Hillary re-brands 'superdelegates' as 'automatic' delegates

This just in a couple hours ago, to Clinton supporters... Terry McAuliffe explains the "misconceptions" about the delegate situation:

Dear QuickSilver,

You've probably seen some of the news about the delegates it will take to win the Democratic nomination, including discussions about pledged delegates and automatic delegates, or so-called "super delegates."

There are a number of misconceptions about the role that delegates will play in this election, so we've launched a new website, the Delegate Hub, to help you cut through all the myths about the race for delegates.

Did you say misconceptions? Anyway, Terry, go on...

The three most important things to remember are:

1. A candidate needs 2208 delegate votes to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included.

(If you get HRC supporter e-mail, you won't be at all surprised by Michigan and Florida.  She declared "victory" immediately following each primary.)

2. After weeks of voting, the race is a virtual tie, with Hillary and Senator Obama now separated by little over 2% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention.

A virtual tie? Are they really separated by just 2%? If Terry could show us the math, why, he probably would. But I digress...

3. Both Hillary and Senator Obama will need automatic (super) delegates to win the nomination.

Senator Obama has aggressively courted automatic delegates, while his campaign has simultaneously tried to discount their role in the process.

Are you irritated, as I am, by the re-branding of "superdelegates" as "automatic" delegates? [NOTES from comments: they are called "automatic" delegates in the rulebook. I know that. My point is this: why is she trying to dispose of that "superdelegate" word, which is pervasive in the media, and replace it with "automatic"? Is it to say "automatic" in the same breath as Michigan and Florida as much as possible?]

As an Obama supporter, I will say this: there is a stark contrast between Clinton and Obama in the tone of e-mail sent to supporters, particularly in recent weeks. Obama invited his supporters to contribute stories to help convince superdelegates, and did it in a way that flattered his supporters.

By contrast, while she may have once asked nicely, Hillary is now using a surrogate to paint her opponent as "aggressive," and to manufacture some ugly, divisive myth about her opponent's courting of "automatic" delegates which she no doubt thinks should automatically go to her.

This is like the e-mail equivalent of a push-poll. Does Hillary really want her supporters to pass on that tone in their letters? I think she does...  

But let's hear out Terry's sales pitch:

It's important that we respect the independent judgment of automatic delegates, who have the responsibility of casting a vote for the candidate they believe is best qualified to be president. And we want to make sure that they have a chance to hear from our supporters.

Click here to send a note to local automatic delegates telling them why you support Hillary, and why you think she will be the best leader for our party and our nation.

Forward this email to your friends, family and co-workers to tell them about the Delegate Hub. Let's get the truth out.

Thank you for everything you are doing to help Hillary win!

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President

(For what it's worth, I firmly believe that if you use that link to flame Hillary, no delegate will ever see what you write.)

So this is how Hillary inspires her supporters?

•  I'm super

  thanks for asking!

  by QuickSilver on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:04 PM PDT

  •  FWIW, that's what the rules call them

    "superdelegate" does not appear in the rules at all.

    by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:46 PM PDT

    •  shame on you and your facts!

      this is a hate diary damn it, gotta keep it going!

      by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:48:11 PM PDT

      •  You sure do love to judge people, tony

        and you are consistently wrong.  Go out and learn some new tricks.  Hey, why don't you become a mime?

        by trashablanca on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM PDT

        •  except I am correct here?

          but of course you are unable to admit you own sins so you project them on others. this whole diary is based on judging others while willfully avoiding the facts and you have a problem with me?

          sniff, sniff there's that smell of hypocrisy again...

          by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:38:28 PM PDT

          •  Funny tony, given your comment history

            you can even accuse someone of projection.  Is your nose growing?

            by trashablanca on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM PDT

            •  well, there you go again...

              the only posts I am embarrassed about was long ago when i made reference to Coulter as transgendered. disagreeing with you and the other members of your little club does not bother me a bit. It was your friend bawbie who when confronted with facts told me to 'go fuck myself' then was to cowardly to take a reply in kind. it was your buddy majorflaw who has the foul mouth and total resistance to anyone not marching to his tune, and again is too much a coward to handle replies in kind. Oh and your best bud condo and his/her stalking and thread-jacking that you uprate. yeah, you are all a shining example of Dkos.

              What dives you and your ilk up the wall is that I am a rational Obama voter. must make you feel defensive, but it does not bother me. TR away like the whiner you are.

              by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:56:57 PM PDT

              •  do you realize, tony

                that you have made 26 comments on my diary, and so far have received positive mojo from just one person on one comment? That's some kind of record, I'll bet. I don't think most people could do it if they tried. (Not that I'm suggesting you tried...)

                I'm quite sure this kind of thread-hijacking is grounds for banning if it's something you continue to do on Daily Kos. At the very least, this thread will stand as an example of your behavior.

                Please stay away from my diaries in the future, I'd appreciate it.

                by QuickSilver on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:22:05 PM PDT

                •  so? is that all you are after?

                  'mojo' on some blog? well then your pandering to the Obama or nobody crowd makes sense now. to bad you are fighting facts.

                  by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:26:16 PM PDT

                •  and it must make you proud to see a liar

                  uprated since you hate the truth.

                  by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:27:08 PM PDT

    •  even so, there's a conscious re-branding effort

      whether or not this is the original term; after all, "superdelegate" is the word in the media. Am I wrong to think that she's doing this for a reason? Putting the word "automatic" anywhere near Michigan and Florida, and a discussion of delegates, seems to me opportunistic act.

      And if this all about the rules, why not the rules she agreed to concerning Michigan and Florida?

      by QuickSilver on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:52:19 PM PDT

      •  how can it be 're-branding'

        when that is what they are? good lord, get a grip

        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM PDT

        •  that's the term America has used for years now...

          Xeroxing a speech may not be the technically correct phrase, but colloquial acceptance is such that any attemt to run a quick re-education campaign on the word will reek of suspicion.

          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM PDT

          •  once again you toss out RW talking points

            're-education' my ass.

            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM PDT

            •  got any response besides whining "right wing?"

              Of course not...when confrnted, you scream big red republican bogeyman and run.

              by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:15:30 PM PDT

        •  It's a re-minder, nothing more.

          Unless you're hard up for outrage.

          by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM PDT

          •  exactly

            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM PDT

      •  the rebranding, not accuracy is the prob

        Whether or not the term "superdelegate" appears in the rulebook or is the most accurate, it is - fairly or not, the long-term accepted description of the people in question.  This is almost as silly as the xerox v. photo-copying bickering that was going on in another thread. Yea, Xerox is technically just a brand name, but it has been adopted as a general term by so much of the population now that trying to mince words on such technicalities gives the appearance that something questionable is going on.  By some logic, the Clinton campaign believes forcing the public to abandon a long-used term for the party in question somehow hels shore up the case to their favor.  In any case, any advantage possibly gleaned from such a tactic is undercut by the Orwellian undertones that come across to those of us who have memories, have ever read political articles, or aren't merely goose-stepping with Penn's talking points of the week.

        by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:58:32 PM PDT

        •  ok, maybe linguistic re-education is more apt..

          Rebranding, is an expression, perhaps not the most technically accurate one though.  Perhaps we should refer to Clinton's aggressive efforts to put the country through language re-education.

          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:03:14 PM PDT

    •  Xerox (verb) doesn't appear in the dictionary

      (actually, it may be in the dictionary now...bling is, as of this year, I believe. Still, that's a comparative point anyone shoud "get" unless it serves their spin to play oblivious or offended that "photocopy" isn't spoken more.)

      Rules or not, superdelegate has been widely used and widely unchallenged until a few weeks ago.  Watch some old Mondale-Hart convention footage....where does the phrase "automatic delegate" pop up?  

      Accuracy isn't the issue here.  Trying to change a term the public has widely used for a very long time within the last few weeks - and for what reason- is the really questionable part of this matter.  This is also the real reason why the whole matter casts such a suspicious light on the HRC campaign.

      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:43:20 PM PDT

•  socialized medicine!

  death tax!

  family values!

  I love changing phrases to fit into my worldview.

  by terra on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM PDT

  •  clean coal

    and "safe nuclear power"

    are the two that are guaranteed to make me cringe.
    
    
    `````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

•  Mark Penn...

  said this, I think two weeks ago.  They are just repeating the kremlin's line.  

  by mayan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:00 PM PDT

  •  psst, cause that's what they are

    they don't need to be voted in since they are automatically delegates. as they are called in the official rules. but hey thanks for playing "How Many Myth's Can I Swallow" you can collect your 'prize' on the way out, congrats on your 'win'

    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:51:43 PM PDT

    •  yes...I know...

      that's their rationale for using the word.

      by mayan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM PDT

      •  so being truthful offends you?

        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:55:55 PM PDT

        •  nuh unh

          by mayan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM PDT

          •  you are objecting to the correct words

            so what other explanation could there be? unless you just jumped in and started blathering before you had a clue what you were talking about perhaps. your choice

            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:12:31 PM PDT

            •  they are both accurate words...

              and the kremlin line from Hillary's folks, in my estimation.

              by mayan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:23:34 PM PDT

              •  uh huh

                so you're calling HRC a commie now? is she trying to drain the 'vital juices' from our youth with fluoride and maybe is a Manchurian Candidate? have you been sleeping since 1950 or something?

                by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:02 PM PDT

                •  Do yuo know what a metaphor is..

                  Or does this just give you reason to justify your false outrage and say these things with a straight face.  No, Hillary doesn't dance around in a red uniform with a furry hat, but there are some comparisons to be drawn from other overtones in this whole dogmatic push you're on ei: "ve haff ways auf making you say automatic delegate."

                  by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:45 PM PDT

                  •  oh so now she's a NAZI!

                    gotcha, she is whatever evil image that pops into your mind. have you sought help from a mental health professional?

                    oh and thanks for breaking Godwin's Law

                    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:30:58 PM PDT

                    •  So get your damn stories straight.

                      ....You take everything literally when it suits your purpose, and then you start twisting metaphors to put words in my mouth when it suits your purpose.

                      Increasingly you also seem to have a problem with nuance as well, though I'm sure you're quite capable of distorting that if need be.

                      Hating Campaign tactics and hating Hillary Clinton are not mutually exclusive positions, contrary to whatever system of thought you've shifted to in your last two posts.

                      By the logic you demonstrate here, there's no difference between hating the war and hating the troops.  Why do you hate the soldiers, Tony?

                      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:03:22 PM PDT

                      •  've haf vays' is not a fucking metaphore

                        as soon as you look up the word let us know.

                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:06:56 PM PDT

                        •  you're impossible, eh...but

                          metaphorically speaking, which is exactly what that was.  

                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

                •  that's a riot!

                  by mayan on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:50 PM PDT

        •  truthful, oh puh-ease...

          If one told you they xeroxed something and another person told you they photocopied something, which one is lying.  Are you going to break out Webster's to judge this?  

          For that matter, who says either is lying, each is just using a term they're more familiar or comfortable using.

          Official according to the rulebooks or not "superdelegate" has functioned like xerox=photocopy for quite a long time.  The real question here is why are you folks who goose-step with Penn's talking memo pushing this re-education so vigoruosly.  Getting ready for a smokescreen if Clinton decides to pursue a strategy that most of America will raise hell over??

          "On no...we're not screwing the voters over by making deals with superdelegates, we're simply couring the automatic delegation."

          Please...try again.

          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:13:55 PM PDT

          •  you are the one yelling about this

            with talk of 're-education camps' and all that RW crapola. but your reply just pointed out the entire basis of this diary is now void, why don't you delete it?

            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:24:00 PM PDT

            •  Not my diary, dumbass.. n/t

              by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:25:40 PM PDT

              •  ah so you're just an enabler

                of bullshit. you must be so proud!

                by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:26:49 PM PDT

                •  defending bullshit, defender against bullshitters

                  ....All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.  Neither of us is apt to persuade the other, but I've already decided which category you fall into.  I've seen you before. Not only do you disagree with people, which is fine, but you typically make your points by the mosy mean spirited, hysterical, personal, and utterly unsubstantiated means availavble.

                  When people like yourself jump on someone in the manner that you usually employ, damn right I'm going to get involved.  

                  by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:35:04 PM PDT

                  •  yes, and your reply is such a reasoned one

                    you are looking more and more like a freeper here to troll.

                    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:36:09 PM PDT

                    •  Troll me then

                      My record will vindicate, I'm not the least scared of your allmighty donut.

                      If you want to talk about reasoned responses, I've brought up much more than screaming "right wing" at others and making paranoid statments about the media.

                      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM PDT

                      •  please call someone a nazi again

                        it makes me laugh :)

                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM PDT

                        •  Please get your meds checked.

                          Reality check:  I never called you or anyone in this thread a Nazi.  I used the term donut gestapo once, weeks ago, agisnt some of these self appointed TR cops who wander around here, and I stand by the assertion that some of them take their job entirely too seriously.

                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM PDT

                          •  does this remind you?

                            Do yuo know what a metaphor is.. (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                               highacidity

                            Or does this just give you reason to justify your false outrage and say these things with a straight face.  No, Hillary doesn't dance around in a red uniform with a furry hat, but there are some comparisons to be drawn from other overtones in this whole dogmatic push you're on ei: "ve haff ways auf making you say automatic delegate."

                            Remember the Alamo? Sen. Obama, tear down this (fire)wall.

                            by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            sorry to throw your nazi reference back in your face, well no I'm not since they are your own words

                            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM PDT

                            •  calling you a nazi and condemning your tactics..

                              your tactics in that case, are indeed rather fascist like....Howerver, saying I called you a nazi is a wild stretch.

                              I'm very amused...apparently you do undertstand the idea of metaphor when it can be twisted and overblown to suit your shoddy argument.

                              by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:55:10 PM PDT

                              •  well since I never claimed you did

                                and that that was just you trying to re-frame the question that equals you being a liar.

                                by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:58:56 PM PDT

                                •  That's just a lie...

                                  You asserted that I called you a nazi, and I responded. In this previous post, you are simply lying. End of discussion there.

                                  by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:05:07 PM PDT

                                  •  you just can't help lying can you?

                                    [new] please call someone a nazi again (0 / 0)

                                    it makes me laugh :)

                                    "I will sink federalism into an abyss from which there shall be no resurrection..." Thomas Jefferson

                                    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM PST

                                    [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                                    I clearly said 'someone' and you are just to dishonest for words.

                                    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:08:35 PM PDT

                                    •  You are sooooo full of shit.

                                      Oh, gotcha at the finest.  You didn't say I called you a nazy, but when I interpreted the statment as insinuating me, you quoted back a bit of my own commentary as some sorta gotcha moment..

                                      you're now saying "I never meant you," but two posts ago the title of your post was "does this remind you.  You quoted a vague metaphorical passge from me and then added...

                                      sorry to throw your nazi reference back in your face, well no I'm not since they are your own words

                                      You seem - very conveniently, I may add - quite confused on what you were saying a few minutes ago. Not that you've got the character to apologize for quite incorrectly calling me a liar, but I hoepyou quietly understand that there's no way any of this makes sense...and no way you'll talk or bluster out of this one with more nastiness.

                                      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM PDT

                                      •  good lord, it's Karl Rove!

                                        you claimed I said something I did not and I provide your own words, and now you shift it all off to the side just to continue attacking me. what an ugly lying little person you are.

                                        and once again 've haf vays' is not metaphorical in any way shape or form. look up the word liar.

                                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM PDT

                                        •  re-read the thread, get a reality check

                                          ....then tell me again who is shifting off words. I'll keep it to the big shiny points here since the others are incredibly easy for you to conveniently hide from yourself.

                                          First you implicitly suggested I called you a nazi. You did not use the words "whaa he called me a nazi, sob," but I read the comment as an accusation and responded in kind.

                                          When I responded to what "so clearly was not a claim that I called you a nazi," you backpedaled to calling me a liar for suggesting I called you a nazi.

                                          When I quoted your own words to underscore that you'd thrown my own words at me in some fruiteless effort to prove the nazi name-calling, you denied it again and backpedaled even further to call me Rove.

                                          LOL...JESUS!!!

                                          By the way, a metaphorical device is not necessarily one word.  Have you ever heard of metaphorically speaking? Try again.

                                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:35:21 PM PDT

                      •  besides, think about it...IF I were a freep troll

                        Wouldn't I be going after the Obama campaign instead of the dying one?  Seems like there's more to gain from a troll's POV than kicking the horse that isn't dead.

                        by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:40:21 PM PDT

                      •  tony can't TR you

                        admin saw that tony's judgment was too impaired to allow him to continue giving out ratings.  This is what is left of him, an angry and bitter...mutt.

                        by trashablanca on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM PDT

                        •  angry and bitter doesn't escape many then..

                          True the name stands out, but I know how this person goes after those he disagrees with, and I've been sick of him for a while lately.

                          Doesn't argue/debate in a remotely civil manner, just a bombthrower it seems.

                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:57:31 PM PDT

            •  because he didn't write it

              besides, Terry McAuliffe wanted the e-mail out there in the world.

              by QuickSilver on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM PDT

              •  and that is now a crime?

                to try to let people know what the real process is without the MSM's code words? ever so more dramatic to call them 'super' delegates after all the simple-minded viewers would be confused. yeah, right.

                by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:35:04 PM PDT

                •  code words? Nice try.

                  LOL...how many articles or pundits used this automatic version of the term before Penns started making a fuss.  How often has the term automatic delegate been used in democratic convention history?  Go watch some Mondale-Hart footage....were they automatic delegates or superdelegates.

                  by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:37:01 PM PDT

                  •  who the hell cares?

                    if they dumbed it down for you to follow and you accept it, that is YOUR fault. All it takes for is to read the actual rules. they named them and since they MADE the rules that is what they are. keep on spinning, we know you will.

                    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:41:44 PM PDT

                    •  I care, because you've got nothing but vitriol to

                      I do care because, in the absence of any intelligent comments to make to those who challenged your position, all you have are sarcastic remarks, personal attacks against other commenters, and general whiny nastiness.

                      Good for you, you've read the rule book. Whoop de do....did you also read the part about what would happen to Michigan and Florida if they broke the rules?

                      So the rules say, even though you've yet to provide a link backing this up....Even if you dould/did, it changes nothing about the broader public discourse beyond bloggerland.  It also does nothing to change the negative perception that results from the Clintons pushing for this sudden language change.

                      Xerox also invented a photocopier.  We all know what the techical term is, but guess which one has been widely adopted by the public for quite a long time.

                      Meanwhile....keep making personal jabs and paranoid statments about the MSMS.  Those things do wonders for your own credibility, really.

                      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:48:20 PM PDT

                      •  right here liar

                        http://s3.amazonaws.com/...

                        I realize you are not all that bright but look at Section E, and the copywrite notice.

                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:05:47 PM PDT

                        •  Liar? man you're a piece of work

                          ...Do you not understand that the rulebook and dictionary do not always determine how and why people use words - for better or worse.

                          The science books also say the techical terms for the candidates in our primary are caucasoid and negroid.  Do we use those terms, or have we switched to them recently...no, we say black and white.

                          Technically wrong or not, superdelegate was widely used and unchallenged until about 2 weeks ago.  The real question is why now is there such a push to change language when your people have a campaign to pull out of the toilet.

                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:10:23 PM PDT

                          •  oh so you change your story again

                            how convenient! so now that I gave you the link you could have found yourself suddenly it's all the 'sciency guys' (are you a Bush brother or something?) fault or something. yeah that darned thing called facts can bring you down if you ever allow them into your life.

                            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:17:45 PM PDT

                            •  keep trying...

                              I haven't changed a story about the link, see the position on that from a previous thread:

                              even though you've yet to provide a link backing this up....Even if you dould/did, it changes nothing about the broader public discourse beyond bloggerland.  It also does nothing to change the negative perception that results from the Clintons pushing for this sudden language change.

                              Xerox also invented a photocopier.  We all know what the techical term is, but guess which one has been widely adopted by the public for quite a long time.

                              Even if you did provide....good for doing your homework, but that means nothing.  You've based your whole premise on what the Democratic rulebook says, and accuracy does not translate to public vocabulary. Xerox is one example of that, scientific language on race is just another example.  Amusingly, you've ducked those paralell cases.

                              Did I even hint that there was blame on science...no, and your irrational paranoia is showing again.  I was illustrating a second example of the same points since my first attempt quite obviously went over your head.

                              Not obviously went over your head...conveniently.  You're obviously not stupid, just shameless in pushing the campaign's suspicious line on language.

                              by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:23:51 PM PDT

                              •  you have lied all over this thread

                                buh-bye lamer

                                by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:24:37 PM PDT

                                •  call names and run away...

                                  Go figure.  I'll let you speak for yourself here as well.

                                  by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM PDT

                      •  it is obvious you never read them

                        clearly a 50% cut was called for for ALL FIVE of the states that did this, not just those 2. sorry I keep on bringing facts and you're allergic to them.

                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:19:56 PM PDT

                    •  BTW: you just insulted a few generations of Dems.

                      The term superdelegate has been widely used for a very long time now, perhaps longer than either of out lifetimes.  If you want to insult the intelligence and integrity of every single Democrat who didn't real a rule book, be my guest.

                      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:51:46 PM PDT

                      •  then they were wrong

                        why you continue to enable this bullshit is your issue, maybe you just like the smell or something. as it is you have tossed in nazi references and have lied so I really see no reason to continue with you.

                        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:00:38 PM PDT

                        •  I'll let you undercut yourself for me there..

                          Seriously, this response details anything I'd care to say about the rationale of your position so well, that I need not say anything more to make you look ridiculous.

                          by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:11:55 PM PDT

•  Turns my stomach to see the HRC machinations

  and the Republican voters will see the same thing if Hill and Bill get the nomination.

  by Spruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:06 PM PDT

•  Mark Penn

  is freaking evil, i mean seriously he must have literally came up from the pits of hell.

  by CanadianBoy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:44:49 PM PDT

  •  Evil????????

    I dunno about evil and Hell....When the Devil wants something done, he usually has the will and the brain trust to get it done.  This guy may be sleazy, but in torpedoing a campaign in a primary that was basically Hillary's to lose hardly vouches for his intelligence or competence.

    The underworld has a pretty good HR department. If they were involved, they would've put qualified people in charge of this operation.  LOL

    by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:19:17 PM PDT

•  Also

  I think it shows poor judgment that Hillary Clinton depends on people like Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn to do her dirty work.

  by CanadianBoy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM PDT

  •  what dirty work? reading the rules?

    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the link. A fine place to let the

  campaign know that I plan to riot at the convention should the "automatic delegates" choose to oppose the will of the people or if MI and FL are seated before the nominee is chosen.  

  by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM PDT

  •  On second thought, perhaps I'll tell them in

    person [she's out of cash and coming to GW for a fundraiser]

    by DemocraticLuntz on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:02:16 PM PDT

  •  F-- that, I'll riot over SUPERDELEGATES

    if it comes to that, so be it....but I won't play along with this hyper techical Orwellian bullshit which provides the Clinton campaing what sort of advantage beyond confusing the situation to the drive by observers?

    "Oh no, we're not screwing you little people over with the superdelegates, we're simply courting the automatic delegates."

    by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:06:31 PM PDT

    •  in short: this super/automatic war is smokescreen

      see my comment just above, just a smokescreen for the pedestrians in case they were to try scorching the earth.

      ...title added here for better direction to the real point going on with this lingo bs.

      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:09:44 PM PDT

•  What ever

  I will be glad when Obama takes enough delegates that you super auto fragalistic delegate worriers will have to find something else to angst over.  

  I mean, really.  Take a deeeeeeep breath.  Obama is almost home free.  It will be ok.

  by crazyshirley2100 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:18:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm not worried over the delegates

    I'm worried about the tone, and where Mrs. Clinton is going to take this.

    I'd like it soon to be over, but I don't think that's where we're heading.

    by QuickSilver on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:21:04 PM PDT

    •  Sorry your diary got hi-jacked

      Hey, sorry your diary was hijacked by my sorta debate like thing with Tony.  Then again, it probably would've been someone else if not us..LOL.

      by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM PDT

  •  mostly a linguistic argument, shirley

    ....Not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but like out in tv land, there's a growing element on kos that feels compelled to forcefeed their idea of the "correct" phrase down your throat around here.  

    I personally don't believe there's going to be an end around via superdelegates for either candidate, but I'm a little sick of those who keep shoving the language at us simply because Mark Penn et. al. said so.

    It will be okay though, I agree there.  No way the party will let this go to convention.

    by Ericwmr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:24:01 PM PDT