, which allowed more viable candidates (and more "favorite sons") to make their positions known and have their voices heard - and to make it to the convention itself. Bobby Kennedy declared his candidacy on March 26 of the election year. He would have entered the race less than a month ago. When his brother won the nomination, his only serious challengers, apart from Hubert Humphrey, were Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson - and they both declared their candidacy a week before the convention.

A diversity of candidates throughout the process was expected and appreciated. It was stimulating and exciting to hear the speeches of the candidates on the convention floor and to hear from their supporters and detractors - and to watch the process unfolding as each state announced their vote on each ballot. The party came together at the convention to select their candidate from a field of viable contenders and to hammer out the party's platform in real time. There was an immediacy to the process that matched the immediacy of current events - and, by and large, it worked. So, yeah, I would love to see a "brokered convention" - it's why we have the damned things (which are, after all, called "presidential nominating conventions"). If Dean wants a nominee now, why even hold the convention?

I think part of his problem is that the whole thing has just gone on too long - and that he's afraid that campaign fatigue might set in. In the Democratic Party's American Idol style process, he's concerned about losing the audience share. If he wants to end the fight consistently, the DNC should organize a national phone-in: for Obama, dial 1 866 Idols 01 or Text VOTE to 5701; for Clinton, dial 1 866 Idols 02 or Text VOTE to 5702. Otherwise, he should stick to the rules and let the unpledged PLEO delegates make their decisions as they see fit - without pressure, without political blackmail, without coercion. He's free to make as many "suggestions" as he likes.

The fact that the primary process has become increasingly protracted over the last several election cycles is a large part of the problem. As Sen. Obama said in 2004, "If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now." He was apparently wrong about not being "one of those people" who would do such a thing "before having served a day in the Senate," but he was pretty accurate in setting what the timeline has become. With a primary process that lasts nearly as long as a president's term of office, the content of any candidate's campaign gets exhausted pretty quickly (if it's even discussed at all any more). Positions on issues tend to be fairly static and finite once a candidate has declared, so the form of the campaign starts taking precedence over the platform. The focus shifts to the individual and his or her "character" and "style" - and it stays there. Whose attitude do we like? Whose temperament? Whose associations are shadier? Who deflects smears better? Who has the flashier web site, the more campaign contributions, the higher profile endorsements? Who's the better speaker, the nattier dresser, the wealthier, the older, the more charismatic, the more manipulative? And on and on.

The veneer of the campaign becomes primary because it is so mutable: there are infinite possibilities when it comes to parsing every word the candidates utter and spotlighting the behavior and comments of the lowliest campaign workers in local field offices. Now I realize some questions of "character" and "style" can - and perhaps should - inform one's decision, but to have such formal concerns override the content of the candidates - their positions, their experience, their capability - demonstrates, I think, a severe and unhealthy imbalance.

I realize this may sound like some old-timer waxing nostalgic about a gilded age that never was, but I think the Reality TV approach to national politics is a serious mistake - will we have Jeff Probst snuffing Hillary's torch at the end of the season? Hell, the protracted process gave us eight years of George W. Bush, for God's sake. If the Democratic Party wants to change their rules in a meaningful way, they should forbid any candidate from declaring their candidacy more than nine months before the convention.


Really?

Seriously?

I mean... really??

First, it is supremely unlikely that Obama would be asked to step out. You can ask a woman to stand aside "for the greater good", but not a black man - not in the Democratic Party in 2008 - and not a candidate whose campaign has specialized in spinning the numbers to their advantage (in a race in which neither candidate has a decisive majority or enough delegates to win the nomination). Second, I've seen little to nothing in Obama's public persona that could be mistaken for humility or altruism. If nothing else, how could he turn his back on "the fierce urgency of now" that makes him the only candidate who can save the world? Surely that can't simply be... meaningless rhetoric? No - in my opinion - if Obama were to leave this race, it would be kicking and screaming all the way. I don't think either candidate would "step out" - nor should they.


It's also a game whose rules I'm having difficulty following. Let me get this straight: if Clinton stays in the race, she could lose "superdelegates" - so she should drop out. Presumably, then, if she drops out, she could keep or even gain "superdelegates" - not that they would do her any earthly good, since she'd have dropped out. I don't quite see the reasoning here. Or are you saying that Clinton should just drop out regardless? If so, you needn't be so convoluted about it.