Hillary Can't Steal The Nomination

[liberalcommontater]

I have seen this idea repeated over and over again. The idea that, after the last primary, Barak Obama is entitled to the nomination if he has more delegates earned from caucuses and primaries than Hillary Clinton even if that number does not reach 2025. The argument also goes that the party will be damaged beyond repair if Hillary gets the nomination instead. Many are quite open that the Clintons are finished as Democrats, even now and that if she becomes the nominee they will abandon the Democratic Party.

Let's slow up just a tad and consider.

1) According to the rules, a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. Neither will have that from the primary totals alone.

2) Hillary for all of her faults, is entitled to stay in until the convention, if she wishes. The party has rules and procedures to deal with this if it happens.

3) I blame the Michigan and Florida Republicans first for their roles in messing up our primaries, the state Democrats second and Obama third. Without Michigan and Florida revoting the situation favors Obama more, but the eventual candidate less. For better or worse, Michigan and Florida should revote, be counted and let the results fall where they may. The fact that Obama does not favor a revote strikes me as the same kind of tactic as Clinton wanting to count the current results from those states.

4) It does not make sense to me to require the super delegates to follow the popular vote from their own districts. I believe if this is in fact required Ted Kennedy will have to cast his vote for Mrs. Clinton!

In 2000 we were very interested in counting all the votes and should have. We should be as interested in the votes of Michigan and Florida, under the rules. The process is important. A revote may be decisive by the time it occurs.

The idea that the party will be damaged smacks of the claim before the Supreme Court that George Bush would be harmed if all the votes were counted and Al Gore came out ahead. If the super delegates vote for Clinton because they think she will win, then so be it. That is their responsibility-to choose the best candidate.

The super delegates should vote for the leader when the primaries are finished, all other things being equal. But, what if by June or July or August all things are not equal? What if the consensus is that Obama is too...young, inexperienced, unelectable, whatever. I think the super delegates should shift to Clinton. Neither has earned it outright so it cannot be stolen. According to the rules again, super delegates can vote for whomever they think will be the best candidate to face the Republicans. And they should.

Conversely, if Obama is a "good" candidate for the fall and leads Hillary in the delegate count, then he should be the nominee. This is about winning the Presidency for the country and our party. Both of OUR candidates oppose the neocon agenda. One of them must be the next president. This is more important than which of them wins.

BTW, I live in Michigan, was an early Edwards supporter and am now 100% behind Hillary. I hope she wins, but there are more important things than what I want.

[DemVet]

1. Well said....all good points.

No candidate is entitled to the Nomination at this point...they have to get the required 2025 delegates.

That won't happen until the superdelegates vote. Until they vote, who they endorse or support is basically just hearsay.

[melody]

2. Obama is the frontrunner. He is the one closest to the front. Hillary is behind and cannot catchup

The only way she can win is to force everyone's hand. It WOULD be a bullying, jackboot method that everyone would resent. Do you REALLY want a candidate that the majority of Democrats hate? Can you imagine how little enthusiasm Democrats would have and how much the GOP would have? Or perhaps that's the whole point? ;)