As for the superdelegates, once again I say big deal. If Clinton and Obama remain as close as they are now, letting elected leaders and party insiders have a say does not seem to me to be the worst idea ever. These are the leaders of your party. Don’t you trust their judgment at all?

We’ve heard so often the charges of racism attached to Hillary’s statement that although Martin Luther King built the foundation for civil rights as we now know it, it took President Lyndon Johnson to cement the foundation to the edifice. For this she was castigated, trashed from pillar to post as having uttered a racist statement that demeaned the accomplishments of MLK. For this woman to be branded as she was can only be seen as sinful, considering her background and beliefs.
Consider: Here is Obama, like MLK the larger than life preacher of hope, unity, ideals and transformation reaching out, like LBJ, for the presidential brass ring in order to…what?…cement the foundation of the ideals he speaks of to the edifice of legislative and regulatory force. For he knows and says that this, becoming President, is the path to success, to transformation.

And yet, yet, when Hillary stated the obvious, the obvious that anyone faintly familiar with the process of government knows, and the obvious that Obama certainly understands, she is tarred, feathered and burned at the stake.

If Obama’s spokespeople spoke truthfully when they attacked Hillary for that statement, if they truly believed that the message of MLK DIDN’T REQUIRE a Lyndon Johnson to carry it to fruition, that it could somehow effectuate itself, then why in hell is Obama running for president?

He’s stated his message, he’s preached in the cadences of the churches he’s familiar with and has gotten the responses he has sought, and now he could wait for his ideas to permeate society, as MLK might have done–and waited forever in the process.

NO! He’s running because he knows that it takes a congressional and presidential village to raise a transformation “child.” And he knows, therefore, and his insiders know, therefore, that Hillary was not disrespecting or demeaning or diminishing ANYTHING that MLK proposed in his life’s teachings. The attack on her was coldly deliberate and it changed the tenor and direction of the race for the presidency, injecting a foul atmosphere into what should have been a fair and hard-fought battle.

Clinton: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746
Obama: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918

Very interesting. While you’re there, look at the numbers of people who participated in the Democratic CAUCUSes. Kansas caucus: 27,172 votes

Caucuses aren’t democratic: they are not one person, one vote, in private. Caucuses take a lot of time and most folks don’t particiapate because of the number of hours required to “vote”.

I have to agree with Brian. I am BLOWN away by a system that has ‘Super Delagtes’ of insiders who choose what they want… or what they are paid to do in cash and favors. It amazes me that the party that cried about voices and votes not being counted is one that lets almost 1/3 of the votes be made by insiders.

Reminds me of a certain failed system of government where “the same for all” was preached but only the party elite really had input. Hmmm

As for defending the super delegates, I’ve not made any attempt to do so and would, in fact, support allocating all all of delegates.

Brian – the number of superdelegates compared to winner-take-all states? Come on. What I said is still valid – how come you guys aren’t concerned about that?

anon – thanks for the info. I have not had time to look at all the details and simply wanted to throw that out there, especially in light of the process by which caucuses are done. I just don’t think they are democratic.

“The Obama campaign released a memo laying out their official delegate tally of Feb. 5th’s results this morning, claiming that they won 845 delegates to Hillary’s 836, a margin of nine points.”

“The Obama camp’s total of pledged delegates for the race thus far: Obama, 908, Hillary 884.”

Obama top adviser David Plouffe’s spin on the results:

“By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Senator Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary. From Colorado and Utah in the west to Georgia and Alabama in the south to Senator Clinton’s backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender, and political party in every region of the country. That’s why he’s on track to win Democratic nomination, and that’s why he’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November.”

**

I don’t think the primary/caucus dichotomy is (a) true or (b) significant. While it is the case that Obama won all the caucus states and, by process of elimination, every state Hillary won was a primary state, it is not the case that every primary state went to Hillary (one of Obama’s biggest blowouts of the night was Georgia, a primary state, and his biggest upsets were in Connecticut and Missouri, both primary states). Moreover, Obama’s success in the caucus states isn’t a result of the process selected; most of the states that caucus are smaller states that Obama decided to focus on to counter Hillary’s strenght in delegate rich states like NJ, NY, and CA. A lot of them are also states that are either red states or swing states, while Hillary’s strongest in the blue states. The fact these states predominantly chose to caucus instead of hold a primary is basically a conincidence.

I think the caucus/primary controversy is as big a red herring as the supposed latent racism in New Hampshire that some people argued was the result of Hillary’s surprising win in that state.

But no mention that Hillary’s lead is virtually all “superdelegates” that aren’t chosen by any primary or caucus at all?