RSSClinton Advisor Harold Ickes: Superdelegates Will Decide Democratic Primary Not Obama Wins (Selected Not Elected)
The candidate will be selected not elected. Voters ballots cast in state primaries will be irrelevant. Black voters will be disenfranchised. Doesn’t this sound like Democrats complaining after the 2000 Presidential election and the hanging chads in Florida? This time the Democrats and their party own the controversy and the issue. One of Hillary Clinton’s top advisors, Harold Ickes stated the election would be selected, not elected.
Ickes said superdelegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.
Hillary Clinton and her minions look to win the Democratic nomination through selection, not by an election of voters. The Clinton’s will do anything to win and in the process destroy the Democratic party. If Clinton wins through a back room political process when Obama has a majority of pledged delegates, does anyone think that those who voted for Obama would support Hillary? Especially black voters. People thought the battle between Hillary and Obama was ugly now … you ain’t seen nothing yet!
A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision.
The claims no doubt will escalate the war of words between the campaigns, as Obama continues to argue superdelegates should vote the way of their districts. But the special class of delegates, which make up about 20 percent of the total delegate haul, are not bound to vote the way of their states and districts, as pledged delegates are.
Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign’s convention strategy.
“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said, adding that they would do so soon after the last contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”
Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run “neck and neck” in the remaining states and that there would be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates.
But he said superdelegates — who “have a sense of what it takes to get elected” — would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton. (FOX News)
Bloggers discussing the Clinton’s bypassing democracy:
-
Blue Crab Boulevard: Clinton Campaign: Screw Democracy
-
Oblogatory Anecdotes: Superdelegates are a Super Problem for Democrats
Posted February 16, 2008 by Scared Monkeys Hillary Clinton, Politics, Presidential Election 2008 | 10 comments |
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
10 Responses to “Clinton Advisor Harold Ickes: Superdelegates Will Decide Democratic Primary Not Obama Wins (Selected Not Elected)”
Leave a Reply
and you wonder what happened to Vincent Foster. The clinton’s are ruthless. They need to be stopped. She calls herself a uniter. She is dividing the party like only a Republican could only dream. You are a loser hillary. you are showing your true colors. I hope you lose big. oters are starting to see you as you really are
Oh well in that case why have primaries and caucus’ at all? For that matter why not let them decide for us who gets elected since they are obviously superior in judgment than us plebes. This is exactly how these elitist democrats view people. People are not capable of making correct decisions so we need an all encompassing government to make all of our decisions for us. I am so glad we have superior people like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Peloci, and the smartest woman in the world Hillary Clinton to look out for us. It will surely make me sleep better at night.
Nice blog. I will ad you to my blogroll.
__________
SM: Great post on superdelegates Ken … Thanks for adding to blogroll … we will do the same.
RED
#2 Ken: That’s also what has happened with the Republican side except the MSM picked the candidate. Voters have been disenfranchised through the entire election process this year (and perhaps previous years).
We get doctored “debates” where real questions aren’t asked of the candidates.
We get caucuses where working America can’t attend and vote because of the tight time lines and rules.
We get the MSM using their adjectives and news coverage to tell us who the winner is. Followed by the party telling us they don’t care if we like the choice or not, we need to hold our noses and for for him anyhow – you know the guy that called us names and swore at us last June.
Now the Democrats get the Hillabeast up to the Clinton tricks. Of course Harold Ickes says the super delegates have to choose because the dumb voters picked the wrong candidate!
The truth is Democrats have little to complain about because they want the Nanny State. They want the government to make choices for them when they are too busy, lazy or don’t care. Heck Obama is going to send you all a filled in IRS tax form that you simply have to sign and send back! Give the Democrats a few years and they’ll change that and just have your paycheck sent to them and they will send you back what they think you deserve.
#3
The emotion of the democratic primaries will be their undoing. These dem pundits come on TV and lie about how the energy of the democratic base coming out to vote in primaries will transpire to the 2008 vote.
NO IT WILL NOT!!!
There will be too many primary voters who feek that they were screwed if the nomination is determined by superdelegates and Hillary wins.
Change is what Obama is campaigning on. Of course no one knows what they change is. Maybe a move to communism or socialism if one atually looks at what he is for.
However, people will perceive “change” being destroyed if the old party machine chooses a product of the political system like Hillary Clinton
R
I am anxious to see how this plays out…first its just like the Dems to ‘protect us from ourselves’..secondly, I have heard all along–no matter how big Obama wins and Hillary loses, Hillary WILL BE the Dem nominee…can’t wait to find out if this plays out like I have heard.
Of course, were the relative situations of Clinton and Obama reversed … were she the one who suddenly acquired momentum, in defiance of the ‘conventional wisdom’ that led the media pundits to say confidently last year who had the nomination sewn up …
and were Obama the one who saw his ‘safe’ lead slipping away …
would this advisor be making such statements?
Of course not!
Does anyone remember back in the days when there were, or at least were supposed to be, such things as impartial and unwavering PRINCIPLES?
The best one at cheating and back-stabbing is the one who wins today … face it, the whole political campaigning system has degenerated into the land of TV stars and advertising agencies.
And more and more money get sucked up by the system every year.
I used to be disgusted by those who say the only solution is not to vote at all. More and more, these days, I find myself joining them.
The spoils system reigns … it seems that that is the chief reason, if not the only reason, for people to get into the mega-political sphere.
The current political system illustrates why we HAVE TO SCALE DOWN OUR GOVERNMENT.
Selling candy, selling soap, selling deoderant, selling political candidates … all the same now.
Except that deoderant takes away the stink, or so they say.
http://tinyurl.com/35quqy
http://tinyurl.com/3yjeXm
http://tinyurl.com/3yhg2k
-j4n
so true Richard, unfortunately. I am so disgusted at the process. Think of the major 3 candidates each spending over $100 million to get elected. Let’s say all the minor candidates together only spent another $300 million. That’s $600 million!
Imagine what could have been done with that money. Imagine what could have been done for the people these candidates “say” they support.
Can any of us articulate what these candidates will actually do? We know Hillary and Obama plan to force national health care upon the nation regardless of all the warnings and examples against it. We know that the $100 Billion they say it will cost is the tip of the ice berg.
We know they both hate the military and believe that you can just sit down and talk with terrorists. We know Obama hates corporations too. We hear Hillary threatening that she may regulate oil companies and others in the energy fields. We know they are both at least socialists, perhaps communists.
We know that McCain wants to legalize 20 million illegals while throwing up some type of fence at the border only because he’ll “build their GD fence”.
We know McCain supports the military but won’t do jack squat to get information from any terrorist we might capture.
We know McCain doesn’t believe “we the people” have a right to an opinion and he will do as he thinks best.
Gosh, what a wonderful choice we have.
Is things all that bad? I know a lot of people that are complaining, probably have never been through really hard times.
You would think the next president is going to remake the whole world, but in reality he/she will just give everything different names.