Disgraceful, but it cant be dealt with by the law because its an internal party matter.

If the Democrats have any value for democracy, theyll kick him out of the superdelegate post and the party too.

+ The guy is an absolute dumbass to quote $20mil for one vote out of six hundred votes... $20mil would buy TONS more advertising and could easily be enough to swing an entire state to win a hell of a lot more delegates.

Summary: Poor, costly decision by a douchebag who deserves to lose his position of importance; Democrats should sort him out or they lose integrity. In fact they probably have lost integrity since this bloke is one of their superdelegates and is expected to show superior political judgement.

Just a thought, but could this person be trying to shed a little light on how votes are bought and sold? Could he in fact be trying to change the system by exposing it? This would explain the $20M being so illogical a figure.

By showing that there is no law or ruling against such things, he could be putting it into the light because he knows such sales have happened in the past, and wants to have it looked at by the American people.

Just a possibility.

John F. Kennedy, who I love dearly, bought many of his votes. My uncle was chosen to be a delegate for the dem convention in 1960. He came home and told the story of how, when he was at the convention, a guy from JFK's campaign came up to him and offered him money if he would vote for JFK. My uncle, a man of stirling integrity, and a life-long Democrat, was so angry he walked out of the convention. Later on in life, I learned that this kind of bribery was not at all unusual.

Politics is a very dirty game. I think the smarter sociopaths run for office. Once they're in, they can get away with murder, literally. I say that because, well, JFK for one, was murdered. Everything in the U.S. changed after that, so to me, it was a political coup by a faction of our own govt.

Originally posted by christiansoldier
I think the smarter sociopaths run for office.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Did you guys read the article? He's going to use the 20 million to educate California voters. It seems to me that he's telling the candidate that the first one to put-up or shut-up when it comes to their liberal political standpoints gets his vote.

It seems like a noble thing being done for the right reasons. In the end, his vote will go to the person who supports his political view, which seems to be what Super Delegates are supposed to do, right?

Although his intentions may be good, it still doesn't exhonerate the election process. The primaries are supposed to reflect the choice of the people, as to whom the candidate should be.

The thing about party primaries is that they are a party specific thing. Only the presidential elections truly rely on the opinion of the people (although just barely since the Electoral College really makes the choice). The primaries are all internal, and the delegates usually make their choice based on their own preference, not necessarily the votes cast by the people.

The ironic thing is that this guy intends to spend the money on Mexican American voting education, which is exactly what is needed to get an honest presidential election.

Unless Diebold takes it over again.

It looks like he just wants one of the candidates to fund his education program in California, and whichever one does that gets his vote. I never objected to having superdelegates before I read this. I doubt if either one of them will do it, especially now when everybody knows what is happening, and the price is too high, even for Clinton or Obama. At least, I hope neither one of them will do that. As a rank-and-file Democrat, who only has one little vote, I hope the whole superdelegate issue will be open now to some real debate within the party, maybe even a vote by all party members.