Do they explain how they intend to handle mob action outside the convention hall?

The Democratic Convention is going to be everything the Republican Convention is not—orderly, democratic, and above all, about showing that change is possible. No more business as usual. The Democrats have not just one, but two candidates—they’re not going to be railroaded like the Cheney-Rove hordes on the other side. The country, even the world—yes foreign lands also view television—will be amazed at the process, when delegates from all over the country come together to nominate Senator Obama, or whomever the nominee is, for President, of ALL of the United States. Party insiders agree that the time may be here for the nomination of Co-Presidents, one handling domestic issues, one handling foreign affairs. This may be the year that the Democrat Party offers this option to the voters. Yes we can! Yes we can change!

"Party insiders agree that the time may be here for the nomination of Co-Presidents, one handling domestic issues, one handling foreign affairs."

Wow, "party insiders" are smarter than the Framers of the Constitution. Good luck with that.

"Not only will our Convention be technically flawless, but the rules and Party business conducted in the lead-up to and during Convention week will be open, orderly and credible........"

Once the 'Recreate '68' bunch goes to work,the only thing that will be 'technically flawless' about this circus will be the way the convention organizers start yelling for the riot squad....before the week is out, we will see the entire town turned into a giant hippie toilet...note to self: stock up on popcorn.

Robbins Mitchell
Houston,Tx

Any party that has superdelegates cannot claim to be (small "d") democratic.

I like the words "technically flawless". Actually that sounds an awful lot like Baghdad Bob proudly proclaiming, "Our initial assessment is that we will kill them all."

Anonymous - the little fella just above me - obviously likes the term 'orderly' over 'democratic' - Yo Anon, the elections of party officials in communist countries all over the world are orderly - and appear to the nearest 3yr-old to be democratic.

I imagine the technically flawless Democratic Convention will have nearly the same appearance - and "our initial assessment is that we will follow the will of the peepul"

Is Anonymous 7:12 a troll? Because that's just nuts. Even deeply partisan Democrats don't believe that the 2008 convention will be the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

Assistant Village Idiot

Please don't lecture anyone on the intent of the Constitution until you know something about, say, the Constitution.

How about neither of you not lecture anyone until y'all use so much as a unique fake name so that people can track the conversation?

__________________________________

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain

What you see here is little more than a microcosm of the convention, and it'll be just as flawless at the convention. Only petty bickering will give way to shouting, rioting, all sorts of fun.

As someone said above, 68 all over again...

"Super delegates allow a correction in the process of direct democracy, when the will of the people is bent by undue media influence. The same effect was in place during the writing of the constitution, but the media simply wasn’t as powerful. Too much illiteracy, etc. Now, literacy levels are stabilized and we have television, the internet, iPods, etc., so people don’t have to read. But, if a voter becomes confused or off message, super delegates are there to “correct” the democratic process."

Wait a minute, then any party could claim that they should really win because the media unduly influenced the voters and made them vote for the opposition. Which kind of goes aginst the entire idea of democracy, freedom, or any other of those ideas that keep us from a tyranny.

Let's don't confuse "orderly" with lack of debate. There will of course be a diversity of opinion expressed before Senator Obama is selected as the nominee. This is how it should be. Then we must come together behind Senator Obama as he unites the country. Mrs. Clinton no doubt will play a roll as well, either elected or appointed, such as judgeships. Probably even the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would be a foregone conclusion. Good for the people, good for the party, and most importantly, good for Senator Obama.

Sign me,
Gary Indiana

I doubt if recreate68 and the other groups spawned by the Democrats' raising false hopes and expectations will allow anything in Denver to be done in an orderly manner. Democrats have pandered to every bloc with a few votes and the contradictory promises are beginning to show. Have fun in Denver.

Ken Hahn

"There will of course be a diversity of opinion expressed before Senator Obama is selected as the nominee."

This sounds very much like the old movie line: "We'll give him a fair trial, and then shoot him."

had best Get. Out. NOW.

Does anyone know if police billyclubs are harder or easier to swing at 1 mile altitude?

Thanks!

As we used to say in the military, in another context: could you in good conscious and with a straight face explain the Democratic nominating process to your mother? Could you convince her of the fairness and rightness of the "Super Delegate" process? No?

Anonymous has lost some of you with what I recognize as brilliant irony.

"Oh, we love our superdelegates. They keep us from making mistakes!" smacks of Winston Smith saying, "I love Big Brother," or Candide saying, "All is for the best."

Know your satire!

The role of the superdelegate (originally “supradelegate”) is to aid the democratic process by filtering through much of the interference that blocks the true will of the electorate. Frequently this interference can be caused by a candidate’s being too chummy with the media, for example the Clintons. The more sophisticated supradelegate is able to remove this static and see that despite some popular vote anomalies, the actual intention of the electorate favoured the other candidate—in this case, Senator-elect Obama. The so-called popular vote victories by Ms. Clinton were in fact, media-biased, and not the intended outcome of the election participants and stakeholders. And all voices must be heard, not just the media elites and their voter clients. This was the intention of the framers of the constitution. The process holds up well to this day—when it’s allowed to work. The convention in August will affirm this.

I find it amazing that someone could claim that the intention of the founders was to insure that the will of the voters could be overturned by a group of unelected partisans.

I find it even more amazing that someone can find a right to vote in the Constitution. There is no right to vote in Federal Elections. Zero. None. Never has been.

Please use [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags for the humor impaired.

I find it amazing that someone could claim that the intention of the founders was to insure that the will of the voters could be overturned by a group of unelected partisans.

Indeed:

__________________________________

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain

If ignorance is bliss, we're a happy bunch.

Liberty and justice for all.

My home

"... popular vote anomalies ..."

OMG that's classic. Keep 'em coming!

... Hey, are you just copying down stuff you've read in the EU Constitution?

;)