Lola:

As far as I am concerned, delegates need to consider one fact only: ELECTABILITY!

Pick the candidate who is mostly likely to beat John McCain. You can't determine that by looking at who took which state's delegates, since they were running against each other, and they are pretty similar (though not identical) in political philosophy. You have to look at which states either candidate might win in the November election--with the voting public, not just Democrats--against John McCain.

I did not vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primaries. But I'd gladly vote for either one of them in the general election, since I think they both have good, although different, qualifications for public office.

My guess--and it's only a guess--is that Obama would be more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. Clinton has "branded" herself as having more experience than Obama, but McCain clearly has more experience than she does, and that's only one of several serious campaign mistakes she's made. Clinton has positioned herself as being better prepared in the international arena, but McCain's experience as a Vietnam vet and soldier give him way more credibility. Plus, unfortunately, I think many more people will vote against her, simply because they do not like her, and she can come across as manipulative, whereas Obama's optimism and McCain's "straight talk" are more palatable to voters. And don't kid yourself--the Republican smear machine is going to kick into much higher gear against Clinton, simply because she and her husband infuriate core Republicans. Because of the volatility of racial politics, Karl Rove and his ilk will have a much harder time figuring how to finesse public opinion against Obama. Finally, I think Obama has the potential to galvanize a solid core of black voters to turn out to vote for him. On the other hand, women are not as universally supportive of a female candidate--I wish they were!

As I said--I'll vote for either Obama or Clinton. When I vote for a politician, I ask myself whether I think they have the potential to accomplish good things that align with my values. I don't ask myself how much I like them or trust them. But for many people, they have to like and trust a candidate to vote for them. Many voters do not like or trust Clinton, and that is why I am nervous about having her as our Democratic candidate.

Posted by Lola | March 25, 2008 2:49 PM

Richard Whissen:

I am a Democrat, and will vote for whomever the Convention selects as the party's candidate. That said, however, I am growing increasingly concerned lest the mutual bashing between Clinton and Obama produce a rift within the party that would allow a Republican victory not only for the White House but in the Congress as well.

My view of superdelegates is that they are our last connection to the "smoke filled room" era, an era that gave us an arguably better stream of candidates (at all levels) than we've seen during the last twenty years. If, as now seems likely, neither Clinton nor Obama will arrive at the Convention with sufficient pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, I'm hoping that the superdelegates will help guide the convention to a nominee who will have the broadest possible appeal to all segments of the electorate, even if the choice should fall on someone other than Obama or Clinton.

I know that this might seem to invalidate the results of the primaries, but I'm sufficiently antedeluvial to believe that the Primary System as presently constituted is a corruption of the electoral process. Unlike the old days, when PARTIES chose their nominees, primary results these days are heavily skewed by people who are not Democrats but who still vote in the Democratic primary. I prefer to have the nominee of my party selected by my party, and not by opportunistic interlopers.

Posted by Richard Whissen | March 28, 2008 9:58 AM

Sheldon G. Bardach:

Electability is definitely what the super delegates were set up for. They are the senior party officials, and their duty is to the party. As such, it is their duty to see to it that the Democratic party wins the coming election. If they think Obama is more likely to win, let them vote for him, on the other hand, Hillary has won virtually all of the major states primaries and Obama has won the small states, and states in which Democrats have no chance of carrying in the general election. It is not as great an achievement. Hillary can take the party to victory. Let's go with her!

Posted by Sheldon G. Bardach | March 29, 2008 2:32 AM

Ted Simatupang:

The most important factor to be considered is: Who is a better candidate to go against John McCain? Who can win the White House for the Democratic Party? All this argument about winning the big states or winning the most states is irrelevent if that candidate chosen has no chance of winning the White House. After all the ultimate goal is to win the White House.

I am a registered Republican. But when it comes to choosing a president, I have always excercised an "independent" judgment. Thus I had, in the past, voted Republican and Democratic candidates.

If Obama is the Democratic Party candidate, he picks the Mayor of New York as his running mate, I can almost guaranteel Obama will occupy the White House. The reason is very simple. Obama needs the Jewish vote. The Mayor of New York, a moderate Republican and a centrist (although he wishes to be acknowledge as an independent), he can bring the Jewish vote as well as funding from his connectionsl.

This combination brings another good vibes. As V-President and a Jew, Obama can send him to solve the Israeli and Palestinian problem. It would be a historic moment. Both of them are new to the scene; there is no preconceived agenda. Their goal is to bring "peace" to the region. Don't you think this is wonderful? America, a peace maker again!

Mr. L. Mantel. I have listened to your interviews with the so-called experts about the surge in Iraq. From the President down to some micky mouse self-proclaimed pundik, they all say that the surge is working. Great. But one factor all of these individuals failed to acknowledge is this: AMERICA PUTS UP MONEY TO BUY THE TRIBAL CHIEFS; PAY THE SALARY OF THE SONS OF IRAQ IN ORDER TO BE ON OUR SIDE. (This is a fact. But no one mention it.) Now, what happen if the MONEY stops coming from the U.S.? Will the Sunnis tribal chiefs and the Sons of Iraq (90,000 plus) continue to do our bidding?
Another fact that has not been properly mentioned, that is, the Sunni's had ALREADY started to fight against the Al Queda in Anwar Province at least ONE year before Gen. Petraes started his surge. We take ALL the credit? What a hypocrate?
Gen. Patraes knows very well, this is a lesson he leared from Vietnam, that if we DO NOT get the support of the local folks (tribal leaders and their following), I do not care how many thousands of troops are sent to Iraq, we, as "foreigners and occupiers," and we do stand out like a sour thumb in their midst, we will be bogged down and no peace. Hence, we used good old American dollars to help us out. So my point here is this: Whenever a politician says our surge is working. Yes. It does. But please add: The American dollars grease it.

Posted by Ted Simatupang | April 2, 2008 9:18 AM