As if anyone needed to be told, the Democratic Convention is less than two weeks away, and just like Barack's lackluster performance since "supposedly" wrapping up the nomination, it appears his coronation is on track to being equally lackluster.
Obama has failed in the most telling of manners to "run away" with this election which by nearly all estimations is the Democrat's year to blaze across the political heavens. The Berlin bounce [thud, actually] lasted all but 4-5 days, the Obamessiah dissed American troops at Landstuhl, he copped out on a town-hall meeting with military personnel and families, he's shadowed by the ghosts of racism, corruption, and terrorism-- and did I mention his poll numbers are thoroughly lackluster? I can't count the many talking heads who are asking near continuously "why isn't senator Obama running away with this election?"
Why would they ask such a question? Because the MSM has bent over backwards to promote "their" chosen candidate, the Chosen One, Barack Obama; they've pulled out all the stops, and still their horse can't get more than a nose ahead of the old whited-haired wrinkly dude. Before it's all over [the convention that is] we could see more than a little "buyers' remorse" from Obama supporters, and the vote could actually be close, embarrassing the Obama campaign and democrats even further. And here's the dirty little secret that few on the left are even whispering: Barack could still lose the nomination. IF, as Obama desires, the FULL delegations of Florida and Michigan are sat, he doesn't have enough delegates to win nomination.
But no time for idle speculation, the convention is coming up, and this is the Messiah's time to shine! For his star to blaze across the heavens... Or IS it?
The convention is going to be dominated by images of Clinton's... Hillary's name placed in contention for the roll call vote, a big Hillary Clinton video, Chelsea introducing her Mum, Bill addressing the party faithful the following night, and throughout it all the Media will be highlighting Hillary's campaign, the closeness of the race, and the need... the NEED... of Barack Obama to include the Clintons if he's to have any hope of winning in November. Somewhere at the end, Barack will get his say... assuming he wins the vote. And his speech will likely be filled with as many if not more platitudes and say-nothings as his Ich bin ein Beginner speech.
The more this race continues with Barack at the democratic forefront, as PRESUMPTIVE nominee, the more confident I am of a McCain win in November. Quite possibly by a landslide. And his fumbling missteps in the current Georgian crisis, only further highlights his severe lack of experience in ANYTHING meaningful that should make him even a passable president.
Is the Republican convention going to prevent delegates for voting for Paul or Romney if they so desire? Is that how you run a representative democracy?
On the other hand, WITH Florida and Michigan fully seated at the Democrat convention Obama would NOT have enough delegates to win. Besides which, it is the DEMOCRATIC primary that is a mockery of representative democracy:
Proportionate distribution of delegates?
Super Delegates?
The system is deliberately gamed to avoid another Goldwater. And THAT Cinderella slipper looks sure to slip right on Obama's dainty foot.
However there are still small-time local characters who vied for the republican nomination, and some of them are still running. Shouldn't they receive their due delegates if they won any?
"WITH Florida and Michigan fully seated at the Democrat convention Obama would NOT have enough delegates to win." I'm glad you are so concerned about the democratic party's nominating system. But the party has a rules committee for this very reason. They are charged with finding an equitable way to choose the party's presidential candidate. Since when Florida and Michigan voted Barack was not on those ballots it is a puzzler what to do with those states delegates.
On the republican party side I don't understand the winner take all primaries. Romney won Massachusetts and Utah. Huckabee won Alabama. Are those states delegates not going to be seated? Are they going to change their votes to McCain? What about Guilliani supporters in those states? Do they get no respect at all?
And shouldn't party officials and members get a second vote about the party leader? Republicans all across the country will have to run with McCain, and if he wins they will have to work with his administration. That seems like an interest that deserves an extra vote. Not enough to turn the tide, but enough to make a point, or require that the potential nominees court the party they are hoping to lead.
Certainly, but Romney, Giulliani, Huckabee, etc., have released their delegates and thrown their support to McCain.
Yes, I understand that the DNC has a rules committee, but the rules currently reflect a less than democratic face. The General election is a 50-state winner take all deal. By not making the primaries the same you end up with the kind of fiasco that appears to be on track for next week in Denver. Besides which, having done a little research on the subject, Democrats like to complicate things; this whole "super delegate" rule is both messy and undemocratic, and was only instituted as a result of McGovern's disastrous run for president in 1968 [I incorrectly offered Goldwater's name in an above comment... for some reason my brain confuses Goldwater for McGovern]. The idea, if I may paraphrase it, is to allow the little people, the Average-Joe voter the semblance of choosing a president, but just in case the Average-Joe's decision is unacceptable to the Uppity Up's in the DNC, they have this little rule that allows them to choose someone they more prefer. What makes the whole democratic process so messy is this idea of proportional distribution of delegates.
All of those Romney and Huckabee delegates are going to be seated, but they will overwhelmingly vote McCain. Each state's delegates will hold their own vote, some will vote Romney, some Huck, some someone else, but the end result will be that state going to McCain, because these other candidates have released their delegates to McCain.
Hillary, on the other hand HAS YET to release her delegates. Why? Because she knows their is still a chance that she can get the nomination thanks to all those superdelegates and the realization that Obama has NOT done well in polls against McCain. Every other election has had the Democratic nominee head with far larger spreads at this stage in the race. The superdelegates have got to be wondering if they made the right decision. And they also know they don't HAVE to vote Obama. They CAN change their mind. And since Obama doesn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination WITHOUT the superdelegates.... Hillary can still win. Though it's not likely; pride will keep most of them from publicly admitting [media being the creature it is today, as compared to 1972] they made a mistake in Obama to change their vote, despite all the mistakes Obama's made since taking on the mantle of "PRESUMPTIVE" nominee-- they are more worried of having their names splashed across Media, in Left-wing Blogs, etc. So, in the end, what's the point of superdelegates TODAY, if Old and New media prevent them from doing what they were created to do in the first place? The best thing the DNC rules committee could do would be to abolish the superdelegates rule.
'Cause all it amounts to is one hell of a messy process, and a lot of hard and bitter feelings among the ranks of "rank and file" voters.