There you are folks…

The people that, after hundreds of millions spent, millions of votes cast… they will make the choice of the Democratic nominee. Just like the rules of the party are meant…

Not for the first time does it occur to me that it’s like something out of the old USSR

Senator Obama speaks plainly on issues to American values and hopes, and his campaign is supported by ordinary Americans like me. But the Clintons’ bank account of 109 million dollars may very well buy the U.S. Presidency for Mrs. Clinton. Hillary loaned herself $5 million of her own money, “a good investment,” in her own words, to further her campaign when it was running out of money. Then, she asked blue-collar working class women to send her campaign their few hard-earned dollars because she claims she identifies with their class position. The Clintons pay over $40,000 each year just to have their houses cleaned, more than what working-class women earn working 40 hours a week over a year. Like coming sniper fire, Hillary won votes in Ohio, Texas, and elsewhere by lying to blue collar workers about NAFTA and about her wealth. We will find that Bill was paid millions of dollars just to give talks for over an hour each time by corporations whose lobbyists also give money to Hillary. Hillary is turning our republic into an oligarchic dynasty. Dear fellow citizens and superdelegates, please turn the page to save our democracy.

tsquare - As much as I hate to do it, I’m going to defend the Democratic party on this one. The purpose of primaries and caucuses is to select a nominee for each party. Each party is given broad discretion in how that is done. And to me, allowing senior party members some degree of discretion in that matter is a wise thing, particularly in light of the trend away from caucuses.

shirl - So far as I’ve seen, Obama doesn’t “speak plainly” about anything. His pronouncements are practically incomprehensible, vague and blurry sentiments rather than specific policy statements. It amazes me how many voters have been duped by the slickly varnished man. And what’s sad is, given his outstanding education background, I’m certain he can do better, which means this is a just a campaign strategy.

If anyone has the time, read up on the rise of Musolini and compare that to Obama. I am NOT saying they are anything alike in character, but there are remarkable similaries in the beliefs and campaign style.

As for superdelegates, I hope I never again hear Democrats say that Republicans disenfranchise voters. Between Michigan and Florida and now having the bigwigs pick the winner, that is pathetic. In fact, if you know your history at all, the superdelegate system was designed as a back up to pick the “right” primary winner just in case the electorate screwed it up. Way to do Dems!

Centrist - Mussolini and Obama are completely different. For one thing, Mussolini spoke Italian. So far as I know, Obama has never even been accused of speaking Italian. And while fascism, according to Wikipedia’s definition, does sound a lot like Obama’s voting record, we can’t overlook the important fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. Furthermore, while Mussolini was banned from his local church for throwing stones at the congregation after mass, Obama is welcome in his local church after giving $22,500 in 2006, though one might argue that Obama’s pastor has thrown a few stones of his own, which stones were quite possibly paid for by Obama.

There is no disenfranchisement of voters in the parties selection of presidential nominees. The parties dont have to allow anyone to vote. They could pass rules saying the nominee’s name will be drawn from a hat.

so centrist and the others should be thankful that the parties give rank and file voters any say in the selection at all.

The mind reels at the ignorance that lumps Obama and Mussolini on the same side of the spectrum, rather than at polar opposites. The Bush II-Mussolini comparison would be far closer.

I await the concrete, reasoned proposals of John McCain on any subject, domestic or foreign (without holding my breath).

I feel that the Dem party can correct this flawed process by simply changing the primary/caucus selection system to winner takes all. As we’ve slow-danced through this nomination process, I cannot believe how convoluted the process is on the Dem side, vis-à-vis the Republicans. Superdelegates? what purpose do they serve, historical problems aside? I say, make a change, before 2012!

I say junk the primaries and go back to caucuses.

The average voters have no day to day connection with what the party is up to and the current system only allows for money and corporate influences to determine who gets their message out. The current system in Missouri also allows for persons which are not of the Democratic Party to vote for or against some candidate to better position the GOP for a November win. The current system also has promoted the media as the new peer reviewer instead of the party regulars which deal with candidates and party issues on a day to day basis.

The need for campaign finance reform is only because we have a plethora of candidates which have only the media as a message, and the only way to get the message out is to make oneself beholden to the monied powers that be. The media which cover the campaigns only focus on process, not policy or issues, so all we get is who has the “mo” and why the media says so because of polls and focus groups. Both the delegate selection process and the media are to blame but, the current system engenders these abuses.

#8: I can’t support that, we have precious little democracy as it is. I think it’s absurd that McCain received all of Missouri’s delegates when about 65% of the GOP primary voters voted for someone else.