For the numbers state by state, including American Samoa and Guam, go to Pledged and Unpledged (Super) Delegate Votes.
What role for Democratic 'super-delegates'?
WASHINGTON - It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.
Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.
The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.
These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.
Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.
Why the 'super-delegate' system?Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?
Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.
Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.
But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.
Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.
So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.
Senator Edward Kennedy chooses Obama, spurning Bill Clinton plea"I'm looking for the leader who is going to be able to inspire," Kennedy said last year on ABC News's "This Week." "I want to see who out there is going to be able to inspire not only our party, but others, because I think we're going to need the inspiration in order to bring a change in American foreign policy and domestic policy."
After Obama won the Iowa caucuses, associates to both men said, Kennedy concluded that Obama had transcended racial lines and the historical divisions the Kennedy family had worked to tear down. Kennedy was also impressed at how Obama was not defined as a black candidate, but seen as a transformational figure.
It was then, associates said, that Kennedy began talking with family members, including Caroline Kennedy, who had reached her own judgment some time ago independently of her uncle. They then agreed last week to move ahead with their endorsement, coordinating their decision before the Feb. 5 contests.
Kennedy has a long history of working with both the former president and Senator Clinton on health, education and other social issues and, according to Kennedy associates, has a good relationship with both, coupled with respect for the work ethic and determination of Senator Clinton. While the Clintons were in the White House, the families socialized and sailed off Cape Cod.
But multiple sources said Kennedy was upset over what he saw as attempts by the Clinton campaign to highlight Obama's race and by what he viewed as distortions of Obama's statements and record. He made those views known in a call with the former president.
Obama courted Kennedy as well, using late-night sessions in the Senate to get some tutoring from his senior colleague about the intricacies of the institution. Conversations about the White House began more than a year ago, with Obama paying Kennedy a visit to seek his thoughts about whether he should run for president. Kennedy told him that he should because such opportunities rarely come along. This is page 2. For page 1 see: The International Herald Tribune..................................................................................
Tavis Smiley Part I interviews Senator Ted Kennedy regarding his announcement to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic candidate for President.
..................................................................................
..................................................................................
Tavis Smiley Part II interviews Senator Ted Kennedy regarding his announcement to endorse Barack Obama for the Democratic candidate for President.
Transference is the process in psychoanalysis or other psychotherapy whereby somebody unconsciously redirects feelings, fears, or emotions onto a new object. When anyone, including myself, makes a judgment statement or criticism I ask myself if transference is happening. In other words, is the judgement or criticism valid or is it a reflection of the person making the claim. I ask this when I watch the Presidential candidates. And I ask it about the political pundits, especially Pat Buchanan. With Pat Buchanan I am certain that my judgment is clear and true. Pat Buchanan is guilty of transference when it comes to Barack Obama. He constantly makes judgments about Barack that are not merited. They are false. But Pat Buchanan is redirecting his own personal feelings and fears upon Barack. And he is so blatantly wrong about Barack and illustrates that he is being anything but fair, clear-thinking and valid. Buchanan should lose his job of political analyst. He isn't analyzing but he is using his "platform" to slander Barack. MSNBC shouldn't be giving Buchanan the leverage to spit his anger and agenda-driven comments about Barack.
No comments:
Post a Comment