zed?

Richardson is right. Caucuses Suck. We need to go further than that, tho. We need direct elections, quit screwing around with delegates

Jane, do you have a position on who Richardson should vote for?

Super delegates should weigh a number of factors, including who their state or region voted for, who won the most pledged delegates nationally and who they personally believe will be the best President.

So what you’re arguing for is the Clinton camp’s position, which is that superdelegates should not be bound to vote for who their constituents voted for.

That’s the opposite of what Richardson said on CNN.

I’ll repeat what I wrote downstairs:

Super delegates should caucus and vote to not have their votes counted in the process. This would disenfranchise them en mass and lower the number that the winner of the primaries would have to get to a majority of the primaries and the caucuses.

The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.

We need a new primary system with 4 national primary dates which spread the vote across the country, big and small states, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural blah blah. 4 dates leaves time for some campaigning. Drop the super delegates. Compress the process and make it cheaper and let’s get private donations above $200 out of ALL political campaigns(primaries) and public finance 100% for elections.

There is no way to know get your knickers in a twist on this one.

DROP ALL SUPER DELEGATES

All people are equal, but some are more equal.

I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.

The African American turnout in November would the lowest ever, dragging down many other Dems running for office, and putting McCain in the WH. Smart move by Richardson.

“I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.”
_______

And, my unhappy prediction is that that is exactly what is gonna happen.

Last night, Rachel Maddow had Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen on, outlining his proposal to have a convention of superdelegates in June. The idea behind this is to provide the required number of committed delegates prior to the end of August nominating convention, so that Dems don’t spend the summer months campaigning against each other, instead of John McCain.

This would provide a nominating convention process to legitimize any decision made, release superdelegates from merely amplifying direct popular vote, and get the issues you raise in this post behind the Party.

What think you?

You’re right, Jane. There’s been a whole lot of embracing of rule changes, and/or rule creation, that serves one side or the other.

I don’t see how superdelegates are good for the party in the first place. However, there are no rules that constrain their voting, so I believe they can vote on any criteria they choose. If we want to change that, we should do it in the next cycle. The calls for changing rules in mid-election drive me up the wall.

All the maneuvering over Michigan and Florida can be fairly blamed on poor leadership and leadership failure in those states. I think the rules should be followed in those cases, or we will buy rule breaking in the next ten elections. In the alternative, if we waive the rules for them, let’s agree that there are no rules, states can do whatever they want, and Iowa can hold the caucuses a year in advance. I especially hope that the superdelegates from those states are not seated, because people like Carl Levin caused this problem and they should be allowed to experience the consequences.

One consequence of what Michigan and Florida did is the early January caucus in Iowa. It was not good for the candidates to lay out a campaign strategy and then find out they were losing two weeks and would have to spend Christmas in Des Moines. I do not think it was fair to do that to the candidates, and to have uncertainty right into December.

If that’s what he thinks then he should say he’s changed his mind regarding the fact that superdelegates should vote for whom their constituents voted for. Quite simple, really.

I have mixed feelings about the superdelegates, and frankly think our whole system of elections needs to be revamped. But you are absolutely right, Jane, Richardson is saying one thing, and doing another. I don’t like it.

Good morning, Jane…
IMO, the superdelegates were put in place simply to stop another George McGovern from getting the nomination, and by extension to stop the people from choosing any candidate not “acceptable” to the party bosses. In my mind, this is fundamentally un-American and un-democratic and I would thus like to see the whole superdelegate system cashiered. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the people’s party. Let the people rule.

As happens with “activist judges” (definition: a judge that hands down a decision I don’t agree with), the issue of how super-delegates should vote seems to be always tainted by whether we agree with them or not. By definition, a super-delegate is completely free to pick a candidate for any reason and change their mind any time. It does seem logical that super-delegates should generally reflect their constituents, but even that is fraught with peril (CD constituency, state constituents, national constituents, lobby constituents, etc.). In short, any super-delegate and always find a way to justify why their decision is in keeping with the constituents. It amazes me that Clinton supporters are so outraged when a super-delegate in a state that Clinton (barely) won goes for Obama, yet they never suggest that super-delegates that are supporting Clinton in states Obama won handily (e.g. Michael Thurmond, Carole Dabbs, and Lonnie Plott all of GA). The same holds true of Obama supporters (I haven’t heard any clamoring for Obama to give Clinton all those super-delegates from MA).

In short, we are all at least a little bit fanatical (if not hypocritical) when it comes to deciding how super-delegates should make a decision.

great post jane.

are the delegates’ votes public record after the convention?

OT
and this news just came from cnn email-”– Hillary Clinton’s passport file was breached in 2007, Secretary of State Rice told Clinton, according to the senator’s office.”

yadda yadda yadda
Super-Duper Delegates to the rescue…

bah, humbug.

Here’s to Governor Richardson for finally giving his endorsement.

He endores Obama. Get over it. Move on. Let’s get a Democratic President Elected and Inaugurated.

Do you have a position on who Richardson should vote for?

So what you’re arguing for is the Clinton camp’s position, which is that superdelegates should not be bound to vote for who their constituents voted for.

That’s the opposite of what Richardson said on CNN.

Technically I agree with that view, but not practically. I believe super delegates should weigh very heavily the “who won the most pledged delegates nationally” factor. They strongly disagree with that.

But I don’t mind if they weigh a number of factors, some of which I listed.

Jane Hamsher:

Maybe Richardson was suggesting something else in that Blitzer interview: the possibility (which many of us entertain, out of pessimism or paranoia) that the superdelegates would somehow subvert the primary process…in favor of Clinton. Your are right that he contradicts himself here — or, as you put it, that he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. I think where he’s stating his real view, however, is here: “No, I know that. But I’m going to decide in the next few days. I just think superdelegates have too much influence. It should be voters in states. It should be delegates according to the proportion of the vote or the candidate”. In retrospect, given his endorsement of Obama, he was worried about Clinton’s inevitable superdelegate strategy.

Is there any grounds for such worry, on my part or Richardson’s? Well, yes — it was immediately obvious that Obama’s race speech was as much as anything meant to counter Clinton’s campaign — that she would try to use the Wright affiliation to claim to the superdelegates that they had to intervene because Obama is unelectable. For what it’s worth, the Times has seconded that take.

You’re quibbling with Richardson’s stated contradictions in this interview. Why?

I don’t think there is one easy set of rules that should be adhered to by super delegates.
For instance, lets say in 2016 a successful Governor Spitzer had a large lead in delegates approaching the Democratic convention, but not quite enough to put him ovet the top, without the votes of a majority of the super delegates. Then, one week before the convention, the story of his involvement with prostitues hits the media. Well….then what?

Or, a candidate does extremely well early in the process, but their campaign starts to take on a lot water late and their rival catches fire and convincingly wins 10 primaries in a row, but falls just short of having a majority of the delegates. Well….then what?

Sounds like Obama offered a sweeter deal to Richardson than Clinton did. Possibly VP????

It’s really odd to see yet another Friend of Bill endorsing someone other than Hillary. Joe Lieberman, who if anything is closer to the Clintons than Richardson, went and endorsed McCain — this despite the Clintons’ pissing off the Democratic base and shivving Lamont on Lieberman’s behalf. (Then again, Lieberman has shivved the Clintons before, as those of us who remember his September 1998 backstab know. He singlehandedly revived the Republicans’ faltering impeachment drive by giving it a fake “bipartisan” veneer.)

and this news just came from cnn email-”– Hillary Clinton’s passport file was breached in 2007, Secretary of State Rice told Clinton, according to the senator’s office.”

Wow! That blows this thing sky high.

something that bothers me about this—

it was on february 25th Richardson said he was going to decide ’very shortly’ on an endorsement……..

it’s March 21st

was he just waiting till sen obama needed a ’boost’?

a month isn’t ’very shortly’

my antennae are twitching.

The dumb ass FL and MI delegates cannot be seated because they broke the rules and chose to disenfranchise their voters.

Can we drop this meme? Again, the bill that moved the FL primary was a Republican bill, passed by a Republican state legislature, and signed by a Republican governor. The dems had very little to say about it.

That’s my guess.

Expect all the old Richardson dirt to come out again.

You are right, Jane. Richardson is saying this one day, and a month later, he does that.

It would be refreshing to see a politician just level with the public and voters.

How about some good old basic truth???

Anyways, the MSM will infotainmentspin this into more idiocy…

Super delegates are only one part of the problem. If you get rid of them you’ve still got a situation where every state party pretty much decides for itself what it’s going to do. Are primaries fairer than caucuses? Are open primaries fairer than closed primaries? How do you deal with a MSM that ignores everyone but the frontrunner’s? Early voting a good thing or not? The primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire valuable as a winnowing process or unacceptably undemocratic? I don’t have the answers but I hope that this primary season serves as a wake up call to the Democratic Party that it’s past time to do something about this.

Uh huh– breaking on msnbc– so is St. John’s!

I wanna know if mine was breached.

yeppers.

Jane, you’re looking a gift horse in the mouth. What a waste.

I have two things to say on this. One is that you would need to count how many superdelegates come from the state of NM, and then give apx. half plus one to Clinton and the remainder to Obama, and then it would be exactly as Richardson said. He did, after all, indicate that Hillary only won by 1% in his state. It was the interviewer, Wolf Blitzer, that declared that a win was a win.

OTOH, and number two, as far as I can tell, the Superdelegates are meant to be leaders. So a leader should have the perogative of changing his mind or letting events (like Obama’s speech and the predicament of the party) change his mind. So I think Richardson is doing what a leader should do. I try not to criticize folks for providing leadership.

passport, that is.

That’s exactly it, they remained silent. They should have made a big stink, but chose to let the bill pass quietly.

At what point with the DEMOCRATIC Party become truly democratic? All this crap about electing delegates and super delegates to represent us- That’s Republican! So is the Electoral College. Direct Elections are the only Democratic way to go. One man (woman), one vote! How hard is that? The Super Delegates get two votes!
And yeah, it’s too late to change for this election, we have to find a way to cope with the current situation. But all of you who think this is wrong have to get involved with your local party, and elect new Party officials so that we can begin making some of these pernicious party rules go away.

Um, no. That’s separate from the DNC’s own rules, which Hillary’s top advisor Harold Ickes agreed to before it became clear that Hillary could benefit by staying on the MI and FL ballots.

“I think Richardson realizes that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee that the fracturing of the Democratic Party would be severe.”

My two cents: this has been an extremely divisive primary, and this is not all on Clinton. Neither Clinton nor Obama are my candidate of choice, but I’ll support whoever gets the nomination. What I do see is serious nastiness on both sides, and Obama supporters are doing (or ready to do) as much potential harm to the party as Clinton supporters - if their guy doesn’t get the nomination.

And I’ll stick my foot in it to say this: there has been some serious Clinton bashing going on on the nets - mysogeny in high gear, that has been a complete turn off. As much as race has been made an issue in this campaign, so has mysogeny. And there is a load of bile directed at anyone who dares to offer criticism of anyone’s pet candidate. FDL has been better than most, thank you Jane and Christy and mods for making it that way. But there does seem to be a kind of rabid energy around- my candidate or fuck you, that hardly encourages open dialogue.

Jane, you wrote in part:

“Richardson seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one. New Mexico went for Clinton, and Hispanics in the New Mexico caucuses went 2-1 for Clinton. If Richardson thinks superdelegates should “vote according to who they represent,” who does he think he’s representing?”

I would guess he thinks he represents all democrats not just the Hispanics. Don’t racially categorize him when not necessary please.

Also, h just said Clinton won NM by 1%. That is hardly NM “went for Clinton”

If Nancy Pelosi wasn’t so busy not impeaching Bush and Cheney, she should now be calling for the resignation of Condi Rice. In a similar situation, the Republics would be apoplectic.

Yea, your right as far as BR should say he’s changed his mind on super delegates.

One thing about Richardson, I live in NM and he is the proverbial Big Dog here, he runs New Mexico like an old time pol, so sometimes he forgets that what goes over in New Mexico will not quite past muster elsewhere.

It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.

oregon dave at 9

i don’t think you change the rules in the middle of a race/competition…….if they did that in basketball, what do you think would happen? people would go apeshit. and this is the race for the president of the united states.

you change the rules after, not during, after-before the next race/competition.

Jane, are you saying that Richardson said he was selected as an Hispanic superdelegate (Hispanics went 2-1 for Clinton in NM)? He said

If somebody’s appointed as a superdelegate because they’re Hispanic or a governor, they should pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying.

If he was appointed as being a former governor, then representing the whole state would seem to ask for a near-even divide of NM superdelegates (1% margin of victory).

Which would seem to require that the superdelegates caucus among themselves.

I’ll go so far and say

Screw the states “rights” issues and let the dems decide on a nationwide popular vote. You can add the vote state by state if you like.

That’s democracy ain’t it?

If superdelegates are unpledged delegates which differentiates them from the pledged delegates (result of caucus and primaries), a superdelegate who pledges to a particular candidate becomes one and the same as a pledged delegate. So, what’s the point of a superdelegate?

Since all the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination, it seems their only objective in announcing their choice before the convention is for some specific political reason.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how his state voted, Richardson can vote for any candidate of his choice so why is he making noise about the narrow win between Hillary and Obama, and the win counts except for when it doesn’t. Maybe Richardson needs to do some straight talking.

It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.

Well, that puts me in my place. Thanks for your thoughts.

Re my post at #42: what Ann in AZ and joelmael posted while I was typing.

Yes, New Mexico went for Clinton. She won both the delegate count and the popular vote. That’s a fact, it’s not in dispute.

And the article linked goes on at length to say that Richardson’s endorsement is important because he represents Hispanics (Richardson mentioned it himself on CNN), so it’s not something I interjected into the conversation.

Excellent point.

Being Hispanic, or even being just seen as potentially popular among Hispanics, is not the same as “representing” them.

Richardson is trying to have his cake and eat it here, claiming to represent all Democrats as well as just New Mexico, but it’s pretty clear he’s really thinking of the welfare of the Democratic Party as a whole.

No rules changes involved. It’s getting together and voting. We’ve already got superdelegates. To discard or discount them at this point would be changing the rules.

This is cute:

That private prayer group will only benefit Clinton - the deeply Christian Religious Right-wing Republicans who don’t like McCain, will feel comfortable voting for Hillary now, because she’s in a prayer group. My Mom and Grandmother are in this category - they didn’t know how deeply religious Clinton is. And having a prayer group in the white house?! It’s Heaven for them!
Noelle | 03.21.2008 - 11:53 am

brendanx at 40 says-”It’s “misogyny”. That argument was so February.”

that would be true, if it weren’t still going on.

so is this:

it astonishes me that with all evidence to the contrary, Gov. Richardson can repeat the stepford superdelegate line, that Obama is “once -in - a lifetime” leader who will unite the country–while at this very moment the country is torn apart by him. We could call George Bush a ‘once-in-a lifetime leader”. At least we hope so. What is going on in this world–its as if someone has taken over the bodies of the superdelegates and implanted stepford brains! Can’t these people think for themselves? Can’t they assess the realities? Sorry, it is just so crazymaking.

I don’t have strong opinions one way or another on the superdelegate situation, or whether they should even exist. Neither do I have a fear that they’re going to go renegade and override a clear popular winner (and I don’t see any way that’s not going to be Obama).
———-
Hmmm. I have some VERY strong opinions on this. This whole nominating process has me wondering how we got into this damn mess to begin with. For starters, there shouldn’t be any “superdelegates”. Any system that offers Joe Lieberman a bigger say than the people in who becomes the Democratic nominee is just plain asinine. (Thank God he opened his mouth and lost his vote.) Second, I have some real problems with pledged delegates switching their support. I’m a solid Obama supporter, but I don’t see why he should get Edwards’ delegates. Third, any system in which you count all the votes, and you STILL can’t figure out who won, is seriously flawed. The Texas caucus is the prime offender here. After the 2000 election, the Dems should have realized that they need a system in which they just count all the votes and declare whoever got the most as the winner.

oregon dave at 48

so, it’s in the rules to have a meeting of the superdelegates in june?

OT: Unfiltered State dept. briefing on C-SPAN now.

OT - sorry if it’s been reported, but CNN.com is saying Hillary’s passport file was snooped in 2007.

Hear, Hear, and let’s not burst the bubble of the youth vote while we’re at it! So much energy and enthusiasm for a change should be rewarded, not thwarted. I’m sick of all of it; let’s get on with it, already!

Late coming to the thread—

hiya Jane!

“We could call George Bush a ‘once-in-a lifetime leader”. At least we hope so.”
___________

Ain’t that the truth! Worst president of my 62 years, by far.

My wife is watching the tube and CNN also reported that McCain’s was also accessed. Good cover story doncha think, and it only took them 3 months to come up with this or 17 hours depending on how you look at Condi’s involvement.
I think a Special Prosecutor (independent) is called for and if Bush doesn’t do it (Duh) Congress should call for one immediately. Oh, thats right, they are on vacation.

i would like that ticket

cspan 1
briefing on peek-see

oh yeah? The hubby’s was peaked at in 1992–by Bush the father…

McBu’ush’s as well.

He said Hispanic or governor. You may say he’s being dodgy, but he did not claim he was a superdelegate appointed to represent Hispanics.

So if Richardson had stayed in the race and lost in New Mexicio, and Clinton won by one percentage point, should he have said that he would cast his vote for her. Richardson may not like the present system but he is part of it. Is he then prohibited from criticizing it? I, in fact, agree with Richardson. Superdelegates are basically a bad idea. The very word should raise questions in what is supposed to be a democratic Democratic process.

…was peeked at…*g*

No. Nor is in the rules that they shall not meet.

sander0 and others.

i posted these in the last post—

hey- about the hillary being involved with right-wing christian groups-

i went to a bible study at the baptist church here……..because i wanted to learn what they think, what they believe, etc…….was one of the most informative things i’ve ever done.

i learned a lot.

so, i wouldn’t take that information about hillary the same way you all have.

=====================

and forgot to add—

just because i was at this baptist bible study, doesn’t mean i agreed with them, just meant i was there to learn about/with them……..

but it could have been taken differently if i was running for office.

just sayin’.

all spying,all the time,anybodies info up for grabs…. 1984

oregondave at 67

i don’t see how this isn’t ’gaming’ the game, sorry.

Ha. It just occurred to me that 08 will be the death knell of the shibboleth that no U.S. senator can get elected to U.S. prez.

When you create a one-size-fits-all solution, superdelegates, to address one problem at some point in history, you end up with multiple greater problems that distort the outcome of future problems. It doesn’t fit other elections. DNC needs to remove superdelegates from the process. It’s time came and went. Now it’s a millstone tied around the neck of voters and superdelegates, alike.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were all on the FL ballot, unlike Michigan…my point is simply that FL democrats, like myself, had very little to say about moving the FL primary. The bill that moved the primary did give us paper-trail voting, which is why it had broad support…a local poll here two days ago showed 13% of FL Democrats planing to protest-vote for McCain if no accommodation is reached…that CAN’T be considered the optimal solution.

hahahahahahaha…yup and the Senate has been abysmal for years imo

Senator John Kennedy.

that is just plain dumb…sorry

Similarly, just like she voted for the war doesn’t mean she agreed with it.

Actually, that’s snark. You are right. It’s virtually meaningless. This is the kind of mire ordinarily rational people step into when they try to prove religious bona fides. As we know all too well, alas, from this week’s events.

you got my attachment…

The long time lapse since Kennedy, and all the failed bids by sentaors in the interim, is usually used as the evidence.

Wow! Another “me, too!” What a surprise!

NOT! I guess I would be surprised if this wasn’t in today’s news.

You don’t have to attend regularly to get some intel on a group. Do you?

Fine. I’m outta here.

Which Richardson is it that you agree with? The one who said that superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote, or the one that’s voting for Obama?

this do or die fighting is so self destructive

Wish I would have paid more attention when I had to read that book in grad school. That professor must have been onto something we did not know about. *g*

McBu’ush’s as well.

Which means re: the passport situation we have reached that wonderful and blissful state of Tribuki!

Raise your hand if you are the slightest bit surprised that this administration has allowed such craziness to go on.

sorry to chime in here,but if the vote was razor close,mebbe its the will of half the voters

apple at 59

yes, i hope that happens.

I’ll second the motion.

I simply assume that the Bu’ushies peruse our personal data at will, in large measure using their private sector collaborators, regarding whom the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Re intra-party loyalties and in-fighting:

“The Titanic sails at dawn
Everybody shoutin’
‘Which side are you on’?”

-Bob Dylan

Who are Richardson’s constituents… only his state, or his nation?

Even when they are not on vacation, there’s little hope of the Democrats actually doing something like that.

Which problem with his statements do you have? That he contradicts himself or that he’s endorsed Obama?

i reread it…the torture sequence VERY eeeery(Abu Garib)…ya know we never really learn the lessons of history except that the evil power brokers USE the same tactics over and over…oy

If Clinton won NM by 1%, then I guess I object to “went for” (her) in the same sense I object to poeple saying voters “went for” Bush in ‘04. It obscures the nearly even divide, An obscurantism foisted upon us by the horseracer media.

that’s a good point. i hate the idea of superdelegates, but if they are going to try to represent their state, isn’t it important the the over all number match up? if so, then ideally shouldn’t in NM a slim majority of them go to clinton?

how many other NM superdelegates are there and who have they committed to voting for?

disclaimer: this comment has nothing to do with what richardson is saying vs. doing - it’s about what i think he ought to do (and i’m not sure).

that is what i feel also…too close to call the poular will of the people

Which Richardson is it that you agree with? The one who said that superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote, or the one that’s voting for Obama?

Well according to the quote you cite, his constituents split their vote so the first part is irrelevant. They didn’t vote for Clinton. Blitzer is full of sh*t. A win is not a win in politics. It’s just the dimwitted horse race driven narrative that Blitzer and the media want to impose on this campaign. Nor am I persuaded that just because Richardson finds himself a part of this process that he has to walk in lockstep with it. That seems a very strange argument especially from a progressive.

You just shattered all my hopes and dreams *g* You are so right. Sad but true.

sander0 at 81

i did, and i definitely didn’t become baptist, but it was worthwhile. i feel they benefitted from my views, too. at least that’s what they said. and my views were night and day apart from theirs. but the strange thing is, in many ways, we agreed on many things, too. that is how we were able to listen to each other on the areas where we differed.

like i said, i learned A LOT. about all kinds of things……was an eye-opening experience.

Except for Richardson’s baggage it would be very good.

see 98 “g”

I want everyone’s vote to count and I’m disappointed that re-votes won’t happen. However, I live in Pennsylvania. In 2004, John Kerry mathematically sewed up the nomination almost two months before I voted.

My vote was counted, but it didn’t count. My vote didn’t matter. Lots of Americans in the later primary states do not have their votes count. Politicians don’t visit, and no one pays attention to us. IMHO, this issue is just as important as FL and MI not counting this year.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were all on the FL ballot, unlike Michigan…my point is simply that FL democrats, like myself, had very little to say about moving the FL primary. The bill that moved the primary did give us paper-trail voting, which is why it had broad support…a local poll here two days ago showed 13% of FL Democrats planing to protest-vote for McCain if no accommodation is reached…that CAN’T be considered the optimal solution.

Florida’s Democratic leaders could have made a much bigger stink at the time, and they didn’t. They could have set up a second primary, and they didn’t. They could have had a caucus, and they didn’t. Now they’re bitching because Howard Dean is going to follow the rules and hold them (and the people who voted for them) responsible for their actions. I’m sympathetic to a point, but we all have to pay a price for electing dumb-ass leaders. Our current President is probably one of the best examples of this principle. Frankly, I still don’t understand why Florida can’t run another primary, or barring that, hold a caucus. I have zero sympathy for the politicians there who have just thrown up their hands and said, “It can’t be done.” Yes, it can. It just can’t be done by the idiot politicians who are in charge.

Ding!

Leslie Blitzer is an Aipac toady who was employed for years by Pat Robertson…few know this

Another “me,too!” What a joke! And only some underlings in the Bush Administration knew of the alleged breaches of security and privacy of all of the candidates for President of the US. And this with the National Inquirer and Star Mag willing to pay big bucks for dirt. Interesting, to say the least! Now I can’t stop laughing. It’s like we have the keystone cops for security. Guess the joke’s on us.

used to be
IOKIYAR

now
IOKIYAO

This quibbling with whether Richardson has violated some previously enunciated principle is at odds with the very (undemocratic) notion of a “super”delegate. There are no rules for how he has to vote. He can vote his conscience. He clearly has a problem voting for Clinton despite the votes of New Mexicans. Let’s explore that.

Wow.

A politician says one thing in February and does the opposite in March?

Color me surprised.