The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) has launched Convention 101, a website that explains the nominating process that will take place leading up to and at the Denver convention (August 25-28, 2008 at the Pepsi Center in Denver, Colorado).
It's presented in a tutorial format. Lesson one is "Convention Lead-up," and lesson two is "At the Convention." There are "extra credit" sections covering topics such as "What is a superdelegate?"
Leah D. Daughtry, CEO of the DNCC says:
"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.
DemConvention.com will be a tremendous resource for those interested in the significant amount of Party business that sits at the core of every Convention. I think this new content makes clear our goal is to run this Convention as a well-oiled machine, while producing an engaging celebration of the strength of the Democratic Party, the diversity we embrace, the values we share and the change we will accomplish on behalf of the American people."
Convention 101 has everything you could possibly want to know about the delegate selection process, standing committees, what goes on at the convention, the voting process (did you know that "pledged" delegates aren't really?), and lots more.
With neither candidate on track to get the 2025 delegates needed in primary voting, the outcome will likely be decided at the August convention. Convention 101 explains how.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:12.
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!
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 10:49.
The Democratic Convention is going to be everything the Republican Convention is not—orderly, democratic, and above all, about showing that change is possible.
Question: Please tell me what kind of stuff you're smoking these days, because it's got to be some good s***. You've no doubt dipped deeply into your stash as of late since you're now fully disconnected from reality and have mentally settled into low orbit around Neptune.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:28.
The so-called framers of the Constitution as you so quaintly put it, totally had this in mind. At least it isn’t specifically ruled out. The President has wide powers to delegate to a Vice (or Co-) President. Notice that the role of the Vice-President isn’t spelled out? It’s designed that way to allow each party convention to assign roles to the person with the greatest strength in that particular area. This is basically what has happened anyway under Cheney-Rove.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:43.
Really, you need to give up on trying to explain the Constitution. At least until you understand more than what you read about the Constitution at Daily Kos. The framers of the Constitution didn't have any such thing in mind as a co-presidency. The vice-president was the person who received the second largest number of electoral votes. The vice-president could be a politician at complete odds with the president over any policy, domestic and/or foreign. This happened several times, the first and most notable with Adams/Jefferson presidency/vice-presidency.
Please don't lecture anyone on the intent of the Constitution until you know something about, say, the Constitution. It's called civics...why don't you KNOW it?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:20.
"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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:42.
Super delegates are specifically called for in the constitution. It’s the Republican party that has it wrong. The constitution is our basis for democracy—if you ignore it, it’s not democratic (Please see the Cheney-Rove administration for proof). 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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 08:19.
Say what?
A quick search of the US Constitution turns up zero hits for "superdelegate". Would you care to direct us to the article in the US Constitution, a federal government document, that tells a political party how to conduct their own nominating process?
If superdelegates were "specifically called for", you'd think they'd actually use the word "superdelegate".
... on a related note ...
I suppose in this "technically perfect" convention, they're going to have the #$?@!! balloons drop when the director @#?!! tells them to drop this time. :)
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:42.
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"
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:52.
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.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 07:55.
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
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 08:11.
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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 08:35.
"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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 09:09.
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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 09:27.
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.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 17:06.
Depends. If the rent-a-cops are coming from lower elevation, they may not have the o2 saturation required to get a really good heft into the swing. They'd probably get winded just raising the stick.
__________________________________
"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
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 19:48.
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?
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 20:32.
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."
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 04/22/2008 - 22:19.
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.
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 00:52.
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.
Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 08:17.
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
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!
The Democratic Convention is going to be everything the Republican Convention is not—orderly, democratic, and above all, about showing that change is possible.
Question: Please tell me what kind of stuff you're smoking these days, because it's got to be some good s***. You've no doubt dipped deeply into your stash as of late since you're now fully disconnected from reality and have mentally settled into low orbit around Neptune.
Yes, we can? No, you can't.
"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.
The so-called framers of the Constitution as you so quaintly put it, totally had this in mind. At least it isn’t specifically ruled out. The President has wide powers to delegate to a Vice (or Co-) President. Notice that the role of the Vice-President isn’t spelled out? It’s designed that way to allow each party convention to assign roles to the person with the greatest strength in that particular area. This is basically what has happened anyway under Cheney-Rove.
Really, you need to give up on trying to explain the Constitution. At least until you understand more than what you read about the Constitution at Daily Kos. The framers of the Constitution didn't have any such thing in mind as a co-presidency. The vice-president was the person who received the second largest number of electoral votes. The vice-president could be a politician at complete odds with the president over any policy, domestic and/or foreign. This happened several times, the first and most notable with Adams/Jefferson presidency/vice-presidency.
Please don't lecture anyone on the intent of the Constitution until you know something about, say, the Constitution. It's called civics...why don't you KNOW it?
LOL
"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.
Super delegates are specifically called for in the constitution. It’s the Republican party that has it wrong. The constitution is our basis for democracy—if you ignore it, it’s not democratic (Please see the Cheney-Rove administration for proof). 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.
Say what?
A quick search of the US Constitution turns up zero hits for "superdelegate". Would you care to direct us to the article in the US Constitution, a federal government document, that tells a political party how to conduct their own nominating process?
If superdelegates were "specifically called for", you'd think they'd actually use the word "superdelegate".
... on a related note ...
I suppose in this "technically perfect" convention, they're going to have the #$?@!! balloons drop when the director @#?!! tells them to drop this time. :)
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
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!
Depends. If the rent-a-cops are coming from lower elevation, they may not have the o2 saturation required to get a really good heft into the swing. They'd probably get winded just raising the stick.
__________________________________
"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
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.
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
Now that's funny!
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?
;)