Bredesen Says Supers Should Meet and Choose Democratic Nominee
Submitted by CBT on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 11:49am.
In an op-ed in the New York Times, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen says the Democrat Superdelegates have all the information they need and should meet in June to pick the Democratic nominee for President. He proposes a two-day public meeting. I'm guessing most of the 'work' would not be accomplished in public and maybe not even at this meeting. I'm also guessing there will be a lot of mad people whoever the 'supers' pick. As for me, I'm ok with the Democrats fighting it out all Summer. Story here:
Submitted by Brian A. on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 1:37pm.
The reality is that--barring a major collapse by one of the candidates--neither is going to win enough delegates from the primaries to secure the nomination.
Therefore, one way or another, it will come down to the superdelegates' decision. They can make it earlier, or they can wait and do it after a few more months of stupid squabbling.
Submitted by Miss Ogyny (not verified) on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 2:54pm.
As long as they choose the candidate that's leading in PDs there's no problem.
choosing a candidate that's not leading in PDs is circumventing Democracy.
I don't trust Bredesen, other than that it's no problem if the system isn't abused. Choosing against the people can be construed as abuse. It can have consequences as well.
As long as they choose the candidate that's leading in PDs there's no problem.
choosing a candidate that's not leading in PDs is circumventing Democracy.
If that's the criteria, a meeting is not necessary. Therein lies the concern for Obama and his supporters, given it appears unlikely Sen. Clinton can overtake him in pledged delegates. A meeting to talk about it means she may be the one chosen.
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 3:58pm.
Upon further review, Taken as a whole, the SuperDelegates are seasoned pros who make their livelihood in politics. The Clintons are powerful but have high negatives. If Hillary is behind in the popular vote and the delegate count, they are not going usurp the finish order and risk tearing the party apart.
It is worth remembering that the Democratic party is split into the DLC wing (Harold Ford, Clintons, Corporate lobbyists)
and the DNC Wing (Howard Dean, Obama, Gore, Edwards, and the People).
Submitted by ImTooSexyForThisWebsite (not verified) on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 4:09pm.
The exodus from the Democratic Party to the Greens by true Liberals that would result from any manipulation by the Supers would cripple the Dems. And the Supers would surely reap a harvest of thorns in future elections.
Hopefully they are people, for the most part, that have at least some integrity.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 5:09pm.
The exodus from the Democratic Party to the Greens by true Liberals that would result from any manipulation by the Supers would cripple the Dems.
To the Greens? Right. Keep pulling on that bong.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Submitted by YoureTooSexyForThisThread (not verified) on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 5:53pm.
"To the Greens? Right. Keep pulling on that bong".
That's where I'm going (back to) if the Supers go against the majority.
Others can go where they want. I'm just saying that no self-respecting Liberal would remain aligned with a political party that does exactly the opposite of what we stand for.
Self respect, ultimately, being a personal issue for each individual one of us.
However, I just got a five gram chunk of hash from a travel weary friend. No bong, just a tiny piece and a simple, small pipe and I'm fucking blazed.
Jealous, aren't you? Go ahead, admit it.
How long has it been since you saw good hash?
:P
Submitted by SteveMule on Wed, 2008/03/19 - 7:54pm.
A better method for Hash smoking is this:
Fold a small piece of paper (playing card, match book wieght) then push a needle (sewing kind) thru the fold so it sticks up
|
/ \ sort'a like that then put a small piece of hash on the tip of the needle. Light the bottom of the hash on fire, once it starts to burn quickly blow the flame out so that the hash smolders. Put a drinking glass over the paper/needle/hash to catch the smoke. When the upturned glass fills with smoke lift up the glass just enough to inhale the smoke.
This produces a nice, smooth effect that maximizes the effect and lessens the waste.
After you're done fill the glass with either hot tea, coffee or coke (carbonated soft drink) and then drink it.
Of course, smoking dope and talking politics is NOT recommended as a normal course of action. Altho, I do have to say that it would seem a great many in politics do do exactly that. Some politicians and political leaders, in fact, seem to perfer crack over hash.
Such as stupid system that was a kneejerk response in the first place.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I agree with it in principle.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
I guess that "We, The People" thing was just to let us think we had some say in the process, when it was the insiders and the lobbyists all along?
Sorry, Phil. I love you, but I'm going with the people.
The reality is that--barring a major collapse by one of the candidates--neither is going to win enough delegates from the primaries to secure the nomination.
Therefore, one way or another, it will come down to the superdelegates' decision. They can make it earlier, or they can wait and do it after a few more months of stupid squabbling.
I prefer avoiding the latter.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
As long as they choose the candidate that's leading in PDs there's no problem.
choosing a candidate that's not leading in PDs is circumventing Democracy.
I don't trust Bredesen, other than that it's no problem if the system isn't abused. Choosing against the people can be construed as abuse. It can have consequences as well.
Bob Beckel,who ran Mondale's '84 campaign,agrees with Gov Bredesen.
Maybe not a formal meeting
But no doubt a come to Jesus meeting on the uncommitted super delegates getting behind one or the other...June 4th.
I also agree & think its the way to go.
As long as they choose the candidate that's leading in PDs there's no problem.
choosing a candidate that's not leading in PDs is circumventing Democracy.
If that's the criteria, a meeting is not necessary. Therein lies the concern for Obama and his supporters, given it appears unlikely Sen. Clinton can overtake him in pledged delegates. A meeting to talk about it means she may be the one chosen.
Upon further review, Taken as a whole, the SuperDelegates are seasoned pros who make their livelihood in politics. The Clintons are powerful but have high negatives. If Hillary is behind in the popular vote and the delegate count, they are not going usurp the finish order and risk tearing the party apart.
It is worth remembering that the Democratic party is split into the DLC wing (Harold Ford, Clintons, Corporate lobbyists)
and the DNC Wing (Howard Dean, Obama, Gore, Edwards, and the People).
This is what it will come down to.
The exodus from the Democratic Party to the Greens by true Liberals that would result from any manipulation by the Supers would cripple the Dems. And the Supers would surely reap a harvest of thorns in future elections.
Hopefully they are people, for the most part, that have at least some integrity.
Your outlook is positive, I hope you're right.
Voted for Al every time he ran
I'll do the same for Harold.
To the Greens? Right. Keep pulling on that bong.
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
"To the Greens? Right. Keep pulling on that bong".
That's where I'm going (back to) if the Supers go against the majority.
Others can go where they want. I'm just saying that no self-respecting Liberal would remain aligned with a political party that does exactly the opposite of what we stand for.
Self respect, ultimately, being a personal issue for each individual one of us.
However, I just got a five gram chunk of hash from a travel weary friend. No bong, just a tiny piece and a simple, small pipe and I'm fucking blazed.
Jealous, aren't you? Go ahead, admit it.
How long has it been since you saw good hash?
:P
A better method for Hash smoking is this:
Fold a small piece of paper (playing card, match book wieght) then push a needle (sewing kind) thru the fold so it sticks up
|
/ \ sort'a like that then put a small piece of hash on the tip of the needle. Light the bottom of the hash on fire, once it starts to burn quickly blow the flame out so that the hash smolders. Put a drinking glass over the paper/needle/hash to catch the smoke. When the upturned glass fills with smoke lift up the glass just enough to inhale the smoke.
This produces a nice, smooth effect that maximizes the effect and lessens the waste.
After you're done fill the glass with either hot tea, coffee or coke (carbonated soft drink) and then drink it.
Of course, smoking dope and talking politics is NOT recommended as a normal course of action. Altho, I do have to say that it would seem a great many in politics do do exactly that. Some politicians and political leaders, in fact, seem to perfer crack over hash.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
On a pin (I use a thin slice of wine cork for support) under a glass is a great way.
You really get blasted because the hits are bigger than you think.
Excellent suggestion. It's been a long time (25 years) since I smoked that way. 'Course, it's been 25 years since I found any hash worth smoking.
I shall prepare the method and indulge, in your honor of course, from the glass.
*-)
the guvs on
Post new comment