I watched Clinton and Obama debate last night again. I thought they were just a little too nice to eachother. I thought Clinton was smug. Perhaps it's because of all the so called super delegates she will most likely get as pointed out by Stephan Clark.
***
She has 159 "super-delegates," dwarfing the number she's received in Iowa and New Hampshire so far, and more than 100 more than the next candidate, Barack Obama.
Get this, forty-percent of the delegates currently at stake for Democratic presidential contenders are "super-delegates." The voters don't vote for these 842 people; they're high-ranking Democratic Party members: governors, leaders of the Democratic National Committee, former Presidents, like Bill Clinton. And they all go to the National Convention, just the delegates the voters send, and pledge their vote to a candidate during the nominating stage.
***
But Obama did score some reality check points. Honestly, how could Clinton have possibly thought that Bush wouldn't invade Iraq when she voted to authorize him to? It just doesn't hold any water no matter how she twists it.
That was a knockout punch from Obama if you ask me, so I give the debate to Obama.
Some are saying it will come down to a Clinton Obama ticket VS McCain Huckabee. We will see. It would make sense as Bill doesn't think Obama is "ready" to be President, but I think the Clintons would like to have him as VP. I've been thinking that the other consolation prize Clinton might bestow on Obama if she becomes president is a potential spot on the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Do the super-delegates wear capes or just body suits with big letters on their chests? ;)
I wish I knew more about American Politics. It seems so complicated to me as I watch condensed reports on the news. (I did catch the newsreel with Ted Kennedy and Obama...hmmmm.) Seems that only two political parties should mean a simpler process. Here we had three (Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic), but more keep popping out of the woodwork -- the Green Party, the Party Quebecois, the Marijuana Party (yup, not kidding), and independent candidates with no party affiliation at all. Our process seems much simpler still, than yours.
While your election process escapes me, I am familiar with the candidates. If I had to choose between Obama and Clinton, I think I would choose Obama. There is something about Hilary Clinton that I don't trust. It's just a feeling.
There is the argument that if there are too many political parties then nothing ever gets done. I can't remember if it was Stevenson who once said that he thought the two party system was the most effective. The thought being that instead of all the effort being spent on a fight for power, effort was spent on getting things done. I don't know.
Here the two main parties aren't likely to give up control over the political process.
I don't see Obama settling for a run on Clinton's VP ticket. If he does that would really surprise me and I would lose most, if not all, of the respect I have for him.
Not sure on the other side, although it looks like McCain is doing well.
I don't know Diane, There's been a lot of talk about party unity. They are saying that if Obama can win in California he might go on for the win.
I guess Bill is watching the Superbowl with Richardson. So perhaps Richardson will be tapped out for VP in a Clinton admin.
I forgot to say, yes McCain is doing really well. I have to say that I favor Romney over McCain however, but they both scare me.
Post a Comment