Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary Clinton will Concede One Week from Today (158 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uniter, txdemfem, Empower Ink

    that the super delegates are in place to prevent a dynastic power fiend just as much as to protect against a proletariat insurgent

    Say something you don't agree with!

    by Christian Coulon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Historically inaccurate (0+ / 0-)

      They were put in place after the McGovern fiasco.

      Their purpose was to make sure that a charismatic and attractive candidate who appealed to the committed party members who vote in primaries but who was totally unelectable would not be nominated in the future.

      At that time no one was worried about dynasties.

      •  but currently applicable (0+ / 0-)

        you must admit

        Say something you don't agree with!

        by Christian Coulon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:27:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly... (0+ / 0-)

          But if you're priority is to prevent dynasties rather than to win elections you've always got the alternative of voting for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination....

          •  huh? isn't McCain in the pocket (0+ / 0-)

            of the worst dynasty of all: big oil? No thank you. You mean will I vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination? Nope.

            Say something you don't agree with!

            by Christian Coulon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:40:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big oil? A dynasty? (0+ / 0-)

              You may consider it a conspiracy or a cartel, but how do you get the idea that it is a dynasty?

              So if Clinton "steals" the nomination (I didn't know Obama owned it by the way) you won't vote for her and you won't vote for McCain.

              So will it be Ron Paul or Ralph Nader?

              •  well OK (0+ / 0-)

                you got me, big oil is dynastically owned, that's an important distinction. Didn't you ever see the TV show aptly named "Dynasty" about a rich oil family? But nevermind my point is the same: I'm voting change. Obama "owned" the nomination in the sporting sense, but he doesn't claim to deserve it the way Hillary does. when I say steal, i'm talking about undermining the democratic process. If there are rules that govern a democratic process, and that process is said to "own" the contested position, then if someone gets that position by breaking the rules I think it is reasonable to say they "stole" it, since they got it illegitimately. We can debate the semantics or philosophical ideas, but I do believe I am fundamentally correct in my expression.

                Answer: I'll be voting for Obama in the fall cause he'll win the nomination. IF for some reason he's not on the ballot, I'm sorry to say that at a point I feel Hillary went beyond what I consider to be the acceptable in the Democratic Party. Should I feel party loyalty when Hillary clearly doesn't feel any herself? I can't vote against my conscience.

                Say something you don't agree with!

                by Christian Coulon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site