Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
I didn't casually dismiss all your concerns, I adressed them one by one. If we are going to make every mis-statement by a candidate to be fact, then McCain has some real doozies. But I'd rather be concerned with facts about the candidates, not flubs.
If Obama was still in Rev. Wright's church, yes, I'd be concerned.
If Michelle Obama hadn't apologized and reworded her statement, yes, I'd be concerned.
If Obama and Ayers were still working together on the same committee and Ayers was still involved in subversive activities, yes, I'd be concerned.
If Obama's mother were still alive and was spouting Anti-American drivel, yes, I'd be concerned.
But these are all "ifs". None of them are actuals. I am concerned about actuals.
And Sangetsu, you may not understand the role of superdelegates. The responsibility of the superdelegates is not to vote with their constiuency (most of them don't have a constituency) but to vote for the candidate they beleive can beat the Republicans in November. That's all. Does politics play a role in politics? Of course, but don't make it sound like Bill Richarson broke the rules or his responsibilities in choosing Obama.
Nothing we are going to say is going to change each other's minds. But I always do enjoy a lively debate.
|
I understand the irony of the super delegate system. So much for "one vote, one voice". At one time in America, the right to vote was severely restricted. Only white, male land owners had that right. The logic at the time was that landowners were the ones who paid the taxes and levied the militias. It was also argued that the right to vote was too important to be trusted in the hands of the ignorant.
As the country evolved, the rules were changed, and pretty much all adults were given the right to vote. Both political parties were champions in their way of giving this right to all people, but I hate it when I see that parties are still able to finagle around the wishes of the people for what they think is the "greater good". If that were, and is still the case, what was the point in giving all people the right to vote?
I don't oppose the Electoral College system used to elect the president. Though people may not know it, it is the states who elect the president, and not the people. One might argue that the super delegate system and the Electoral college system are principally the same, but they are not, the Electoral College is a blanket system to which all parties must adhere.
I keep hearing about how "historical" this election is. It is not "historical", it is "hysterical". Hillary is more of a man than her husband ever was, and it's interesting how a half-black man becomes fully African American when he's running for political office. What you see as "historical" is nothing of the sort, it's the same cereal made by the same machine, but served in a different box.
This election should be the most important in history; we've rarely needed good leadership as much as we need it now. But once again we are forced to choose between puppets instead of men.