Agreed...the Republicans "shine" in this category...if Democrats had the same system, Hillary would have been the nominee quite a while ago...ability to reason appears to have handicapped the DNC and it's party...so, the drama will continue.

Sent by ard | 12:06 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Terry MCauliffe and the Clinton tools had designed the voting blocks to suit Hillary. They never taught anyone like Obama would come along to challenge Hillary. As stupid as this current system may seem, thanks to it. Hillary would have won (what a nightmare it would be). This time on their way out there would be no furniture left in the white house, and the democrates would loose most of their seats in congress and the senate. let alone fraud.

Sent by Ty | 12:25 PM ET | 04-24-2008

"We have a process that appears to be about as stupid as human beings could put in place," Cleaver said.

I can't stress this point enough. Do not let the Democrats within 1000 miles of our healthcare system.

It's for the children...

Sent by deek | 12:29 PM ET | 04-24-2008

The overall process is what I object to - the superdelegates doesn't stand out for me as a major concern. That overall process is corrupted by money and influence, and to my mind has come to look less like democracy in action than oligarchy with democratic trimmmings.

I just don't think that being a multimillionaire in order to be eligible to run for higher office is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Paul - originalfaith.com

Sent by Paul Maurice Martin | 12:48 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Winner-take-all contests aren't a particularly democratic way of doing things (large or small D).

But without the possibility of superdelegates overturning the will of Democratic voters, Hillary would be out of the race by now. She simply can't win on the numbers.

Sent by JT | 1:15 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Why the Democrats are having a hardtime deciding who should face John McCain.

1) Don't know what the this week's HOT issue is until the next week's polls is taken.
2) Shrinking Violet Syndrome. Can't decide between 2 (nearly) identical platforms for fear of offending someone.
3) Anti-Bush popularity wears thin when GW is NOT running.
4) Can't build unity, to busy tearing each other apart.

What are the Democrats for? Hand-outs and Taxes?

Sent by Harold | 1:18 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Et Tu, Wu?

Sent by deek | 1:44 PM ET | 04-24-2008

The situation puzzles me. It seems that the party nomination is going to be decided by "the boys in the smoked filled room" like it was over hundred years ago. My question is: why even have primaries when the final decision is to be made by the party bosses. It would save a great deal of time, raw emotions and money not to have primaries at all.

Sent by Jack Rosecrans | 1:57 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Just to be clear about your update on Obama scoring "first" with Wu's endorsement: this is Obama's third superdelegate endorsement since the PA primary. Clinton has gained one.

Sent by Michelle | 2:01 PM ET | 04-24-2008

Well, it could be stupider. We could go back to monarchy. But all in all, it's true that the American system has deep flaws.

And no, I wouldn't want to be a superdelegate. It's a stupid and unjust system. What can you do, as a superdelegate? Go against the popular vote? Then you sap energy from the party and risk losing to the opposition in November. Just go ahead and vote however the public votes? Then why not stay home?

Pointless.

Sent by Kasreyn | 3:16 PM ET | 04-24-2008

The Clintons help put in place as many superdelegates as possible for this very situation. Hillary has been campaigning behind the scene for years now.The presidency is Hillary's inheritance and she is entitled to it.
A sad situation in a great country. One thing is for sure, the American people would do the right thing, and would eventually call the Clintons and their numerous foot soldiers who have taken over the democratic party on their tricks.

Sent by Ty | 9:06 PM ET | 04-24-2008

I find it interesting how just a few weeks ago, the Obama camp was shuddering at the possiblitity of a superdelegate bucking the will of the state and voting contrary to the way their states voted. Why is the Obama camp not furious with Bill Richardson, or now Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry?

I have no qualms about Obama, just his yes-men supporters; in fact I too was an enthusiastic Obama supporter until about mid March, but fortunately I didn't drink too much of the Fool-Aid. After losing Ohio and Texas, I started to feel he wouldn't in fact be strong enough to take on McCain, and after Bittergate and his disastrous performance at the ABC debate and actually losing Pittsburg to Clinton, I've finally realized he's not ready for prime time yet. I look forward to his performance against President McCain in 2012, but until then, it's Nader '08 for me.

Roger Martin Block

Sent by Roger Martin Block | 8:59 AM ET | 04-25-2008

Roger, don't you mean "yes-person?"

LOL

Sent by deek | 10:13 AM ET | 04-25-2008

Roger - you may want to double check who is fooling whom. Clinton didn't win Texas. She narrowly won the primary part of the election, but lost the caucus part with a big enough spread to end up with Obama winning over all in the delegates awarded from the election. (Don't feel bad, lots of folks got fooled on this one.) Clinton said she would quit if she didn't win by a "double digit" margin in PA. After her lead dropping from over 20% to just 9.2%, she claims a "big win" in PA. Is she fooling us, or is 9.2% really a double digit?

So...., where is all this "Fool-Aid" coming from? It is not just the Clinton organization. There are many wolves-in-sheep-clothing Republicans out there supporting all the Clinton nonsense because they believe that if they can push foolish Democrats into choosing Clinton as the candidate, then McCain can win in November.

Sent by Gary | 11:08 AM ET | 04-25-2008