In keeping with true Democratic Party tradition, the lowly voter cannot be
trusted with the power of a single vote. Super Delegates solved that
problem. Read on. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

On Feb 9, 9:16*am, "Jim" wrote:
In keeping with true Democratic Party tradition, the lowly voter cannot be
trusted with the power of a single vote. Super Delegates solved that
problem. Read on.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

The super delegates were developed for just that, to make sure the DNC
did not lose control of the candidates.. Remember, that party believes
in haveing a few "smarter" folks decide things for the rest of us, the
whole "nanny state" thing. Not saying it's a bad thing, although I
think it is, just the was the democrats believe in running things..
As to the split delegates that was done I think right after 84 because
Jessi Jackson was loosing states by small margins but still taking no
delegates to the convension. For good or bad I don't know.. But that
is how I understand the split delegates thing as far as the dems are
concerened...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:16:22 -0500, "Jim" wrote:

In keeping with true Democratic Party tradition, the lowly voter cannot be
trusted with the power of a single vote. Super Delegates solved that
problem. Read on. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

Nor can you tell the truth without repercussions.

http://tinyurl.com/2vyuvc

Wasn't Chelsea the hot topic here last week?
--
John H

On Feb 9, 10:33*am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:16:22 -0500, "Jim" wrote:
In keeping with true Democratic Party tradition, the lowly voter cannot be
trusted with the power of a single vote. Super Delegates solved that
problem. Read on.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

Nor can you tell the truth without repercussions.

http://tinyurl.com/2vyuvc

Wasn't Chelsea the hot topic here last week?
--
John H

Always the victim....