Is Bill Clinton allowed to be a "Super Delegate" inspite of his connection to

[Bluerthanblue]

one of the candidates?


Does anyone know?

This doesn't seem very ...."Democratic".... to me at least.


peace~

[bigtree]

1. I heard yes

[Bluerthanblue]

2. has this ever come up before do you know?

:hi:

[bigtree]

5. I made a post yesterday. McGovern's nomination brought this on. Pissed off party insiders.

but, it hasn't figured since. Seems like it almost came to that with Edward Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, but Ted stood down.

get involved:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4473995&mesg_id=4473995

[Bluerthanblue]

8. I did see your post and wanted to post my question

there, but didn't want to take it off on a tangent.

I also read about Donna Brazille's comments, and was glad to hear she wasn't going to let things be silent.

thanks for the info-

peace~

[dflprincess]

10. I was a Kennedy supporter that year and I recall we went into the convention

knowing Carter was going to win the nomination. I don't recall that it was close.

[bigtree]

20. you're right, it wasn't

this will be unprecedented if it occurs

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Yes he is a former president.

[dbackjon]

4. Why shouldn't he? He is the last Democratic President.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. you don't see any conflict of interest here?

I'd say the same regardless of WHO was involved-

The 'super delegate' idea is not very Democratic to begin with- when you add to the mix, the fact that one candidate is the spouse of a "SD"- I think that makes this different. Judges, Lawyers, MD's- etc, all are expected to recuse, or bow out of situations where their role would conflict with being impartial- or objective.

peace~

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Conflict of interest has absolutely no bearing on superdelegate status

I believe that Hillary, as a Democrat holding office in the US Senate, is also a superdelegate. Likewise Obama. Should they be disallowed? :shrug:

Edited for spelling.

[maximusveritas]

14. If we check conflicts of interest, there wouldn't be any Superdelegates

come to think of it, that's not a bad idea.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Uh, preacher? You're facing the choir; the congregation is THAT way n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

21. it's like the "good ol' boys/girls" club-

and it should be abolished.

BigTree has a great post about this linked in reply above.


peace~

[Bluerthanblue]

17. should Obama and Hillary?

they balance each other out- but YES- I think that as candidates they shouldn't also be "super delegates".

Conflict of interest should have a bearing on these 'delegates' who often have much more impact than 'regular' delegates.

Can you honestly say you believe this is a 'fair' system?

peace~

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Superdelegates were created specifically to make the system UNfair

And I really do not see the party making any changes to improve the fairness of the process.

[newmajority]

29. NOBODY should be a super delegate

they shouldn't exist. Neither should electro-fraud machines, frontloaded corporatist financed primaries, or the electoral college.

We won't have a truly fair electoral process until we get rid of all of the above.

[Bluerthanblue]

45. I agree, but the fact that we Dems have

created our own farce system called the "Super Delegates" is pretty ironic. To think the Republicans don't stoop to this crap...:shrug:

And did we the people get to determine whether this system was adopted? I don't recall ever voting to adopt it- but maybe I'm wrong.

peace~

[dbackjon]

35. Not really.

And one superdelegate out of 4000+ is not material.

[TexasObserver]

6. I haven't checked the list, but he may be on it as former president

I know Gore and Carter are on it, and he probably is, too.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. He is an SD, and has stated who he supports

[Danger Mouse]

12. It depends on the rules.

:shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Yes. He's a Super Delegate and will be until he dies. n/t

[Orangepeel]

15. Why not? Ted Kennedy is a superdelegate. So is John Kerry.

so are plenty of people who are campaigning for one or the other potential nominee.

[Bluerthanblue]

19. are they married to on of the candidates?

seriously- there is a WORLD of difference between being a spouse, and being a friend or associate.

peace~

[Orangepeel]

22. So what's the big deal about being married?

He still only gets one vote and that vote doesn't count anymore than, say, Ted Kennedy's because he is more invested in Clinton nomination than Kennedy is in an Obama nomination.

Whoever ends up being the VP nominee for either candidate will likely be a superdelegate. Much of the cabinet for either will likely be superdelegates. They all have a vested interest, but their votes don't count any more than Bill's even though his interest is more vested.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. his vote counts 150,000 times

more than mine-

and that isn't right-

He gets to vote in the primary, and he gets to vote for roughly the equivalent of 150,000 average citizens. WHY?

So that even if Dennis Kucinich made it to the convention and was the popular choice, he could be usurped?
And they can basically 'sell' their vote???? Come-on. :eyes:
And this is considered a 'democracy'-????


:shrug:

[Orangepeel]

34. it counts more than yours because he is a superdelegate, not because he's married to a candidate

Whether or not superdelegates should be part of the process and whether or not Bill Clinton in particular should be a superdelegate are different questions.

Given that superdelegates are part of the process, there is no reason that Clinton shouldn't be one because his wife is a potential nominee.

[Seabiscuit]

18. Former Presidents are automatically "Superdelegates" until they completely discard

the entire undemocratic system of "Superdelegates".

[Bluerthanblue]

23. we really need to do some major repair work to our election system-

I never realized how screwed up it was, even at the primary level.
:hi:
peace~

[Seabiscuit]

27. It's a shambles in more ways than one... or two... or three... or....

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Yes

why shouldn't he be?

[Tarc]

25. And why not?

Should Bill have been barred from voting in New York on Tuesday as well?

Some people around here are fast losing their grip on common sense.

[newmajority]

30. No, Bill Clinton is entitled his one vote as any other American citizen.

But that's where it should end. He shouldn't even be a delegate, let alone a superdelegate, because of the obvious conflict of interest.

[dbackjon]

38. So Obama shouldn't be a superdelegate either, then

Obvious conflict of interest.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. absolutely not- but there is a VAST difference between casting his

ballot in NY and then having a vote as a 'super-delegate' which gives him ANOTHER chance to vote, and this vote carries the equivilent of 150,000 of your votes, or my votes.

Are you sure you have a grip on common sense given this fact?


One person- one vote?

WTF is up with this?


Michelle Obama should have a SD vote- so should Elizabeth Edwards.

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

37. They can become one

by getting themselves elected to office.

[dbackjon]

40. If they were elected officials, no sweat

Really, you are making a mountain out of NOTHING.

[Bluerthanblue]

46. if you really think that this is nothing- do you think it is

ok that lobbiests have undue influence with elected officials? That they can purchase a rep's vote?

Because, when an elected offical gets to have life long SD status, that achieves the same result.

Beyond Bill- the whole concept of power corrupting power cannot be denied.

peace~

[Tarc]

43. Well tough titty says the kitty

Harping on the fact that he is her husband is pointless; for the sake of this topic, view him as just another endorser or someone in Hillary's camp.

Should superdelegates that happen to be in Obama's camp, or have endorsed him, be stripped too? No Kerry, Kennedy, Siebelius, etc...?

[Bluerthanblue]

44. I'd support doing away with super delegates on both sides- it ISN'T

anything more than a kind of "corporate takeover" of the primary process.



Those who are already IN power, get to have more power than the average citizen.

This is NOT democratic- this does not square with the one person one vote that we demand other "developing democracies" adopt-
If we applied our standards for other nations election procedures here, maybe we WOULD have something closer to true democracy-

peace~

[Blue-Jay]

26. I don't know what you're asking.

because "inspite" is not a word.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. sorry- if you can't understand my writing I apologize-

If you are just trying to make me look stupid, then have at it-
Does it make you feel far superior to me? I'm sure your writing skills are- but that isn't the issue.

I don't have a college degree, and I don't claim to be a rocket scientist- but my question is pretty simple.
I find it hard to believe you don't understand it.

:shrug:
peace~

[Zynx]

33. I could be mistaken, but I think both Hillary and Obama are too.

[MaineDem]

36. BINGO! n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

42. and they cancel each other out- even if they didn't I don't think

that they should have the "delegate" role if they are seeking the candidate role.

This is a very messed up system.

peace~

[Bucky]

41. Duh. He's earned it.

Why would being a supporter of a candidate disqualify someone from being a delegate?

[Bluerthanblue]

47. that isn't what we are talking about here-

real Delegates are people who go to the convention and represent the voice of the people. Roughly 150,000 voices to each delegate. Super Delegates represent no one. They are given the SAME power as the equivillent of 150,00 people.

Why? because they are already part of the powerful.

No other reason. This doesn't strike you as a broken system?

Beyond spouses- the entire concept of SD's based on their 'connections' is an important part of why we don't get any change in our govt.


It is wrong- undemocratic, and unfair.

peace~

[MaineDem]

48. Most of them are elected by their states

They are the DNC members...ordinary people like you and me... who get elected to represent their states as members of the DNC. I see no problem with them being delegates. It's their convention after all.

They are accountable to their states if you consider they have to run for re-election. If we don't like the way they vote we can always vote against them. Or run against them ourselves.

The Elected Officials (Governors, and members of Congress) are a different story. Most of them have no real connection with the Party structure. I don't like the idea of them getting automatic delegate spots.

The GOP does it as well, not that that makes it right or wrong.